their Epistle To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto In which regard St. Martin Pope and Martyr makes this the Popes most proper Title that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum 14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon Adelphius Bishop of Maldon called then Colonia Londinensium with Sacerdos a Priest and Arminius a Deacon And the Canons of this Council were by Restitutus brought into Britany saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown nor un-acknowledged by the Britains long before St. Augustines days 15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th Canon of the first Nicene Council by which he says Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his This is now to be examin'd The words of the Canon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church 16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriark of Alexandria presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God which I have shewed already and shall demonstrate the same yet further even in the times preceding this Council is extended to the whole world and was exercised over the Patriarcs themselves But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods correcting manners and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon Similiter autem apud caeteâ—as provincias In like manner in the rest of the Provinces that is those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided Honor suus unicuique servetur Let every one's Honor be preserved to him compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council shew clearly enough that not only Patriarkical authority but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes that those who object it against the Popes Primacy though they fortifie themselves even with Ruâ—â—inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis 17. But though I mention this Version of Ruffinus because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers and I expect Doctor Pierâ—e in his Reply will have recourse to it yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation or rather corruption of the Canon His words are Vt apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Egypti vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudiâ—em gerat Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it especially to the Doctor who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasmus and Scalager have observed of the Interpreter that it is his custom to omit pervert and change the Text as he pleases and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice sending withal a Confession of their Faith upon the approbation whereof and of the legality of their Election and Ordination He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them of which many examples may be produced Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome Nay it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire which besides Italy France Spain Germany Britany the six Maritime Provinces of Africa c. contained Illyricum Macedon Epyrus Greece and the Islands near it And all this by the confessions of Adversaries Zonaras Balsamon c. writing on this very Canon Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or chief of the Western Regious And St. Augustin says that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church And St. Hierom Let them says he condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest as an Heretic with Egypt that is with Damasus and Peter And Iustinian the Emperor affirms that all the Regions of the VVorld are subject to the five Patriarcs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to VVestern Rome Constantinople Alexandria Thepolis or Antioch and Ierusalem Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest to what Patriarc was France Spain Africa c subject If not to Rome how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdiction before the first Council of Nice How all Apostles and all Bishops equal and how Subordinate St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter The Popes Supremacy
to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
When there are many Popes the Church has many Heads When the Pope is Heritical the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheâ—ded Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors whether Ecclesiastical or Civil For they are all Heads within their Precincts A King is the Head of his Kingdom and a Bishop of his Diocesse When we call therefore the Pope Head of the Church we mean that among all Governors thereof he is the Supream in the sense before declared He is a Head but not so as Christ is in respect of his Mystical body who by his Spirit internally quickens and directs it The Pope is only an external ministerial visible Head and as it were Root of Vnity and Government All this no question the Doctor knew before to be our meaning and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic insignificant though many of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd 15. When there is no Pope says the Preacher the Church wants a Head It is granted For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal The Government is not dissolv'd Succession is not interrupted It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not that is the Regal Authority lives though Kings in their particular persons dye Nor is there any substantial difference as to this point between hereditary and elective Monarchy And in this sense we may say that Popes dy not nor Bishops Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Româ— But principally because when an Ecclesiastical Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a vis generativa or virtue in the Church to constitute another in his place and so to continue the Government There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms After the death of Pope Fabian before there were any Christian Emperors the See was vacant for above a years space yet neither did St. Irenâ—us Optatus Epiphanius or St. Augustin when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair esteem that thereby the Chain had been broken neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority 16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference in a case of Schism when there are many Popes then says he the Church is become a Monster with many Heads But he is deceived As when after the death of a King several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one legitimate Successor all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants It is so in the Papacy In that case St. Cyprians Rule holds If the Church be with Novatian it was not with Cornelius who by a lawful Ordination succeeded Fabian Novatian therefore is not in the Church nor can be esteemed a Bishop of Rome Or if it be uncertain to which of them the right pertains so that some Nations adhere to one Head others to another it is a great calamity but yet the Church remains though wounded yet not wounded to death A General Council cures all 17. If the Pope according to Doctor Pierce his supposition should prove an Heretic he infers very improperly that the Church haâ— such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded For in that case the Pope is so far from remaining a Head that he is not so much as a Member of the Church but is deprived not only of the Administration but also the Communion of the Church as other Heretical Bishops are So that then there is a pure vacancy I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom not to say unmannerly terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection 18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church the Popes primacy Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty and whether his proofs or mine are more concluding I leave to the Readers consciences He will excuse my dilating on this Point because therein I follow his own example for he tels his Majesty He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too though I believe we shall have different meanings yet without equivocation even when we deliver our reasons in the same words For i. I also acknowledg the Popes supremacy to be the chief if not only hinge on which does hang the stress of more than Papal the Ecclesiastical Fabrick as being the Cement of the Churches unity 2. Because it is a point wherin say I likewise the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concerned His meaning is that no danger is to be apprehended for England but only from that Point I am sure on the contrary that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poyson'd with Heresies The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a Sword drawn for or against it Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned between the English and Roman Court about matters not of Religion but outward Interests in which generally the Pope had the worst at last But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced The Kings of France always have been and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities as ever any Princes were yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted Sons of the Catholic Church The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be because it preserves peace and unity in that Kingdom not by the terror of Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience And let Doctor Pierce be assured without a Spiritual Authority which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects all their preaching and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy 19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better He saith That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iurisdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd his
their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches it must also subdue their minds to an assent and this under the Penalty of an Anathema or cutting off from the Body of Christ which answers to a Civil death in the Law 9. If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal Iudges who might possibly give a wrong sentence How securâ—ly may we submit our judgements to the Supream Tribunal of the Church And how justly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gainsayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never mislead us And the grounds of this assurance which the Preacher is not yet perswaded of are now to be discoverd 10. The true grounds of the Churcheâ— Infallibility are the words of Truth the Infallibility of the promises of Christ the Eternal wisdom of the Father These Promises are the true Palladium not of the Conclave but of the Vniversal Church Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Vlisses as to apprehend he can steal it away 11. We do not deny however that Infallibility and Omniscience are as he saies incommunicable Attributes of God It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary because he is essentially immutable as in his Being so in his Vnderstanding and Will Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from actual mutation God who is absolutely Omniscient can teach a rational Creature 〈◊〉 Truths necessary or expedient to be known So that though a man have much ignorance yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know and has promised he shall faithfully teach others Our Saviour as man was certainly infallible and as far as was requisite omniscient too So were the Apostles likewise whose writings Protestants acknowledge both to be infallible and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation Good Doctor do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an infallibility as to some things on a Creature What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Thus the Doctor may see what a trifling Discourse he has made against Gods Church 12. Now the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church by vertue of which she has alwaies been believed to be in our sense infallible follow At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles That he would be present with them alwaies to the end of the World Therefore since not any of them out-liv'd that age this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Surely to direct them Therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his businesse onely 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know 4. He has promised that Against his Church built upon St. Peter the Gates of Hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail Therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie 5. He has commanded that Whoever shall not obey his Church shall be cut off from his Body as a Heathen and a Publican Therefore Anathema's pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of Decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to Decisions of the Universal Church call'd by the Apostle The Pillar and ground of Truth made for the composing of publick Debates about the common Faith 6. To conclude the belief of the Churches Vnity is an unchangable Article of our â—reed Therefore certainly the onely effectual mean to preserve Unity which is an un-appealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church 13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Authority of Tradition produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church representative which has an influence over the Souls of menâ— requiring much more than an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic general Councils We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths miserable shift and say that all these Promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity which from these Promises argues invincibly against all Heretics and Schismatics who might otherwise on Mr. Chillingworths ground alledge as the Donatists did that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority and that Gods spirit was transplanted from her into themselves Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers somwhat more discreet who are willing to allovv those Promises absolute and to belong also to the Guides of the Church som or other that they shall in all ages continue orthodox but not alvvayes to the more superior or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Councils because thus they see their cause will suffer by it But this plea also is utterly unsatisfying For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers or Ecclesiastical Courts shall contradict or oppose one another here the superior questionlesse is to be our Guide otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so and therefore to these not the other in such cases must belâ—ng these promises where they cannot possibly agree to both 14. These promises now being Yea and Amen the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord passe for a Deceiver but apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholic for to some Church they must be applyed But let him consider withal he must condemn St. Gregory who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church as the four Gospels He must condemn Constantine who in the first Council of Nice professed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops that ought to be attributed to thâ— Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the General Councils of Gods Church condemn likewise which is more dangerous the Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many Anathema's against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisions of theirs in some of which were new expressions not extant in Scripture but devised by the Fathers then present as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now I ask Doctor Pierce were
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
would make petitions to these Saints to exercise their Rhetorick and yet without any cautioning their hearers that they did it in such a manner which if done seriously would have been an injury to God to Christ our Redeemer yeâ— Idolatry c. And lastly since the Doctor may find Vossius and Forbes for some of them at least condemning this evasion 11. To these Testimonies I may adjoyn the expresse confessions of Protestants That Invocation of Saints was commonly in use in the Greek Church long before the 3 d. and 4 th General Councils For which besides the confession of Chemnitius Vossius also is clear whose words are About the year of Christ 370. those to whom the care of instructing the people was committed did by their practise lead them to invocate the Saints departed And indeed in the Greek Church the first or at least very near the first of those which gave such Examples were Basil Nyssen Nazianzen And in the West at the same time Ambrose of Millain a diligent Reader and Imitater of the Greeks followed the same custom Now since Dr. Pierce professes so ready a submission to the Judgment of the four first General Councils and must grant that several of these Fathers whom Vossius acknowledges to have been Patrons of Invocation and to have used it even in the publick Assemblies for which they were never censured did precede many years two of these General Councils I would gladly know if such a Question had been made before the third or fourth Council concerning Invocation of Saints as was before that of Trent Whether he can perswade himself that those Fathers would not have justified such Invocation for lawful in those Councils which they practised as lawful out of and before them and would not have produced at least as high a stating of that Point as the Council of Trent did And indeed a particular knowledg and agency of Saints deceased in in human affairs seems to be acknowledged in the fourth General Council and Invocation in the third Person Whose words are Let Flavian be had in everlasting memory Behold Vengeance i. e. on his murderers Behold the Truth Flavian lives after death Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us 12. It remains in the last place that an Answer be given to the only Aâ—gument out of Antiquitie produced by the Doctor against this Doctrine and to prove it's Noveltie For saies he St. Augustin denies invocation of Saints to have been in his daies And his only proof that he does so is from those words of his The men of God that is Sainâ—s departed are named indeed in their due place and order but they are not invoked by the Priest who Sacrifices 12. To this passage our Answer it 1. That sure the Preacher had forgot he was to reckon presently after the Sacrifice of the Masse among Novelties introduced after the fourth General Council when he produced this Testimony that expresly proves the contrary Here is a Sacerdos brought in and here he is brought in both praying and Sacrificing and yet saies the Doctor no such thing as any Christian Sacrifice Or if a Sacrifice only a Sacrifice perhaps of praise and thanksgiving But St. Augustin will contradict him who as hath been said calls this indeed a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving in regard of glorified Saints commemorated in it but a Sacrifice propitiatory in regard of the faithful departed with some stains of sins remaining 2. The same thing St. Augustin means here i. e. That Saints are not soveraignly invocated by way of Sacrifice as the Supream Donors and Fountain of all good that descends to mankind is taught by the Catholic Church even where she professes Invocation of Saints in the same sense as St. Augustin allows it that is as of our fellow-members and citizens making efficacious intercessions for us to this Supream Deity to whom we Sacrifice For thus saies the Council of Trent Although the Church be accustomed to celebrate Masses somtimes in the honour and memory of Saints yet she does not teach that the Sacrifice should be offered to them but to God alone who has crown'd them And hence it is that the Priest is never wont to say O Peter O Paul I offer this Sacrifice to thee but to God to whom he gives thanks for their Victories and implores their patronage that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven whole memory we celebrate on earth A part of which Decree is taken out of S. Augustin himself in the same Treatise quoted by the Preacher 3. Dr. Pierce could not possibly have made a worse choice of a place from whence to select a Testimony as he would have us believe denying all Invocation of Saints whenas in the two Chapters of the same Book immediately preceding this many stories are largely recounted to certifie the great good that Christians had found by the intercession of Saints and all this whilst in their Oratories they begg'd their intercession 4 Perhaps he will not yet be content but with Bishop Andrews will urge it is not here said by St. Austin That the Saints are not Sacrificed to but that they are not so much as invocated at the Altar And if it be unlawful to invocate them there it will be as well unlawful any where else Hereto it is answered That all this taken in a right sense is granted For first To this day in the Masse there is no kind of Invocation of Saints yea more according to the Council of Carthage till the Consecration be perfected there are no Prayers directed to the Son of God nor to the Holy Ghost but only to God the Father 2. But this argues not that if the Church had so order'd it it might not have been lawful even at the Altar to have Invocated the Saints by such an inferiour Invocation or Compellation as the Church has determined which is only according to Card. Perron prier pour prier to desire them to pray for us As even in the Masse it self the Priest requests the Assistants saying Orate fraires ut meum ac vestrum Sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum c. To whom the people Answers Suscipiat Dominus Sacrificium de manibus tuis c. 3. But as for the Supream sort of Invocation which St. Austiâ— only intended in this passage and which he calls Culium latriae this is only due to God and without impiety cannot be made to Saints And thus St. Austin writing against Faustus the Manichean fully justifies what he saith in this passage 5. But after all this that St. Austin allows Invocation of Saints in an inferior way do but examin only these places in him c. 4. De curâ pro mortuis a Book which he wrote in Answer to a Quere of Paulinus Whether it doth benefit any one after his death to have his body buried in the Memorial of some Saint When as saith he such consolations of the living are
was not by telling them it was no sin but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning because they allowed them maintenance 3. Again he will find that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things both for their frequent abstinences from flesh and some other Fruits and for their to some Persons at least recommending Virginity who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner as the Protestants objecting the same things are now by the Church Catholic See Chrysostom Ambrose and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy understanding it of the same Heretics Lastly he will find that Faâ—stus the Maniches made the very same Objection to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Doctrin of Devils To whom St. Augustin thus answers I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself lest he should seem to have introduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed to a love of perpetual Virginity and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow 12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon let him consider what an Author not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church has said of that Point that is The Patriaâ—e of Presbyterians Mr. Cartwright The Council of Nice says he did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward only being married before intrance into the Ministry it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that precedent Marriage And Paphnutius shews that not only this was before that Council but was an antient Tradition of the Church in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested for a motion being made by some in the Council that the married Presbyters such as were married before made Presbyters should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives this Paphnutius a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor though himself never married opposed saying Grave jugâ—m This was a heavy yoke c. and that perhaps such a strict rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives But now mark what follows That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditionem according to the Churches antient tradition ' should afterward forbear from marrying But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before when yet a Laick The story is in Socrates l. 1. c. 8. in Zâ—zomen l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much advantage from Paphnutius 13. Now for as much as concerns the Controversie touching Marriage of Priests Bellarmin will grant That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree and consequently that it may be dispensed with Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permited the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Ordination And indeed considering the temper of the Eastern Countries far more enclin'd to such passions than that of the Europeans we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western Yet no antient Canon â—f either of the Churches can be â—ound that permitted Priests to contract Marriage after Ordination And even among the Grecians a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests who attended the Altar 14. But what the universal belief and practise of the Western Churches was our Preacher may collect from the following Testimonies Therefore not to insist upon the generally esteem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony of a dispensation from which not one example can be given It appears that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly married was forbidden 1. By the Second Council of Carthage express in this Point It was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons and such who dispense Sacraments should be Observers of Chastity and abstain even from their own wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep 2. The Second African Council thus decreed Whereas Relation was made of the Incontinence of certain Ecclesiastics though with their own Wives this Council thought good that according to former Decrees Bishops Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives which if they do not let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office As for other inferior Clarks they are not compell'd hereto But let every Church observe their own custom 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same You says he who with pure bodies uncorrupted modesty and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation have received the grace of the holy Ministry know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence without stain neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates some have prâ—created children when they exercised Priesthood And again the Apostle speaking of a Bishop sayes having children not getting them 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius sayes What shall the Churches of the East do What shall the Churches of Egypt do and of the See Apostolick all which receive Clerks either such as are Virgins or Continent or if they have wives such as cease to be husbands to them The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian And he writes to Pamachius thus If married men like not this let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the Act of marriage 5. We are wont says Saint Augustin to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden and yet having received it they by Gods assistance bear it to their end I will conclude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis more ancient then St. Augustins time nay ancienter then the First General Council of Nice The Council hath thought good that it should be absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget children 15. That the Eastern Churches took to themselves anciently a greater liberty is to be understood not generally for in many of them aâ— great a strictness was observed as besides the forecited tâ—stimony of S. Hierâ—m concerning the Churches of the East and of Egypt appears from Origen Eusebius and Epiphanius who all require continence in Priests even from their wives if they have any And particularly S. Epiphanius says That to
a Church twelve hundred years since c. and perhaps charging us with causal Schism And on the other side to acknowledg that the actual departure was indeed theirs yet they are not Scismaticks they left the errors of Catholicks rather then them Is indeed to act the very part of the Donatists who as Saint Augustine sayes affirmed that the word Catholick was not derived from the universality of Nations but from the plenitude of Sacraments that is from the integrity of Doctrine And in another place writing to a Donatist Thou thinkest says he that thou hast spoken acutely when thou interpretest the Name Catholick not of Vniversal Communion but of observation of all Precepts and Divine Mysteries And hence it was that the Donatists call'd their Bishops Bishops of Catholick Verity not of Catholick Vnity as St. Augustine says in the same Epistle 4. I desire to know whether before their Reformation our Church was Schismatical or it began afterwards so to be If it was so before where was that Church from which we separated no where on earth sure And by consequence either a separation may be from no body or the whole Church failed the gates of Hell contrary to our Saviours promise prevailed against it Again if our Church became Schismatical after their deserting us because she would not immitate them or because she would communicate with those who held such Doctrines then it will follow since the Church that was then did in this nothing vary from it's predecessors in a former age that a Church remaining the same without any alteration at all may be the only true Church of Christ to day and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow These are Riddles unconceivable But to demonstrate that even in Protestants opinion we are not Schismaticks there needs only this Proof that generally Protestants yea even Hugenots acknowledge that Salvation may be had in Our Church which no man charging us with Schism can say if he knows the nature of Schism how grievous and unpardonable a crime it is that cuts off from the Mystical Body of Christ. 5. On the other side That the crime of Schism is truly and only to be charged on them besides the visible marks of leaving Communion changing Government Laws c. may be demonstrated thus There is no particular true Church which is a Member of the Catholick but thereby hath a power validly to excommunicate all those that desert her Communion transgress her Laws c. And whoever are so excommunicated by her are esteem'd excommunicated by all other Catholick Churches So that if another Bishop or Church after information of this shall receive them into their Communion that Bishop c. ipso facto incurs excommunicaion himself Which excommunication being according to the Laws of the Church is valid and ratified in Heaven Now suppose an English Bishop should excommunicate one of his Subjects for a total renouncing Episcopal Government and Ordination and the person so excommunicated should adjoyn himself to a Congregation of Presbyters in Scotland France Holland c. They would no doubt receive him and being so received he is even in the Bishop's own judgement in as undoubted though not so straight a way to Heaven as he was before because the Bishop himself acknowledges Presbyterian Congregations to be true Reformed Churches of God so that by their Excommunication he is not cut off from Christ but from preferments only The late Act of Vniformity doth far more validly excommunicate Non-Conformists then all their Bishops Courts CHAP. XXV The Doctor 's desire of Reconcilement and the conditions of it The necessary preparations thereto Of the Court and Church of Rome 1. AFter all the Doctors triumphant Invectives against the Catholick Church he yet concludes his Sermon in a less tempeâ—tuous stile He sayes he hath the Charity to wish for Reconcilement That they departed with higher Degrees of Indignation from the insolent Court then Church of Rome That Court which proudly trod upon Crowns and made Decrees with a non-obstante to Apostolical constitutions c. That they were called Protestants because they protested not so much against the Church as against the cruel Edict made at Worms c. But yet when they wish a Reconcilement they do not mean by compliance with any the least of our defilements but by our Harmony with them in being clean 2. If Doctor Pierce hath indeed the charity and if he doth any more then with his tongue say they wish for Reconcilement they that do so will not want a reward from God for so much charity And I doubt not there are a world of English Protestants with him who heartily wish the same And they that have charity will easily believe we wish so too So that both parties being so far on the way to agreement as to wish it the next step must be to endeavour to procure it Our frequent endeavours they know have been to little purpose We have oft in vain protested that our Doctrines practises c. have been misunderstood we still persist in the same protestation and perceive by this very Sermon that they are still misunderstood And whilst they are so that condition of Reconcilement which he makes is not unreasonable that they will have no Reconcilement by a compliance with our defilements Therefore to take away this misunderstanding let them obtain that for us which we yet could never be able to do a permission to be heard speak for our selves 3. We pass for Traitors but cannot obtain to be informed wherein our Treason â—ies nor what we must do to prove our selves no Traitors If the ackowledgement of his Majesties Supremacy in as high a degree as they themselves will allow with exclusion of all manner of Temporal Authority in any other be no Treason If the exposing our lives as willingly for Monarchy as they can do be no Treason If there be not any proof of faithfnl Allegiance which is refused to be submitted to by us what suspicion can they have that we are Traitors But our present a la mode Treason is that our Priests receive their Ordination from Rome and do not they so to I am sure we cannot anger them worse then to question or doubt whether the Church of England hath received her Mission Orders and Iurisdiction from the Roman Church 4. For our Doctrines I am perswaded if only this poor Answer fall into the hands of any ingenuous Protestants who will seriously consider the several Points so Tragically declam'd against by the Preacher they will think even the Church of England little beholding to him for his Sermon and Truth much less But since small effect can be expected from such 〈◊〉 Treatise as this bound up to his blundering method therefore unless it be their interest or as they may think their safety that our innocence should be stifled and oppress'd if they have the charity iâ—deed to wish for a Reconcilement let them procure for us a peaceable
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
Novelties we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them And it being supposed by the Archbishop c. that without such a certainty it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church The Doctor is bound and â—here adjure him to declare expresly as in the presence of Him who is Supreme Head of the Church and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it that he is demonstratively certain that in all these Points charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils she is manifestly guilty and that nothing appears in this or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance which deserves to be esteem'd so much as a probable proof to the contrary For my part I here protest on the other side that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon nor believe there can any be produced which can warrant him to make such a Declaration 10. The second Condition is That in like manner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity the main grounds upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism to wit these 1. That the universal Church â—epresented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors that a particular Church c. discovering such errors may be obliged to separate externally 2. That a particular Chrâ—stian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationaâ— Synod and assented to by it and that a Nationaâ— Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical or any of them in regard of an Oecumenical formerly accepted and admitted If these Assâ—riâ—ous he Innovations as in our perswasion they are it is clear they destroy all possible unity If they be not let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church 3. That a particular Church c. in opposition to the Vniversal can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons 〈◊〉 Communities c. and what not And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary 11. Thirdly if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church but only from the Roman then to make this good he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods they ever have or can repair And since at the time of their first Separation they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church and the Members of it be must shew how when and where they entered into any other new Communion Lastly Since the English Church by renouncing not only several Doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby separated from both these he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly heretical with whom the English Church communicates 12. A fourth Condition is that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments to consecrate confirm preach God's Word c. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations Or if they be he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their Synods and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledg them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations 13. The last shall be that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils especially that of Trent If he will combate against her there he has a fair and open field and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense Otherwise he will declare himself as one who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed Now in exchange I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions But truly I know not where to find them except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children For the 39. Articles being almost all Negatives may as well be reputed the Doctrines of Iewish or Turkish Congregations since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Infallibility of Councils c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief as the Huguenots in France c. the Lutherans in Germany c only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith upon what motive I am unwilling to guess 14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable and even according to Protestants grounds also so necessary if the Replyer shall refuse to perform he will in the judgment of all discerning Readers be himself the Answerer and Conâ—uter of his own Reply and withall will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at but the satisfying his own or others interests passions and revenge against those who least deserve it All subterfuges all involved intricacies in answering all discourses which are not open candid and sincere will be confessions of guilt He may perhaps hide the weaknesse of his cause from credulous Women Trades-men or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry but to all considering Readers his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery Aristotle saies the Sepiâ— is the wisest of all Fishes because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour which hinders the sight of her But on the contrary Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent Quia cum se putat latere prodit seipso latibâ—lo for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour 15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans and from them other Reformerd took the name Protestants for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms Spires c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest What Edicts were made against them We Catholics might rather assume such a title if it were of any special honor having
Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
the English Reformation because by the like examinatâ—on he finds that Roman Doctrins are 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 initio non fuit sic Therefore they as Jewish Divorces are 〈◊〉 abolished and that only to be confirmed which God instituted from the Beginning But he little considers that our Saviours saying It was not so signifies It was directly contray to SO as if he said You allow Divorces ob quamcunque causam in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning who said Whomsoever God hath joyn'd let no man put asunder This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reform'd Now if the Preacher would have made use of this indeed perfect Primive Rule of Refermation he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Beginning that is either in Scriptures or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils some expresse Authorities and Decisions directly contrary to Roman Doctrines which he calls Novelties He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures or some Councils or consent of Fathers such sayings as these 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bad nor ought to have any Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide not to be relyed upon against our private sence of God's Word 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living 4. The body of Christ is not substantially present on the Altar 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are essential to the Sacrament 7. All respect to Images is forbidden 8. Invocation of Sains is unlawful 9. The Scriptures must be given into all mens hands without any certain guide to interpret them 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue though interpreted are abominable 11. To forbid the use of Mariage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils 12. To separate Bed and Board among maried persons though when without danger of their lives they cannot live together is a practice condemn'd by our Lord. And after all 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church for Doctrines and Practises not in themselves causing Damnation but onely said to be false is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose they would have been pertinent to his Text But no such appear On the contrary it serves his turn to say again and again From the Beginning it was not so This is the burthen of his Song If he can shew that because this is the first time we hear or read such a Doctrine mentioned in any Ecclesiastical writer as Origen Tertullian c. therefore it is a Novelty it was never in the Church before the saies somthing to the purpose But let me ask him was there no Doctrine at all in the Church before it was written Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written And again is all that 's written in any Age still Extant and come to our hands Or do those Fathers who first writ it say That they or their times first introduc'd it No On the contrary they expressly declaim against Innovations Noveltie is their Prescription against all Heresies So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of or not received before had been to profess themselves Hereticks and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have condemned such Innovations Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian c for any Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher Whereas for other Errors they were sufficiently proscribed From whence 't is evident that through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Saviour in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees a warrant for him unjustly to condemn his Church Indeed in all matters left indifferent and no way commanded from the beginning nor contrary to any Divine Revelation the Church of later times may vary as she thinks sit either from the practice or injunctions of the former For example supposing Celibacy of the Clergy the 7th Point the Doctor instances in had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning yet if God had not commanded the contrary and the thing in it self be feasible of which more anon the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoyn it The Rule therefore holds only for matters of Faith and Divine Revelation In which 't is true That the Later times may not vary from the former But yet neither doth the Rule hold in these as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith but only as to the sense and substance It is not necessary that ab initio God the Son should be declared in expresse terms Consubstantial with the Father which was first put into the Christians â—reed by the Council of Nice But only that that Doctrine can be shewed ab initio which is identified in sense with this Nor can I think the Doctor upon second considerations will offer to gainsay so plain a truth But it is now time to Examin the particular Pâ—ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties and of each of which be saies as unwarrantably as our Lord against the Iewish Innovations said justly From the beginning it was not so CHAP. IV. The sum of Dr. Pierce's Discourse against the Pope's Supremacy enervated by himself The Churches Doctrin touching that Supremacy The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 1. IN the Doctor 's Catalogue of Roman Novelties the first is The Supremacy of the Pope Concerning which he tells his Majestie he has spoken most at large because it is a Point wherein the honour and safety of his Dominions are most concern'd And because by Bellarmin 's Assertion it is the chief if not onely hirge on which does hang the whole stresse of the Papal Fabrick This universal Superintendency or Supremacy of the Pope saies he hath been a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the 3d. to whom it was sold by the most execrable Phocas the greatest Villain in the world except Cromwel and Pontius Pilate not out of reverence to the Pope but in displeasure to Cyriacus Patriark of Constantinople c. 2 In contradiction to this Usurpation he adds But from the beginning it was not so For we find in Scripture the Apostles were equally foundations of the wall of God's City c. They were all as St. Cyprian saies Pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis And S. Hierom is as expresse And sure Paul who withstood Peter to his face was equal to him at the least And for any one Bishop to affect over his Brethren a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is a most impudent opposition both to the Letter and Sense of our Saviour's precept Mark 10. 42 43 44. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. But so shall it not be among you but whosoever c. Nay by the Canons of the two first
General Councils every Patriark and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his And a strict Injunction is laid on all the Bishop of Rome not excepted that they presume not to meddle in any Diocesse but their own And the chief Primacies of Order were granted to Rome and Constantinople not for having been the Sees of such and such an Apostle but for being the two Seaâ—s of the two great Empires Witnesse the famous Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon c. Nay the immediate Predecessâ—r of Boniface the third Pope Gregory the Great calls the Tiâ—le of Universal Bishop a wicked prophane and blasphemous Title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand c. Further adding That if any one Bishop were universal there would by consequence be a failing of the universal Church upon the failing of such a Bishop Which is an Argument ad homines not easily to be answer'd whatsoever infirmity it may labour with in its self c. And upon that occasion he makes an excursion about the Pope's infallibility and his falling into Heresie c. nothing to the Point Lastly He concludes that Whosoever shall read at large the many Liberties of the Gallican Church and the published confessions of Popish Writers for more then a thousand years together touching the Papal Vsurpations and Right of Kings he will not deny that the Supremacy of the Pope is but a prosperous Vsurpation 3. This is the substance of his Discourse upon this Point of Novelty the Supremacy of the Pope In answering which he must permit me yet without any prejudice to the Cause yea rather for a better clearing of it not to bind my self to his Order Assuring him in the mean time that I will not purposely omit any thing material either in his Reasoning or Quotations 1. And first in general he must give me leave to tell him that by the Conclusion of the foregoing Discourse he has entirely enervated all that went before For by arguing and asserting That the Gallican Liberties and Popish writings against Papal Vsurpations do demonstrate that the Supremacy of the Pope 〈◊〉 but a prosperous Vsurpation He clearly shows that his fore-mentioned Reasons do not touch the Catholic Cause at all He acknowledges those Writers to have been Roman Catholics None can deny the French Church to be a Member of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged for such by the Pope himself and professing a subjection to him as to the Supream Spiritual Pastor of God's Church Therefore it is evident that what they deny to the Pope is not simply his Supremacy in Spiritual matters which is all that will be required of Protestants but an extending of that Supremacy beyond what they conceive the received Ecclesiastical Canons do warrant and this the English may as well be permitted to do as the French 4. To the end therefore he may no longer mistake this so important an Argument I will clearly set down the Churches Doctrine concerning this matter This Doctrine is contained in that profession of Faith compiled by Pius 4. and extracted out of the Council of Trent I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Iesus Christ on Earth I acknowledg the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches And more largely in the Decree with great circumspection framed in the Council of Florence and subscribed by the Greeks We do define that the Holy Apostolic See and Bishop of Rome does enjoy a Supremacy through the whole world And that the Same Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Iesus Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that in the Person of St. Peter he hath received from our Lord Iesus Christ full power to feed rule and govern the whole Church in such manner as is express'd in the Acts of Oecuminical Councils and the holy Canons This is the Decision of the Council of Florence The substance of the Doctrine of which Decree by which the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is acknowledg'd to have a Jurisdiction over all Christians to be regulated by the Ecclesiastical Canons is so received even in France notwithstanding all the Gallican Liberties that whoever denies it will not be esteem'd a Catholic See what Cardinal Palavicino writes touching the Cardinal of Lorrain and his French Bishops proceedings about this Point in the Council of Trent 5. This Jurisdiction the Preacher positively denies both to the Pope and St. Peter affirming It to be an impudent opposition both to the Letter and sense of our Saviours forecited precept Mark 10. But I heartily with Dr. Pierce would look well on this passage of the Gospel once more and ask his own reason though he should not be able to exclude all the fumes of passion from it Is Ecclesiastical Authority in Superiors and Subordination of Inferiors forbidden in this Text Will one that calls himself a Regular Son of the Church of England by vertue of this Text pronounce the Sentence of Decapitation according to his own pleasant expression upon his own Church whosoever passes for the Head of it whether his Majesty or my Lord of Canterbury On the contrary I dare pronounce that not the affecting but lawful exercising a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to this Precept that it is establish'd by it For in this very Text expresse mention is made of some that are great yea some that are the chiefest And if he would have adjoyn'd the next Verse to his Quotation he would have published to the most ignorant of his Hearers of Readers his manifest abusing this passage of Scripture Our Saviour immediately adding For even the Son of man came not to be ministred unto but to minister Surely he will not deny but that our Saviour had Authority yea a Supremacy of Iurisdiction over the Church and only here proposes himself as a Pattern of humility to be imitated by his Apostles and their Successors And what were the Apostles Church Governors without question How then are they to imitate their Supream Governor In renouncing Superiority Did he himself do so By no means But as he did not glorifie himself to be an High Priest But he that said unto him thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech And being high Priest he did not forget his meeknesse and humility consistent very well with the vigour of Spiritual Jurisdiction In like manner his Apostles and all that succeed him are commanded not to affect Superiority and when they are lawfully invested with it not to exercise it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Eph. 1. Can. 8. they must neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor
infamous Canon surreptitiously made saith Liberatus after the departure of the Iudges the Senate and of the Legats of the See Apostolic and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats and the Sentence of Pope Leo without whose consent according to the antient traditionary Law nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church A Canon this was so despised during that whole Age and more that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council but it was not inserted among the other Canons for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus and by the Testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian the Council of Chalcedoâ— publisht only twenty seven Canons whereas now this is reckoned the 28th Lastly A Canon this was that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople by whose brigâ—ing with some Bishops and violence to others it was compiled was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it as appears by St. Leo's answer to him And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms That the See Apostolic never consented to it the Emperor never imposed it Anatolius never made use of it and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic And therefore what the same See confirm'd remained in force and that which it receiv'd not could not have any firmnesse 9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy in citing that Canon For whereas it was thus conceived Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges As if excepting only the sitting in the second Chair he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See Apostolick A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops And indeed de facto after the fourth Council of Chalcedon the new Patriark by vertue of the exotic power given him presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council An attempt repressed by Pope Leo. And no doubt when afterward the usurped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop they would not fear to give the same Title of Oecumenical to their Councils too 10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Margin of the Sermon whereby the Eastern Patriarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs beyond the limits of their Provinces what is this to the Bishop of Rome He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an universal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was â—rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon and he will see more before it CHAP. VII The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian Decrees of Pope's had antiently the force of Lawes Yet with restriction The Pope's Supream Iurisdiction confirmd by Examples in the Eastern Church Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardica where were present British Bishops Of the first Council at Arles where British Bishops likewise were present The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice explain'd 1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third who began his Reign A. D. 424. directed to the Bishops of France importing that Whatever had been and should be establish'd by the See Apostolick should have the force of a Law to them and all others And this the Emperor saies is Secundum veterem consuetudinem Moreover to shew the grounds of that Law he further saieâ— That the Supremacy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal Society and by the dignity of the City and by the sacred Authority of a Synod 2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a publick Testimony and how Christian Catholick Emperors never made Lawes touching Ecclesiastical matters but by the advice of Bishops and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Discipline and by no means for introducing of new ones we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pretention That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order and not Iurisdiction 3. Though this Law seems too excessively large commanding That whatever had been or should be c. Pope Leo who lived in the same Age limits the true sense of it when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent and all other his Predecessors should be observed namely such as are publish't touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons Or as Pope Hilarius expresses it What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all Gods Priests the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions 4. Examples of such publick Decrees of unquestion'd Authority even in the judgement of the most learned Protestants we finde made by Pope Zosimus Pope Innocent the First and Pope Siricius who governed the Church between the yeares 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by antecedent Popes they do except against them and perhaps not without ground He will not expect I should transcribe those authentick Decrees to weary both him and my self unnecessarily He knows very well where to find them I will only adde that such Decrees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain France c. Hence it is that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops say For what is to be observed by us in such Cases Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolick See and not follow our own but our common Fathers Instruction And the Council of Tours says What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolick Notwithstanding it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and examin such Decrees for if they were made upon misinformation even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended And much more if against the ancient Canons for saith Pope Zosimus ap Gratian. 25. q. 1. Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contrary to the Statute of the Fathers 5. As for the more Primitive times preceding these I will content my self with a few examples but such and of so great weight that if the Preacher will be ingenuous they will even content him In the recounting of them it will not be necessary I should observe exactly the Order of times in each of them And the first shall be a passage of
the great Saint Basil who writing to St. Athanasius about suppressing Arianism in the East hath these words It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to desire him that he would have regard to our affaires and interpose the judgment of his Decree c. Moreover that he would give Authority to sâ—m choice persons who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there c. 6. Again when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice had framed a new confession of Faith it was argued of nullity saith Sâ—crates especially because Iulius Bishop of Rome was neither himself present nor sent any to supply his place Whereas saith he the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome And this authority the same Pope Iulius asserts For writing to the Eastern Bishops who had condemned St. Athanasius he sayes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are you ignorant this is the custom that you should first write to us and after that determin just matters there Therefore if there were any ill suspition against that Bishop of Alexandria you ought to have signified it in the first place to the Church here 7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen another Greek Historian saith expresly That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law declaring all things to be void that are done without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Nay which is yet more this which for ought appears was only an unwritten Canon or Custom for no Council mentions it but deliver'd by Tradition even in the Eastern Churches was of such authority that the foresaid Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial We decree says he that according to the antient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order here is a Iurisdiction asserted extending it self beyond the Diocesâ—n Metropolitan or Patriarcal limits of Rome 8. I will add a few examples more when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Priâ—at of Ancyâ—a and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza The Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain restored to every one of them their own Church And he adds further That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunish'd if they did not cease from innovating All this he did saith Theodoret not by usurpation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Churches law 9. Again when the General council of Ephesus was entring into debate about the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch the Bp. of Ierusalem interposed affirming that according to the antient custom the Church of Antiochâ— as alwayes governed by the Roman Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope 10. Moreover when Dioscorus Patriark of Alexandria in the Scismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope And this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the custom of Synods sayth the Emperor Valentinian 11. Two examples more I will the rather add because we of this Nation are particularly concern'd in them The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice This Council was by Iustinian called Oecumenical because though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion yet the Canons of it were never rejected by them In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was ordain'd upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba to this effect That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the Process and appoint Iudges And by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop in case any Bishop deposed should make such an appeal till the Pope had determin'd the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place These Decrees the Council made to honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle 12. Now at this Conâ—cil among other Bishops from all the Western Countreys some came out of our Britany as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us And therefore the General Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk or the Saxons had possession here By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper though much bragged of in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope which St. Augustin requir'd of the British Bishops For what grosse ignorance was it in this Abbot if the Paper relate truth of him That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God especially over the Western Provinces and so much respect return'd him from them after the presence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishops of Romes delegation he should be such a stranger to his person or authority or his titles after the year of our Lord 600 At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop when the Britains thus denied it as appears Both in that they are said by venerable Beda the South-Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Antistitis and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis as may be found in the Register of his Epistles 13. A second Monument wherein we Britains have a peculiar interest is that most antient first Council of Arles celebrated according to Baronius and Sirmondus assented to by Sir Henry Spelman in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome as appears by the first Canon in these words First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Breviary of
enjoying a special priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior yea Supream Pastor Supream not in Order only but Iurisdiction Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles or to St. Peter's Successors and all other Bishops 8. Now if the Fathers may be believed is was a priviledge and a great one that St Peter for the merit of his Confession had Christs own Title as Christ was Governor of the Church given him of being called a Rock For in the Syrian language in which our Lord spake the words have no different termination as in the Greek or Latin Petrus Petra but the words were Thou art Gepha a Rock and upon this Gepha Rock I will build my Church It was a priviledge that Peter neither the eldest nor first chosen Apostle is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned and expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First It was a priviledge importing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction when after our Lord's Resurrection St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly â—eeding Christ's Flock And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision as St. Paul was of the Gentiles Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and his house-hold c. 9. But why among such Governors as the Apostles was any Supereminency of Iurisdiction given to one man Certain it is there never was lesse necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions then among the Apostles every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light by which they knew all Truth and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vnâ—ty which exempted them from all ambitious envious or malicious designâ— Yet a Subordination not absolutely necessary to them was established among them for the succeeding Churches sake which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel Hence St. Hierom saies The Church was built upon Peter though true it is the same thing is done upon others and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But among the twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism may be taken away 10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Yet in the very same Book saies Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam c. Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person And though after his Resurrection he gave an equal power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins you remit c. Yet that he might manifest unity he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Vnity beginning from one And presently after Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church does he believe that he holds the Faith He that opposes are resists the Church he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter upon which the Church is founded does he trust that he is in the Church In like manner St. Optatus at Rome saies he a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair So St. Chrysostome Observe now how the same John that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter And again Christ did constitute Peter the Master not of that See of Rome alone but of the whole world 11. Now whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter and resisting him to his face argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him Let St. Augustin from St. Cyprian resolve us You see saies he to the Donatists what St. Cyprian hath said that the holy Apostle St. Peter in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy being reprehended by St. Paul did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him And he adds The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear resisting even the highest yet without prejudice to Charity when Truth is to be defended 12. From all that has been said on this Subject it will necessarily follow that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed and the Holy Fathers acknowledged was the gift of our Saviour only a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter He was as St. Chrysostome saies Master of the World not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority he therefore made choice of Rome for his See because that being the Imperial City of the World he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church 13. Upon which grounds whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome This is so common in the Fathers writings that I will not trouble him with one Quotation Indeed Iohn of Constantinople when he would invade an equality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some sort with the Pope did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea But St. Leo St. Gregory St. Gelasius c. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. from Pasce oves meas c. Nay St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority Why because of the splendor of the Imperial City No but because the Popes Authority was de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures 14. I might with reason enough yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes as he calls it pretended Headship because such being sitted to vulgar capacities and confidently pronounc'd do more mischief then those that have more shew of profundity and weight Thus then he argues If the Pope be head of the Church then the Church must be the Body of the Pope And if so then when there is no Pope the Church has no Head
For though he florish with Greek and Latinâ—quotations of Fathers joynd to Scripture which they do not yet since there is no visible Judge talk'd of in it but himself that is able to speak What is this but private spirit having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have So that let them preach as much as they will the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this Whether their last speaking Iudge in England or ours in the whole Catholic Church deserves better to be believ'd and rely'd on 5. It cannot be deny'd but that there is somthing of Truth in all these Sects The Guide which each of them respectively layes claim to is a justifiable Guide though being alone not sufficient For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us would be to become Beasts 2. To exclude Gods Spirit from directing us would be to cease being Christians 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity and Authority of General Primitive Councils would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable 4. And last of all to deny a judging determining power to the present visible Governors I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected Yet unlesse they all concur that which we take to be Reason and Inspiration and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and mis-guide us 6. Now it is only the Roman Catholic Church whose enâ—â—re Guidance proceedâ— from all these and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each mans Soul and universal peace in Gods Church which effects cannot possibly flow but from a complication of all these Guides Roman Catholics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture as the Socinians do but they give due bounds to Reason nay they silence it quite when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture they with the Presbyterians and even Fanatics acknowledge it is Divine Inspiration that moves the Soul to assent thereto and embrace the verities contained in Scripture directing their actions accordingly But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light neither can there be any Guide more dangerous then false Inspirations they conclude that all such pretended Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Suggestions which are prejudicial to Honesty Virtue Piety and the common Rules of Obedience both Spiritual and Civil All Inspirations which which incite private uncommission'd persons to reform either Churches or State all that nourish Factions or Commotions in the Common-wealth All that beget Pride and an opinion of self-sufficiency or an humor of censuring others especially Superiors In a word whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the community of the Prophets that is Church Governors such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected detested and sent back to the Infernal Father of them 7. Moreover Roman Catholics do willingly and confidently appeal to the Primitive Church the four first General Councils and the holy Fathers But universal experience demonstrating it impossible that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed and therefore not impartial or indifferent their last recourse is to the present visible Church which cannot declare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations that is by a General Council All Catholics submiting to this Council not their tongues only but also their judgments by following the Church thus with humility shew that they are guided both by Reason Inspiration and Examples of Primitive Fathers Hence St. Austin sayes We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church if we rejoice in the name of Catholics and in the Catholic Faith And elsewhere Contra rationem nemo sobrius c. No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason no Christian against Scriptures no lover of peace and unity against the Church And this only is the Guide that we say and presently will demonstrate to be infallible 8. Now that the final Decision of all Controversies in Faith can only be expected from such a Guide and consequently that all Christians under pain of damnation are obliged never to contradict this Guide and alwaies to assent when it requires we are taught not by Reason only but God himself also and this in the Law of Moses The whole Nation of the Iews saith St. Augustin was as it were one great Prophet the policie of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian to the twelve Princes of their Families answer'd the twelve Apostles to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples to the several Courts of Judgement our Ecclesiastical Synods to the great Sanhedrim a general Council and to the High Priest our Supreme Pastor Now for our present purpose the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law ran thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement c. that is as we find in 2 Chron. 19. 8. between blood and blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Iudgements then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall shew thee c. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right hand or to the left The man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel Upon those words in this passage unto the Iudge that shall be in those daies Ainsworth out of the Rabbins observes that if the high Synedrion had determin'd of a matter after another Synedrion rose up which upon Reasons seeming good unto them disannulled the former Sentence then it was disannull'd and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later So that the present Authority was alwaies to take place and no Appeals to be made from it For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking Iudges upon any pretence whatsoever either of a private exposition of the Law or the Authority of preceding Rabbies were allow'd there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue And observe that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of Judgment For otherwise it would be against Conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law It is just so and alwaies has been so in the Catholic Church The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers
those Anathema's lawfull were they valid Or will he say those first Councils to which he professes assent usurped an Authority in this not of right belonging to them If those Anathema's were valid then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them as the sence of Divine Revelation and this under the penalties of being separated from Christ And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty But if those Anathema's were illegal and invalid then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others who still followed the same method not only impostors but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men 15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility than any of his Quotations can be against it Here we have expresse Scripture and universal consent of Antiquity Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England at least before their late restitution who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council Now could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge that when one of your 39. Articles declares that some General Councils have err'd the meaning should be â— that any legal legitimate General Council has err'd but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion And if this be the meaning the breach made by it may be curable 16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages as against this Point the concession of Baronius c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and continued two hundred years at Rome I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it Can no Church be Orthodox if Heretics rise and continue in the same City Is the English Church a Quaking Church because Quakers first began and still encrease at London As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it 17. The like we say touching the Donatists Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense Ingemuit orbis c. The world says St. Hierom sadly groaned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian that is after the Council of â—riminum But how was it Arian if it groaned c. for it could not be really Arian against its will But St. Hierom uses this expression because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the Catholics And true it was that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banish'd But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled it and presently repented Besides the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox but afterwards by the Emperors Tyranny and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian but capable of a good sense to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed yet to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth but presently after being at liberty both themselves and all the rest renounced And after all there remained but three years of persecution for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed 18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers and though one of them says All that were purely Orthodox that is such as he esteemed so because they were of his Opinion held that Doctrinâ— yet he thereby shews that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church But the truth is there was a double Millenary opinion the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years in base sensual pleasures banquets and women This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book as St. Hierom affirms And it is most deservedly detested by the Church But there was another Opinion that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights and ravishing consolation in a blessed conversing with him And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias St. Ireneus and St. Iustin Martyr For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves unwilling to censure it neither can the Doctor I believe shew that it was ever condemned by the Church 18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time and many years after such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally but withal take notice it was onely in one species Again it is confessed that from that Text Nisi mandâ—caveritis carnem c. St. Augustin c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism This appears first From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin c. the whole Church affirming that Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants 2. From his interpreting his own meaning in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina His words are these None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism thereby becomes partaker of the Boâ—y and Blood of our Lord and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body he should depart out of this World before he really eat of that Bread and drink of that Chalice For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament 19. That therefore which the Church since and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter was nothing at all touching Belief For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point but onely an external practise of the Church And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries which by frâ—quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too To conclude this matter For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenaâ—y Belief and Infant
mercifully than their sins deserve not to be doubted For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord Prayers should be made when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy works of Charity and Alms are made who will doubt that these things help towards their good for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead yet only such as before their death have lived so as that these things may profit them after Death And again For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving and for others as a propitiation 14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience for he is no Stranger to the Fathers what a great Volume may be written to confirm this And that not one expression can be quoted against it Therefore whereas he said without any ground that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus I would ask him From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead but from the Heretie Aerius Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them which without any fault may be omited On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him the Church does these things necessarily having received such a Tradition from the Fathers And St. Augustin we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lye here or in another place repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice to make Supplications to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings a translation into the region of Light and peace and a place in the bosom of Abraham But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell where are they then He cannot deny a third place unless he thinks them anihilated He will not say that third place is Purgatory because the Church calls it so But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed 16. To conclude If all the Liturgies of the Church all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church an expresse Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees He will say it is not Canonical at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance and however the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin and from Plato Cicero and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him that Heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls as to perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers becom immediatly perfect 17. To fill his learned Margins he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin as the Bishop of Rochester Polydor Virgil Suarez and Thomas ex Albiis but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church in contradiction to the Preacher that there is a Purgatory what other inducement could he have to mention them unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not that he was resolved to pretend but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church CHAP. XI Of Transubstantiation or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament Iustified by the Authorities of the Fathers c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd 1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament That blessed Mystery which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument to signifie and to operate Vnity is by the cunning of the Devil and malicious folly of men becom both the work and cause of Dis-union 2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran For in Pope Nicholas the Second's time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con then Transubstantiation But evident it is That it was never taught by our Saviour since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced This is my Blood explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrin than the concession of Aquinas who says That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one From whence Bellarmin angrily infers that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one 3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter I will as before set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv out of the Council of Trent it is said I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Conversion or Change of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body and of Wine into his Blood which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received 4. And if he will needs have it so let it be granted that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as old as his Beginning that is in the time of the first General Council But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends 5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point
an Auditory And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament For though those special words I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill c. if they stood alone might seem applicable to the consecrated Chalice yet those other of Saint Luke I will not any more eat of this Passâ—over untill c. cannot possibly be applyed to the consecrated Element of Bread and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly intended of the same Subject It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper and not at all of the Sacrament 14. As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Thomas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places and his revengeful inference that neither then caâ— they be Sacramentally All I will say hereto shall be that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed Yet however since it is only about a Scholastical Notion of Locality Circumscription c. and it is apparent that both these Doctors held a true Substantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament as the Church teaches I will not by troubling my self about composing the matter between them invite the Doctor hereafter to unnecessary excursions It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to justifie 15. In the last place touching Berin arius his submission if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation Certainly it was sufficient if he spoke sincerely to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Body and that onely was his businesse As for his Expressions that Our Lords Body not onely in Mystery but Truth is handled broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants unlesse they be understood Sacramentally they are far from being justifiable And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Protestants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual an Oral Manducatian but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us but not after a Carnal manner Christ is not changed by Digestion into our Bodyes yet sanctifies even our Bodies also as well as our Souls Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression Insinuating it self into our Bodies by an union with our Lord 's Immortal Body We are made Partakers of Immortality CHAP. XII Of Communion under one Species-Confirm'd by the practise of the Primitive Church in private Communions The Preachers Objections solved 1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty imputed to the Catholic Church is Communion under one Species no older saies he then since the time of Aquinas unlesse they will own it from the Manichees But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest Drink all of this saies he And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood as eating the Body of Christ. 2. To the substance of what is here alleged we readily subscribe We acknowledg our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds That the Apostles received it in both kinds That St. Paul speaks as well of drinking c. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas in the public Celebration of these Mysteries the people communicated in both kinds All this we agree to 3. But the general Tradition of the Church at least from his beginning will not permit us to yield that the receiving in both kinds was esteem'd by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion or integrity of the participation of Christs Body and Blood or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion when deliver'd and receiv'd only in one kind On the contrary we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience whether if we should yield this we should not be overwhelm'd with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us As evidently appears in Communions anciently practised under one kind only and this upon many occasions As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions mention'd by Tertullian St. Cyprian and others in which the holy Eucharist was deliver'd to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone and by them carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions The same was practised in communicating Infants or innocent Children of more years witnesse besides the said Fathers the practise of the Church of Constantinople mentioned by Nicephorus In communicating the Sick and Penitents at the point of death In communions at Sea In communions sent to other Provinces c. 4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteem'd to be partakers of â—ntire Christ nor did they think they received more of him at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one only They believed it was Christ entire which they received in every divided particle of the species of Bread and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the flesh of Christ could not be participated without a concomitance of his Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity Hence St. Ambrose Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ. And the Council if Ephesus That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do participate the Flesh of Christ not as common meer Flesh but truly quickning Flesh. And St. Augustin That Christ ferebatur in manibus suis did carry himself in his own hands and this in a litteral sense And St. Cyril of Alexandria says By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified that the four parts of the world being brought to salvation by the Gospel did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it For says he the only begotten Son of God passing into and by his Flesh sanctifying the Soul â—nd Body of each of them severally and in particular is in each of them entirely and undividedly being every where one and in no sort divided 5 These things thus premised which are certain Truths and cannot by the Preacher be deny'd since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject he must necessarily take upon him to demonstrate 1. Either that these Communions under one species allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times were half Communions sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord contrary to the teaching of St. Paul conspiring with the Heresie of the Manichees c. And doing so he will contradict himself whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times 2. Or if these Practises were justifiable and that
matter stands in this Point with the Roman Catholic Church 9. We Roman Catholics I. do willingly acknowledge that in the Primitive times the Public Service of God was generally speaking perform'd in a Tongue better understood than now it is yet not then for many places and Countries in their vulgar or native or best understood tongue For it is evident by St. Augustin that in Afric it was in the Latin tongue not in the Punic which yet was the only Tongue the Vulgar understood So the Liturgy of St. Basil was used in the Greek Tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches And yet it appears as well out of later History as out of the Acts 2. 8 9 10. c. 14. v. 11. That Greek was not in those antient times the vulgar tongue of many of those Eastern Countrys no more than Latin was of the Western 2. We professe it was not nor yet is the intention of the Church that the Public Devotions should therefore be in Latin because it is not vulgarly understood but this has hapned as it were by accident besides her intention and onely because the Latin Tongue in which it was first written by revolution of times and mixture of Barbarous Nations in Europe has been corrupted and ceased to be a so commonly understood Language by unlearned people for indeed probably it was never so well understood as that other native Language which they used before it or with it 10. Matters standing thus yet the Church does not think fit to change with the times but continues Gods publick Service as it was at first And this we may conceive she does 1. Because no example can be found in antiently-established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods public Service entirely The Greeks now use the Antient Masse of St. Chrysostom written in pure Greek as much differing from the Vulgar as Latin from the Italian Spanish c. The like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. among whom the Mass is celebrated in the oâ—d Language far from being vulgarly understood Yea the Iews continue their Devotions to this day in the Hebrew understood by few among them 2. Because though the Latin be not now in any place a vulgar Language yet there is no Language so universally understood in Europe as that And a great fitnesse there is that the most Public Service should be in the most public Language in which all Nations may joyn every where And by those who most frequently recite the Divine Service in the Catholic Church viz. the Clergy and other Religious for whose proper use a great part of this Service was composed the Latin Tongue is well understood 3. Because the Latin â—ongue now that it is not vulgar being thereby becom unchangeable the Churches Doctrins contain'd in her Litâ—rgies are so much the more freed from the danger of being innovated Whereas vulgar Languages almost in every age become un-intelligible or at least sound very unpleasing in mens ears as we now see in King Edward the sixth's Common-prayer-book would it not seem an odd translation now to read that Saint Philip baptiz'd the Gelding and Paul the Knave of Iesus Christ yet this was once the English Scripture Nay more within this twenty years we find many words and phrases have quite changed their former sense So that all Nations must be ever and anon altering their Liturgies to the great danger of changing the Churches belief And which is not altogether inconsiderable for the present good husbandry of the world to the infinite expenâ—es of moneys in printing c. 11. I doubt not but he will reply that not any one or all these commodities can answer and satisfie for an express and as he calls it a scandalous opposition to the plain sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. I grant it All these commodities are to be despised rather than so to oppose the Apostles Doctrin But what is his Doctrin For I evidently perceive the Doctor has not well search'd into it much lesse rightly apply'd it The Apostle says If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays but my understanding receives no benefit c. And how can an unlearned Person say Amen to such Prayers In which passage seems involved a tacite prohibition at least of publick Prayers in an unknown tongue All this is granted but yet with this exception mention'd by the Apostle himself unless either he that prays or some other interpret Therefore before he took on him to charge the Catholic Church with a scandalous opposition to this passage of Scripture he ought to have examin'd better her doctrin and practise otherwise he himself will be found guilty of a Scandalous opposition to God's Church Now for a tryal of the Churches sence let him observe the Ordinance of the Council of Trent touching this very Point the words are these Though the Mass contain instruction for Gods faithful people yet it seem'd not expedient unto the Fathers that it should be celebrated every where in the vulgar tongue wherefore retaining in all places the Churches antient Rite approved by the holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches lest Christ's Sheep should hunger and Children asking bread none should be found to break it to them the Holy Synod commands all Pastours and all that have care of Souls that during the celebration of Mass they should frequently either by themselves or others expound some part of those things which are read in it and among other things let them explain the mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice especially on Sundays and Feasts The Preacher here may see that the Church does not make such a secret even of the most sublime Mysteries of her Office as the Court believ'd upon his report 12. Likewise between this speaking in an unknown tongue mention'd by St. Paul and the Churches publick Latin Service there is this great disparity that this later is always a known Language to several of those present if not to all and there are alwayes those who understandingly say Amen And again being a known set-form in one set-language recurring continually the same according to the Feast those who are ignorant of it at first need not continue so but by due attention and other diligence may arive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof they having also in their Manuals Primers Psalters c. ready translated both the Psalms Hymns and Prayers c. and there being several Books both in English and all vulgar languages that expound the Church-service even to the meanest capacity Neither is the Latin tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar tongues and of the constant use hereof a language unknown to such a degree in Catholick Conntries as our English Nation imagin it and therefore is so much scandalized Neither is there the same motive for some dispensation of a change in those places as perhaps would be in a Country less
looked after that is of burying their Friends in such sacred places whereby their pious affection may appear to their Friends I see not what advantages may accreâ— hereby to the dead except this that whilst they call to mind where the Bodies of those who are dear unto them are laid they with their Prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons that by them they may be helped with our Lord which also they might do although they could not inter them in such places Whensoever therefore the minde recounts where the body of some dear friend lies buried and streight the place occurs renown'd for the name of some Martyr the devotion of him who thus remembers and prayes forthwith commends this beloved soul to the same Martyr There was here in Hippo saith the same Father a certain old man called Florentius poor but pious and a Tailor by Trade He had lost his Cloak and had nothing wherewith to buy him another He prayed with a loud voice to the twenty Martyrs whose Monument here among us is very famous to reapparel him Some scoffing young men by chance being near hand over-heard him and at his going away followed him jeering him as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence to buy him clothes And afterward The Cook saith he cutting up the Fish found in the belly of it a gold ring which moved with pity and piety together he straightway delivered to the poor man saying See how the twenty Martyrs have furnished you with clothes De diversis Serm. 32. 33. unquestioned that I know of and which appear sufficiently to be S. Austins by comparing these with the conclusion of cap. 8. l. 22. de Civit. Dei A certain woman saith he there lost her son a sucking Infant being as yet a Catechumen only Full of faith she took the dead childe and ran to the memorial of the blessed Martyr Stephen and began of him to demand her son and to say Holy Martyr you see I have no comfort at all left me For I cannot so much as say that my son is gon before me to Bliss whom you know is utterly perished because dying unbaptized You see the cause of this my dessolate grief restore me my Son c. De Baptism l. 7. c. 1. and l. 5. c. 17. being compared This Father supposeth the Martyr Cyprian to know his affairs and in his handling that Controversie of Rebaptization contrary to St. Cyprians former judgment in which Point he presumes that Saint now fully illuminated yet hopes for his favour and requests the assistance to him herein of his Prayers Let him help us therefore saith he with his Prayers laboring here in in the mortality of this flesh as in a dark myst that by Gods help we may as much as we can imitate the good things that were in him 6. Upon these grounds Bishop Forbes grants that St. Austin doth allow Invocation of Martyrs commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging it and there also censures Bishop Andrews for denying it in these words The Bishop of Ely wrongfully affirms that St. Austin disallowed the Invocation of Saints the contrary whereof is apparent in his Bood De curâ pro mortuis c. And afterwards he adds Truly I am sorry that so just a cause is given to Iohn Barclay of exposâ—ulating with the most learned Bishop of Ely who speaks thus concerning him Here I have a desire to tell the King of Great Britain's Almoner The King believes him and so do many others and yet he is as oft in fault as he makes others to be so Let him therefore consider how erroniously he denies that St. Austin approves the Invocation of Martyrs Adde to Bishop Forbers and Bishop Montague the Testimony of Dr. Fulk long ago in his Rejoinder to Bristow I acknowledge saith he St. Ambrose St. Austin and St. Ierom held Invocation of Saints to be lawful which is an Error And the Testimony of the Bishop of Spalato who numbers this Father among many others that allowed Invocation of Saints The Fathers saies he without any hesitancy either Invocate Saints or grant they may be invocated the Latin Hilary Ambrose Ierom Paulinus Maximus Prudentius Augustinus And the Testimony of Chemnitius also who upon the former Quotation taken out of St. Austin de Baptismo l. 7. c. 1. sayes Thus St. Austin speaks without ground of Scripture yielding to the times and common custom Yet for all this a confident pronouncing that St. Austin knew nothing of this Doctrine or Practice serv'd the Preachers turn Many of his Auditors knew nothing to the contrary and therefore believ'd him and according to his desire detested Roman Catholics the more for this Novelty And that was enough then but what will it be when the Righteous Judge shall call that Sermon to a second account CHAP. XVII Celibacy of Priests Vowes of Chastity The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both Objections Answered 1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Noveltie is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders Which saies he is by some derived from the third Century by others from the eighth and in the rigour that now it is from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves 't is dated but from Pope Calixtus But saies he both in the old and new Testament Priests were permitted to have Wives The Apostles were married Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice And by one of the Apostolic Canons And the forbidding of Marriage with Saturninus and the Gnosticks is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of Devils 2. Indeed if the prohibition of Mariage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrin of Devils the Preacher has reason rather to seperate himself from a Church that enjoyns such a Diabolical vertue as Continence than from a wife that will not permit it and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest Though it is not only permitted him but esteem'd meritorious to blaspheme the Church of God yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle who in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrin of Devils forbids marriage to Widows who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service Younger Widows refuse says he for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will mary Having damnation because they have cast off their first Faith What means this phrase They have cast off their first Faith saith St. Augustin Voverunt non red did eâ—unt They vowed perpetual continence but they kept not their vow and therefore they have damnation This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrin and interpretation of that place of the Apostle as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Margin The same is taught by St. Epiphanius St.
accident but only Death become two again so as to be in the same capacity as they were before they were married And for this reason the Iews though permitted to marry afterward yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God Those whom God hath joyned let no man separate 6. Much lesse does the second species of Separation or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye The only lawful cause of which Separation is by our Savior allow'd and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornication that is indeed Adultery under which are likewise comprehended as our most learned Doctors say other more grievous sins of unnâ—tural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may not must cause such a perpetual separation is because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith By this separation whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party neither of them not the innocent party are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage for then they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage And here the Preacher may do well to consider what 〈◊〉 Patron he has betaken himself to which 〈◊〉 Chemnitius who against our Saviours Law as all Antiquity and the practice of the Englisâ— Reform'd Church interpret it contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party so teaching formal Adultery This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual that is the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies and are in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance whether or no to receive them again into their former condition Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery 7. The other two Separations not Divorces one whereof is only a toro from the Bed the other from Cohabitation also may be made for other causes besides fornication As for sâ—m very infectious diseases for almost irreconcileable quarrels for attempts of killing or wounding one another c. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces each of the parties being bound assoon as these impediments of conjugal conversation are removed to return as before to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspondence And till then I would ask the Doctor whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed or even his house a Serpent not only full of venom but ready and attempting to kill him with it Or if he have not this courage whether he will acknowledg such a separation so necessary even to the preservation of life to be a Divorce damnable because not for fornication What he will answer I know not But what he must if he go about to maintain his Assertion I am certain will be very irrational 8. Let him reflect on the practise of his own Church where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii à mensa toro these two are both allow'd in England now I ask the Doctor of which does our Saviour speak If he say of the first then clearly the Husband of an Adultresse may marry again which is contrary to the Law if he say of the second still â—e contradicts his own Law which every day allows a separation for other Causes besides that of Fornication Can we believe the Doctor never read the ordinary Cases wherein Diâ—orses are granted as Pre-contract Fear Frigidity Consanguinity c. all which dissolve the very Marriage it self and yet in all these the Marriage was valid till actual divorce and the children shall bear the Fathers name and inherit his lands if there never happen an actual divorce this the wise men of our Nation do and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ. Something like this for the second branch of the distinction St. Paul himself does and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour If says he the Vnbeliever depart let him depart a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases that is the Innocent may remain separate and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty which the Apostle allows to every private Person or why may not a General Council determin such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation Thus I conceive it clear'd that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent or Both guilty CHAP. XIX Of SCHISM The unpardonableness of that Crime acknowledged by Antiquity c. No cause or pretence can excuse it 1. HAving followed the Doctor through all his vainly pretended Novelties of Doctrine We are at last arrived to the most concerning Point of all Schism Most concerning certainly for there is not any one of the fore-mentioned Doctrines which in themselves considered would absolutely destroy Souls though they erred about them But Schism alone whatsoever Error of Doctrine yea though no Error of Doctrine were either indeed or pretended to be a cause of it will be inevitably damning to every Soul guilty of it which damnation neither rectitude of Faith nor any good Works nor even Martyrdom it self will be able to prevent For this cause sayes St. Augustine our Christian Creed concludes with the Articles touching the Church because if any one be found separated from her he shall be excluded out of the number of God's Children neither shall he have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his Mother It will nothing profit such an one that he hath been Orthodox in belief done so many good works c. 2. This is a Truth generally testified by the ancient Doctors of God's Church and not at all questioned by the more sober Writers of the English Church who have written of Schism c. They all are ready in words at least to say with St. Denys of Alexandria That we ought rather to endure any torments then consent to the division of God's Church since the Martyrdom to which we expose our selves by hindring a division of the Church is no less glorious then that which is suffer'd for refusing to sacrificâ— to Idols And with St. Pacian Though the Schismatick Novatian hath been put to death for the Faith yet he hath not been crown'd Why not crown'd Because he dy'd out of the peace concord and Communioâ— of the Church separated from that commâ—â— Mother of whom who ever will be a Marlyâ— must be a Member And with St. Irenâ—us There cannâ—t possibly be made any Reformation of such importance as the mischief 〈◊〉 Schism is pernicious c. 3. But I do not find that Protestant Doctors have endeavour'd to penetrate into the true grounds why above almost all other sins a Christian is capable of committing Schism that is the setting up an Altar against an Altar or the relinquishing the external Communion of the Church the making Collects or Assemblies without yea against the consent of Bishops or Church Governours c. should
cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
the Church is a General Council The same holy Father treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Cyprian and after by the Donatists says That for that Doctrine which was truly Traditionary the Donatists were Hereticks but St. Cyprian not Why Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate and without breaking Communion to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils Till in a General Council the true Orthodox Doctrâ—ne were without all further doubts confirmed Which Authority says he St. Cyprian if it had been declared in his time would without any doubt at all have believed 9. In the next place as touching Decisions of Controversies about not expressly Traditionary Doctrines but clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines it is absolutely necessary oft-times for the Church to make such Decisions for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given to maintain freely any thing that does not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or in Tradition Thus many of the Articles of the Nicen Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions which Articles in the Terms wherein they were there conceived were not absolutely necessary to be believed before the arising of Heresies forced the Church further to explain the Faith And hence it is that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith in many Doctrines otherwise not necessary to be so generally known must and will encrease to the worlds end in case New Heresies arise 10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide or objects of our Faith For though it be most certain that the Church neither hath nor pretends to have any New Revelations of Christian verities but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles is still the Faith of the Church and no more There are no Additions made no new Articles invented Notwithstanding the same Articles by occasion of Heresies arising may in succeeding times be further explained and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered In like manner some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the Church when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks are often explicitely declared in Councils to be Traditions by which Declaration there is no new thing taught but that which was formerly involved is more clearly manifested and that which was taught by practice is declared by words and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians becomes extended to all Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. have been in later Councils made Articles not de novo as the Doctor misapprehends but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed and so are all other new decisions of later Councils Points of ancient Faith either in themselves explicitely or in their necessary principles implicitely And if after such decisions of Councils there ariseth a new obligation that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error and that in a matter of Divine Revelation Such Points were alwayes matter of faith if we would believe in those particulars what was Divine Truth though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement to which judgement we could have no obligation before she declared it Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians in relation to Her of believing it else to what end does the state it Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters without the guilt of disobeying the Church but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now which perhaps we did not formerly and that in a time when we are in more danger from Seducers of falling into the contrary Error And now behold these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith this is her chief accusation and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality which was not found in their former Creed as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council and by the Eutychians against the fourth And therefore why may not the Council of Trent for its defence return the same answer to the Preacher as the fourth General Council which he professeth to allow did to the Eutychians A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient say they for the benefit of sincere Believers But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine 't is necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach and to provide fit remedies to their objections For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the Nicene Faith and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation it were meet for the posterity of the Church to excogitate in their Councils no new additions But because there are many that decline from this right line through the crooked paths of error we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church Not as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness as though the former faith were defective but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them Thus that Council whose words clearly demonstrate that Councils may define not only traditionals in matters of Faith but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them And here let the equal Reader judge whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles or the Council of his and his Predecessors new Errors Out of which evil yet the wisdom of God in the several ages brings this good as Evagrius â— accutely observes to the Pagans scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished and more entirely compiled and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed by the springing up of several Heresies in those days had enlarged the Apostolick 11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils we Roman Catholicks do esteem
general were allow'd them That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries this will not excuse them for dissenting from the Church in any particular Doctrines actually decided by a General Council Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even internal is unlawful without a certain demonstration that the Church hath actually erred in such and such Doctrines But which way possibly can any particular person or Church arrive to such a demonstration It must be by producing express Scripture or universal Tradition formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared Who can think who dares believe that those supreme Guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the only Guardians of the Scripture it self and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and manifestly contrary to express Scripture or evident demonstration And as for universal Tradition there can be no Iudge of it but the whole Church particular persons or Churches are utterly uncapable of making such a judgment especially in opposition to the whole Church 11. It were happie therefore if Protestants considering the Promises of Christ and the necessity of unity in the Church would allow but as much submission to the Supreme Tribunal of his Church as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim to which no such Promises were made For then though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible yet they would acknowledge that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbidden but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisions 12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore produced in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals And indeed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh that is the Messias came By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed For as to the outward proâ—ession and practises of the Mosaical Law it was alwayes continued in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair I say as to the outward practises of it For in the Spiritual sense of it the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself typified therein But now Shiloh was already come and God's promise of Indefectibility rested in this New High Priest and his Successors 13. Notwithstanding all this yet Errors might creep in about non-fundamentals as the Rabbins confess when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place and without all tergiversation be obeyed So as though they being indeed in such things fallible should command any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law the Iews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of Judgment and internal assent to such Commands that they were agreeable to God's Law because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great importance should be transgressed than that Contentions and Disputes should be endless 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority than the Iews did to their Sanedrim which was infallible in fundamentals but subject to Error in non-fundamentals they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council but ought to submit their internal Judgment to them For since it is impossible they should have any demonstrative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred I mean in matter of Doctrine all other inferiour Judgments all only probable Arguments against them ought to cease the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opinions altogether improbable So that though upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions and by consequence their assent would be erroneous yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience humble submission of Judgment love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it Besides that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches and not at all on their account 15. But since Protestants find an extraordinary difficulty more than Catholicks to submit their Judgments to Authority and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges Let it be supposed that their first Reformers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions should thereupon have been excommunicated by the Church In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience and not voluntarily forsake her Communion and much less ought they to have set up or repair to an Anti-communion For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism 16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church and the unlawfulness of separation from it I do not mean a Church of one denomination no not the Roman as such for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her But I intend the Vniversal Church which we call Roman Catholick because all true Orthodox Churches an union of which constitutes the Universal Church acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Root of their Unity Therefore Protestants in vain seek to excuse their separation upon pretence it was onely from the Roman not from the Vniversal Church because 1. A separation from the external Communion of any one true Member of the Catholick Church for Doctrines which are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that Member is indeed a separation from all Churches which is manifestly the case of the English separation 2. Because it is evident that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves a toto mundo A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melancthon in these words Nec non parvi refert c. For it doth not a little concern us that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us descend to posterity For it were a thing more then absurd after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world if we in our very beginnings should also divide from one another And which Chillingworth also confesseth in several places cap. 5. sect 55. As for the external Communion of the
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
how to express the Catholick Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people and prevent Hereticks from abusing them Hence it was St. Athanasius said We meet here not because we wanted a Faith i. e. were incertain what to hold but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth Which Rule if Councils observe I think the Doctor would scarce refuse to obey them and our only difference in this point I hope is he thinks they do not observe this Rule and I think they do CHAP. XXVI The Preacher's boasting Catholicks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their Doctrines Conditions necessary to be Observed by the Doctor in case he Reply Of the Name Protestant 1. THus I have gone through and examin'd except to those who love to be contentious sufficiently all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholick Church I have likewise brought to the Test all the Allegations made by him either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Roman Catholick or at least to perswade us not to call it Schism And it seems to me I have demonstrated him unsuccessful in both Nay more which is a great misery if he would consider it with that seriousness which Eternity deserves I think I have prov'd that the fearful crime of Schism will lye heavie upon his Church though he had shew'd all the Points by him mention'd to be Novelties And having done this I must say with St. Augustin Vtinam verba ista infuderim non effuderim But considering the present temper of this Age I doubt I shall have reason to fear according to the same holy Father's expression lest when I beg them to afford their ears they should make ready their teeth 2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to complain as he doth in his Sermon of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the Four first General Councils Truly this Speech of his seems to me so vain and rash and shameless a boast that I cannot but blush for him when I read it and tremble for him when I see Truth so little consider'd by a Preacher sustaining God's Person as he pretended 3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of shâ—wing that Iota as to which they have left c. If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiquity or that we believe not even since we have seen their Answers that our demonstrations are unanswerable there are extant whole Libraries of our Controvertists sufficient to overwhelm him Particularly before he say so again let him enquire out and consider a Book written by Simon Vogorius Counseller to the French King entituled An Assertion of the Catholick Faith out of the Four first Oecumenical Councils and other received Synods within that time Or even let him review what is quoted against him here concerning one of his own Points Celibacy of the Clergy out of the Four first General and several other as ancient Provincial Councils Before all which Councils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his dayes about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an Iota with him How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive and Antiquity Antique enough to use his words Unless he will shrink up Primitive Antiquity from the 6th Age to the 4th from the 4th to the 3d. where few Writings being extant less of the Churches Doctrines and Customs can be shewn in them Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times as the Presbyterians in the Plea of Antiquity treat the Prelatists For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers when they are straitned with proofs are wont to retire So Bishop Iewel long ago made a bold challenge to be tryed by Antiquity for the first 600 years But after many hot Encounters between the Controvertists and after Antiquity better discover'd to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first A. Bp. Lawd more cautious contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrower to the Fathers of the first 400 years or thereabouts The Protestants saith he offer to be tryed by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years and somewhat further And since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years For the particular Doctrines saith he wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils And again We profess saith he to believe so much and not to be convinced by all the Reasons and Authorities and Proofs from Scriptures or the first Christian Writers those of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils Where by submission to the Four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost not obliging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these Four Councils and sate in them For though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age yet he claims a tryal by the Fathers only to the end of the 3d Age. Again by this submission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only he bars most of the chief Fathers and all those that are more large and Voluminous from bearing any witness against Protestants and leaves scarse half a score Authors of Note now extant and several writing only some short Treatises or Epistles whereby they are content to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity 4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity let us hear two or three bolder spirits that speak plain and freely What sayes Doctor Willet Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of supposed antiquity as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites and the reason is given for Anti-christ began to raign in the Apostles dayes in St. Pauls dayes What says Acontius Some of us are come to that that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers which I would to God they had performed with prosperous success as they hopefully attempted it c. I onely think this