undiscover'd and whoever considers the vast differences amongst those who are in the attire of Christians their various and discrepant Judgments in Doctrinal Points and ritual Ceremonies and with what ardour every Sect endeavours to defend its Opinion and with what acrimony it opposes that of anothers must needs judge it absolutely necessary to purchase so much knowledge as to be able to shield himself from those many impostures which Prestigiators in Religion obtrude on credulous Persons under the livery of saving sound Doctrines This made Theoph. call false Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dicers or Coggers of Dice alluding to St. Paul's Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This setting topping the Die even in Temporals is pernicious enough being able to decoct and ruine the most flourishing Estate but in Eternals it is far more exitial and destructive as much as Spirituals transcend Temporals It will therefore highly concern every one to guard himself from the grand cheat of being impos'd on in matters of Religion and considering there is so much cozenage in the World to be cautious what Articles he admits as Sterling measuring his Faith by a sure Standard which is the Method I design to take in my ensuing Discourse not devoting my self to any Private Persons Opinion or Dictates but steering my course by the unerring Pharos of Antiquity The first Objection you make against my Treatise of St. Peter's Supremacy is That if his Monarchic Power were suppos'd the Bishop of Rome 's Succession in that Dignity could not be inferr'd any more than the Primates of Antioch c. This Opinion of yours I look on as erroneous for those Primates succeeded him not in the full ampltitude of his Power but in that particular Diocess Succession to any in his whole right being only to him who leaves his place either by voluntary Resignation Deposition or natural Death whereas St. Peter tho he was at Antioch for some time yet he invested in the High Priest-hood quitted that place Vivus valensque and with his Person transplanted all the Pontificial Dignities from thence to Rome having upon his departure from Antioch subrogated in his place either Evodius or Ignatius This his removal from thence to Rome is asserted by St. Chrysost in Inscript Act. Apostol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is one of the Prerogatives of our City of Antioch to have had first the Prince of the Apostles for its Teacher for it was no more than fit that that City in which the name of Christians was first heard should receive the first Shepherd of the Apostles but when we had him for our Teacher we did not keep him all his life-time but we deliver'd him over to the Royal City of Rome This clearly manifests his relinquishing Antioch and his Transmigration to Rome where he settled and fixed his Cathedra and concluded his Life by a most glorious Martyrdom so that the Bishop of Rome who succeeded St. Peter dying there and not the Bishop of Antioch which place he had abandon'd inherits the Pontificate and Prefecture of the Universal Church as being his apparent Heir Hence St. Hierom in his 58th Epistle ad Damasum calls him Successor Piscatoris and in the Council of Ephesus Parte Secunda Pope Coelestine is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Successor and Vicar of St. Peter and accordingly Rome by the Fathers is called St. Peter 's See as in St. Augustin cont literas Petil. Cathedra quid tibi fecit mali in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodie Anastasius sedet And likewise St. Hierom in his 57th Epistle ad Damasum Ego Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior Suitable to which is that of St. Cyprian Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam Principalem But that which gives me full satisfaction in this point is the Custom of the Fathers who in their enumeration of the Bishops of Rome place St. Peter first as the Author of that Succession some of them joyn St. Paul with him Irenaeus reckons the Catalogue from St. Peter and Paul to Pope Eleutherius Eusebius likewise to Sylvester Optatus from St. Peter to Siricius St. Austin from St. Peter to Anastasius Tertullian from the same to Anicetus and demands of the Hereticks of his time a List of their Bishops Irenaeus having begun a Roll of Popes succeeding one the other adds Per hanc Successionem confundi omnes Haereticos and St. Austin contra Epistolam Manichei confesses that this Succession of Bishops from St. Peter was one of the Reasons which kept him in the Catholick Church 'T is observeable That when the Fathers design to give the true Succession and descendency from St. Peter as he was the Christian High-Priest they do not enumerate the Antiochian but the Roman Succession Not placing St. Peter first then Evodius or Ignatius Bishops of Antioch but first St. Peter then Linus c. Bishops of Rome These things duly perpended I could not but wonder how B. Bramhal should question how the Bishop of Rome came to be St. Peter's Heir ex asse to the Exclusion of his Elder Brother the Bishop of Antioch I never read says he that the Church was govern'd by the Law of Gavelkind that the youngest must inherit Here he affecting to shew some sportive Wit seem'd to me to talk more like a Lawyer than like a Divine But now you pretend to give a Reason why the Bishop of Rome could not succeed St. Peter in his Dignity affirming That singular and personal Priviledges are not derivable to Successors herein you are certainly right for Privilegium personale cum persona moritur but then on the other side you are as much in an Error in fancying what was spoken by our Saviour to him was delivered as to a Private Person and to terminate with him You had pleas'd me very well had you mention'd what those singular Priviledges were that were so solely affix'd to St. Peter's Person as not to be inherited by his Successors Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. was none of them nor Confirma Fratres nor Pasce oves meas Cardinal Bellarmine gives this account of them Quaedam dicuntur Petro pro se tantum ut vade post me Satana Ter me negabis quaedam ut uni ex fidelibus ut si peccaverit in te frater quaedam pro se Successoribus ratione officii Pastoralis ut Pasce oves meas c. This Pastoral Privilege conferr'd on him was not Personal but transient to his Successors being granted him as a Publick Person so not to expire with him but to survive in his descendents For the Office of a Pastor being ordinary ought to be continued as long as there be Sheep Quamdiu permanet ratio institutionis Christi tamdiu etiam res instituta necessario permanere debet the Pastorship which was instituted for the good of the Flock ought to have an equal duration with it which is to the consummation of
Baptism and the Creed c. In ipsa Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non estis They believ'd more than what you esteem as Fundamental yet were out of the Pale of the Catholick Church In this Church is Unity of Faith Harmony in Doctrine Conformity in Administration of the Sacraments Uniformity in her Liturgy and Ceremonies all the World over To distinguish this Church from all Heretical Sects the Apostles in their Creed the Antient Fathers in their Writings gave her the Sir-name of Catholick This very name seem'd so emphatical to St. Austin that he reckons it as a principal reason next to the Succession of Popes from St. Peter that kept him in the true Church Cont. Epist Manichaei Tenet ipsum Catholicae nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas Haereses sic ipsa Ecclesia sola obtinuit ut cum omnes Haeretici se Catholicos dici velint Quaerenti tamen peregrino alicui ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur nullus Haereticorum vel Basilicam suam vel domum audeat ostendere From this place you may evidently see That it was the humor of the Hereticks of those Days as well as it is now to affect the Title of Catholick but this was but an usurpation in them and so 't is with you He says the Greeks call'd this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod per torum orbem terrarum diffunditur And according to this sense it is true Hereticks may be called Catholicks for they are disseminated all over the World But in his Fourth Book against Cresconius he makes this distinction betwixt a Real Catholick and an Heretical one Catholicks says he are the same every where and Hereticks are different Hence 't is that a Lutheran will not Communicate with a Greek nor a Greek with a Lutheran nor a Calvinist with a Muscovite nor an Anabaptist with an Armenian or an Hugonot with a Georgian vice versa whereas a Catholick Communicates with a Catholick in any part of the World as Members of the same Body and as having the same Unity of Faith as Irenaeus affirms in his first Book C. 3. The Church spread over the whole World having receiv'd the true belief keeps it and practiseth it as if it dwelt but in one House and had but one Soul and Heart Neque hae quae in Germania sunt fundatae Ecclesiae aliter credunt neque hae quae in Iberis sunt neque hae quae in Celtis neque hae quae in Oriente Aegypto Lybia Thus it was at first when Christian Churches were united and untainted with Heresie for the Apostles taught the self same Doctrine wherever they went and all those various Churches seated in divers Kingdoms and Regions differed only in Situation not in Doctrine Hence from their Unity of Faith they may be called One Church as St. Chrysost in his Comments on first Corinth affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There ought to be but one Church in the World although it be divided into many places Now 't is evident that of all Orthodox Churches an Union of which constitutes the Catholick Rome as being the See of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles was the chief and upon that account though Hierusalem and Antioch were somewhat before her in time she was before them in Dignity Hence by Irenaeus she is called the Greatest and most Glorious by St. Cyprian the Principle Church and St. Austin says 't is Arrogancy to deny her the Primacy and that she had obtain'd the Primacy frustra Haereticis latrantibus Hence it is that by way of Eminency she is call'd the Catholick Church including all the latitude of her Communion of which she is the Center the Mother the Mistress the Radix Matrix Hence 't is that the Fathers promiscuously use Catholick and Roman as Synonima's as I shall hereafter demonstrate out of them CHAP. III. Concerning the Respect which Catholicks pay to Images I Shall next employ my self in taking a Prospect of those Points for maintaining which you would prove Rome notoriously guilty of Paternal Schism and this I do the more willingly because you stand highly guilty of a false Representing them The First is Image-Worship as you phrase it which you have improv'd and sublimated to that height as to make it pass for Idolatry This is done to render your selves acceptable and us odious to the Populace as Violators of the first Commandment 'T is but rendring Pesel which properly signifies Sculptile to be an Image and then boldly affirming us Idolators to bring all the places in Scripture and Fathers against the Idolatry of the Gentiles and the business is done But those places are indeed nothing to your purpose they only importing a Prohibition of giving Soveraign Honor due to God to an Idol whereas you are to prove out of Scripture That 't is unlawful to give a Relative Honor to the Picture of Christ for his sake But by this Action you do not only shew your self defamatory but ungrateful to the Roman Church which when this Nation lay really in the Pollutions of Idolatry took compassion of us and by planting the Gospel here rescu'd us from that Calamitous Condition This confounding Image-worship with Idolatry is certainly a most fraudulent and malitious Method they being quite different things the one is an Honorary Relative Respect to the thing represented which is Sacred But the other is a Worshipping a Creature an Idol a Devil or false God in some dark Representation giving it Divine Incommunicable Attributes and in the Imagination exercising supreme Devotion to it for to those Idols by Magical Conjuration they annexed an Evil Spirit to do Wonders and thereby to extort Divine Worship from the cheated People hence they are often call'd Gods as in the Fifth of Daniel they pray'd their Gods of Silver Brass Iron Wood Stone Now to ascribe this heinous Sin to the Catholick Church is highly injurious Idolatry being the blackest Sin a Church can be spotted with for it doth not only thereby cease to be a true Christian Church but it becomes worse than a Jewish Synagogue and I had rather turn Jew or Turk than Idolater There is no Question but that Idolatry is a sufficient excuse for any one to fall off from a Church that is tainted with it But if this were the reason of your falling off from Rome the pretence was malicious and forg'd and Mr. Thorndike who well knew what Idolatry was will tell you in his Just weight Cap. primo his Opinion herein whose words are these Should the Church of England declare that the change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition I must then acknowledge that we are Schismaticks But I shall now make a short Discussion of this Point according to the Definition of the Council of Trent which I find to take all care imaginable to obviate any accusation herein the Words being as so many Characters to distinguish the respect paid to an Image from Idolatry First the
the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow that was Carnal then he call'd for innocent Blood that was Tyrannical his other call was for Church-Goods and Lands that was a Sacrilegious call he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion neither alter'd he any thing of it but to gratifie his Lust and Covetousness Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit praeterquam libidinis luxuriae causâ as Sanders affirms of him And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholick Religion excepting the Title of Head of the Church Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth he had most reason to call for it being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresie contrary to his Fathers Will by the Sacrilegious Protector who did call indeed but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverish'd Church he likewise call'd for false Teachers to dilate the Gangren Martin Bucer a Dominican Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular Ochinus a Capuchin Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati from such we were not like to have Truth who not only fell from the Catholick Church but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency for which by the then establish'd Law they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth she being a Woman and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs and to tamper in Articles of Faith neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes who found the Schism begun and Religion alter'd to their Hands I know very well that in this case Truth is the Pretext but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary This is the usual Mask to hide the ugly Face of a foul Action which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be a plausible glittering Title a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprize but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examin'd we shall find that Revenge Haughtiness impure Flames and desire of Plunder were the Springs that mov'd the first Machin and nothing at all of Truth I do not find that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book he writ in defence of the Roman Church he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism and fell out with the Church rather for its Booty and Prey than for its Doctrine and this was Tyndals Sense of it in his Letter to Frith where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy saith thus Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken little for the Clergies profit in time to come but you must understand that it is not out of pure Heart and for love of Truth but to avenge himself and to eat the Whores Flesh and drink the Marrow of her Bones which because 't is somewhat enigmatically express'd Fox is pleas'd in the Margent thus to expound eating the Whores Flesh is to spoyl the Popes Church only for the Prey and Spoyl thereof not Religion Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein As for the suppression of Monasteries says he we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it Having premis'd thus much I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism even according to your own Distinction and Division of it You say she is not guilty of that Crime because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles Then because she pays Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Thirdly Because she owns the first four General Councils c. This you think enough to clear her of Schism whereas 't is nothing at all to the purpose being a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides the Cushion you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governours so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it You are accus'd by Catholicks of a voluntary departure out of the Catholick Church of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted renouncing his Authority look'd on as of Divine Institution this being your Accusation the Reasons alledg'd for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose Now tho' you come off with a scratch'd Face concerning your Paternal I must needs say you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended you extending your kindness to Lutheran Calvenist or Hugonot and indeed to any Church that will but joyn with you in separating from and defaming the Catholick The next thing I have to do is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism and the Method you take herein I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it For instead of proving Rome separating it self from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion which is properly Schism you accuse her of false Doctrine which Accusation could you be able to make good it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars by which you would prove your self not guilty of Schism The first is because you own and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoyns you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnick or how you can fancy to be united to him when you fall off from his Mystical Body the Church of which he is the Head I know not or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles when they recommend Tradition and you reject it when they tell you that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth and you make her Apostatical I could instance in many particulars how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to but I shall wave them and only tell you that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church yet this is your practice when you dispute with Catholicks but when you have to do with Sectaries who plead Scripture against you then you have recourse to Fathers and Tradition using the same Arguments against them as we do against you It was long ago observ'd by the Fathers That Hereticks were great pretenders to the Scriptures backing their false Opinions with it Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque
fallaces Opiniones suas conantur defendere as Hilarius attests Lib. prim de Trint Vincent Lyrinensis to the same effect Nihil de suo proferunt quod non Scripturarum verbis adumbrare conentur This they formerly did and still do to reject the Authority of the Church and to avoid a living Judge they appeal to the Scripture then they assume to themselves what they deny the Church it 's Exposition perverting it's true Sense according to their wild Fancies and so crooken the Rule to their own Bent This was observ'd by St. Basil Hexam Hom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These falsifiers of Truth which do not teach their mind to follow the Scripture but contort the meaning of Divine Writ to their own Wills Now tho' the Scripture as being the Word of God is infallibly true yet it do's witness of it self that it is not of private Interpretation and those that dare Expound it that way may instead of sound Truths extract damnable Doctrines St. Austin avouches That all Heresies take their Birth from its wrong Interpretation in his 222 Epistle to Consentius Neque enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene To avoid this we must not Interpret them according to our Fancies but adhere to the Interpretations of the Church not at all questioning but that that Spirit of Truth which did direct it to distinguish Canonical from Adulterine Writ will likewise instruct it in the right Interpretation And herein consists the difference betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks as St. Austin observes Libro de Gratia Haeretici secundum suum sensum Sacras Scripturas legunt but we according to Antiquity and constant Tradition receiving both the Scripture and its Sense from the Church and her Authority is so considerable herein that St. Austin Epist Manich. says Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas The Second Reason is because you pay Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Of this I shall hereafter have occasion to take notice and likewise of your Honesty and Integrity in quoting them The Third Reason to acquit your self of Schism is because you own the first four General Councils and are willing that the difference betwixt you and other Churches should be decided by their Vmpirage but I must tell you That if you own'd Forty Councils instead of Four and revolted from the Church that would not discharge you of the Crime of Schism As for your pretended willingness to admit them as Judges in differences betwixt you and other Churches this will appear to be a very empty Compliment unless you can prove that they made Definitions concerning our Modern Controversies they conven'd to define about the Heresies rise in those days of the Arrians Nestorians Eutychians Macedonians not concerning those of Protestants a word not then known and had their Doctrines been then extant they would as certainly have been condemned as the foregoing I shall only instance in one point in one Council that of Chalcedon I am fully convinc'd that that Council which paid so much respect to Pope Leo acknowledging him to have receiv'd the custody of the Vineyard from Christ granting him when they sent their Relation to him to preside over them by vertue of his Legate as the Head do's over the Members would have severely sentenc'd your revolt from that See That Council which depos'd Dioscurus the Patriarch of Alexandria and consequently no Subject of Leo's as he was Patriarch of the West not for any Erroneous Doctrine but for his Sawciness against him whom they call his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord and because he dar'd to convene a Synod without leave from the Apostolick See would most certainly have condemn'd your defection ftom the Authority of your Occidental Patriarch and more your Opprobrious Revilings of him But why the first four General Councils why not a Stage farther why Hic Terminus haeret Can you prove that all Contests in Matters of Faith arising in future Ages and in much different Centuries could possibly be determin'd in those Councils Would you have an Heresie be condem'd before it be broach'd your referring all our Controversal Differences to their Decision is as irrational as if Macedonius who was condemn'd concerning his Heresie about the Holy Ghost in the Second General Council had appeal'd to the Nicene which assembled chiefly to confute the Heresie of Arrius concerning God the Son and determin'd nothing about the Third Person of the Trinity Besides I know no reason why the Church should be credited in the first four General Councils and slighted and disbeliev'd in the following Christ promis'd he would be with them to the consummation of the World I do not in the least question but that the same Spirit of Truth which guided and directed the Church in its first Synods did accompany it in all its succeeding Conventions rendring it inerrable in its Definitions of Faith I can find no place where Christ promis'd to be with them for a limited time so as to direct them in their first four Assemblies and to leave them for the future to themselves It would have been a great incouragement to all new Heresies if no Decision in Gods Church should have been after the first four General Councils The truth of it is this 'T is usual with Hereticks to be Enemies to those Councils and to reject them that have condemn'd their Opinions charging them with Error as the Arrians did that of Nicene the Nestorians that of Ephesus the Eutichians that of Chalcedon and accordingly the Emperor Zeno being an Eutychian having put out a Profession of Faith which he call'd Henoticon he left out the Council of Chalcedon which had condemn'd that Error embracing only the Faith of the three first Councils The next thing I shall Discourse of will be concerning your Church which you assert to have all the Essentials of a true Church and to be a sound part of the Catholick This I wish you had prov'd as manifestly as you confidently affirm it Had you done this I would never have forsaken its Communion You cannot but imagine it to be a very hard task for any to forsake his Relations his Friends his Countrey-men in Matters of Religion and thereby to expose himself to their Odium the severity of rigid Laws and his Temporal Concerns to ruine nothing but the saving of ones Soul can be preponderant to all these Mischiefs So you may conceive that had I imagin'd my self as safe in reference to my Salvation in your Church as where I now am I had most certainly fix'd my self there Clavo Trabali As to your asserting your Church to have all the Essentials of a true one I must tell you plainly this That I find in the Fathers many to be condemn'd for Hereticks for denying but one of those many Articles which you disown But as for Essentials and Fundamentals I know you pretend to them but I cannot see
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
Council thinks fit Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in Templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam but then by disclaiming any Divinity to be in them the Council acquits us of Idolatry in the following words Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit habenda veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa quae illa repraesentant c. Now as to the first part of the Council concerning retaining Images in Churches this was antiently practis'd long before that Council Gregory Nazianzen in his Forty ninth Epistle to Olymp. makes mention of Images in the Church of Diocesarea Basil in his Oration of Barlaam pointeth to his Image which stood in the Church Greg. Nyssen in his Oration of Theod. speaks of a Church so beatified with Images that it shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some pleasant and flowry Meadows Nicephorus affirms that Pulcheria the Empress built a Church at Constant and placed therein a Picture of our Blessed Lady which Eudocia sent her from Hierusalem Tertull. in his Second Book de Pudicitia witnesseth that the Image of Christ in form of a Shepherd carrying a Sheep on his Shoulders was engraven on the Chalices used in the Church August de consens Evang. witnesseth that in his time Christ was to be seen in many places painted between St. Peter and Paul Eusebius in his Seventh Book of his Ecclesias History makes mention of a Brazen Statue of Christ at Caesarea Philippi thought to be erected by the Haemaroissa cur'd by him this Statue he declares to have continued to his days and that he had seen it Sozomen adds That when Julian the Apostate out of spight against our Saviour caus'd it to be cast down and his own set up in the place that there came miraculously Fire from Heaven which consum'd Julians Christ by this avenging the affront offered his Statue by that Insolent Apostate as much as if it had been done to his Person And the same Author tells us That when Christs Image was thrown down and broken in pieces the Christians gathered up its fragments and laid them up in the Church which certainly was in Honor to the Prototype The other part of the words of the Council is That those Images should have their due Honor and Veneration It cannot be deny'd but that an Image is capable of Honor and of Contempt and it naturally flows that those that hate the Party represented by the Picture will hate the Picture and those that love the Party will respect the Picture Now this respect which Catholicks out of love to the Persons represented by them have for Pictures is very slanderously call'd by you Idolatry whereas that consists in forsaking the true God and Worshipping either real Devils or false Gods so those Idols stood in opposition to the true God as ' t is 1 Kings 18. 21. If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal be God follow him And 't is well known that the Jews as often as they fell to Idolatry always forsook the God of Israel Then the Council gives the Reason why they should be Honour'd Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypum This is exactly what St. Basil affirms de Spiritu Sancto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Honor done to the Image redounds to the Prototype And accordingly Athanasius 4 Serm. con Arrianos says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that worships the Kings Image in that worshippeth the King For Images by imagination stand for the Prototype and what is done by way of Honor to the Image is mentally done to the Person So the Honor address'd them is Relative for they be not honour'd because they be Pictures but because they represent such persons so the respect is determined to the Party represented Abstracted from the Prototype they are not capable of Honor. A Civil Honor is due to the Picture of a King of our Ancestors and nigh Relations and to those we love We resent any ignominy offered them and naturally conceive indignation thereat A Religious Honor is due to the Pictures of Christ his Holy Apostles and Saints the Respect shewn them redounding to the Original and ultimately terminating on it as 't is in the Second Nicene Council Act 7. Vt per hanc Imaginum pictarum inspectionem omnes qui contemplantur ad Prototypi memoriam recordationem desideriumque veniant illisque salutationem honorariam adorationem exhibeant According to Niceph. Xenaias a Persian by Birth a Slave by Fortune one of an Avdacious Spirit and Impudent Mouth was the first that dar'd to affirm That the Image of Christ and of the Saints were not to be reverenc'd Now when the word Worship or Adoration is apply'd it do's really amount to no more than an honorary Respect and Reverence a Relative Inferior Honor We do not take those words in that Sense as the Tribute of Honor due to God as you injuriously asperse us with this we abhor for in that Sense we Adore and Worship only the incomprehensible Deity that Supreme Monarch who has Sovereign Dominion over all renouncing all other Divine Adoration Now as to the word Adoration of which you make great advantage against us with the Communalty you must understand that it do's not always signify Divine or Religious Worship but it has likewise an inferiour Sense importing Reverence Respect either of Body or Mind communicable to Creatures according to their Dignities sometimes any bowing the Body in sign of Reverence as may be proved by many places in Scripture where Creatures are said to be ador'd and so to Deserving Eminent Worshipful Men we may be said to give Worship when we Honor and Respect them by bowing or by any other outward gesture according to the custom of the Countrey Now as to the Act of worship that consists of two Parts the Exterior sign is Kneeling the Interior is the Affection directed to what we Worship and indeed that is the main thing for as to the Exterior that we grant to Persons of several qualities as well as to God as to our King our Bishop and Parents but this is done with different Apprehensions and Affections we worship God as our Creator in a more sublime and eminent manner others in a lower degree This may be gathered out of the Fathers who take the word in different acceptations sometimes in the more principal and losty Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Divine Worship Supreme Honor due to God only as in Epiphanius Heresie 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur And Hierom in his 53 Epist Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoremus yet sometimes they take it in an inferior Sense and say other
things besides God are to be Adored as in August de Civit. Dei Lib. 10. c. 4. Homines si multum eis addatur etiam adorandi and Cyr. Alexand. Hom. de Deipara Crux adoratur toto orbe torrarum Accordingly Lactantius Flecte genu Lignumque Crucis venerabile adora And St. Hierom Epist 17. says Baptistae cineres adorate St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration on Theodosius praises the Empress Helena for setting the Cross upon the Crown of Kings that it might be ador'd in them Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit locavit ut Crux Christi in Regibus adoretur And St. Hierom in Epitaph Paulae reports of her that having at Hierusalem found out the Cross upon which Christ suffered she ador'd it as if she even had seen our Saviour hanging on it St. Chrysost is very clear herein in several places but more especially in his Hom. de Adorat Crucis That the Primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Cross may be prov'd out of Tertullian in his Apology where he acknowledges that the Heathens took notice of it and accus'd them as Crucis Religiosos This double acceptation of the word Adoration was well known to Mr. Thorndike who affirms the words Adoration Worship Respect and Reverence to be equivocal and the cause of this Equivocation to be for want of words to signify those conceptions which flow not from Common Sense and from this Equivocation in those words the greatest part of the difficulties which occur take their rise So you may see how deceitfully you deal by us herein always taking the words Adore Worship as importing Supreme Honor to God and then falsely accusing us of giving Gods Honor to a Creature or Image which we detest with a greater abhorrency than your self The other thing the Council took care in not to leave the least umbrage of suspition of Idolatry to any Rational Man is that they did disown any Virtue or Divinity to be in them that upon that account they should be respected or that they should be requested any thing or any trust reposed in them as the Gentiles did c. and this puts me in mind of what Gregory several hundred Years before the Council wrote in his Seventh Book of his Epistles to Secundinus who it seems had desired Gregory to send him some Pictures which he did and likewise instructs him in the right use of them agreeable to the Council Scio quidem quod Imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas sed ut ad recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas cujus te imaginem videre desideras nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur sed illum adoremus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed in Throno sedentem recordamur CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation THe next Point by which you would prove Rome guilty of Schism is Transubstantiation which you have lewdly abused and injuriously represented but I am afraid you are not so much offended at the word as at the meaning of it As to the word the Church was pleas'd to make use of it as fit and proper to declare the change of the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ Quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat As the Lateran Council says Canone Secundo And accordingly the Council of Trent Quae conversio convenienter proprie à S. Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellatur The Council defines not the word to be of Faith but makes use of it as a fit word expressive of their Sense so that if you can tell me a more proper one than this I shall not quarrel with you about it For names of words speaking in their rigour are not Objects of Faith as Athanasius shews in his Reconciliation of the Verbal Controversie of Person and Hypostasis but the Matter and Sense therein couch'd As to the newness of the word which is often objected tho' it was never in Latin publickly authoriz'd before the Council of Lateran yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be prov'd to be very antient and the thing thereby signify'd seems as old as Christs celebration of his Supper For a Point of Faith may be elder in it self than the Council that defines it The Consubstantiality of the Son and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost must be admitted to be elder than the Council of Nice and Constantinople that defin'd them The Conciliary Definition being generally occasion'd by the emergency of Heretical Opinions contrary to the Sense of the Church which had they not arose the Church had never been necessitated to a more Explicit Declaration Thus it happened here Sundry monstrous Opinions being broach'd about the Blessed Sacrament the Church was oblig'd to intervene with her unerring determinations establishing the Truth and dispelling Error Now tho' this Article was always in it self of the substance of Faith and tho' the thing signify'd by the new term was always held as a Divine Truth yet it was not obliging under that notion till the Solemn Declaration of the Church Quae veritas etsi prius erat de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata as Scotus says Now that the Church has power to coyn a new word for the Elucidating Truth and that she hath made use of this Power is clear by the Council of Nice which to declare Christs Consubstantiality with the Father found out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Council of Ephesus which to express the Mystery of Christs Divine Incarnation made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara That the Fathers long before the Council of Lateran and Trent did believe a Real change after the consecratory words is most evident and accordingly to express their belief of a Real Conversion they make use of Real Changes mention'd in Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent Water into Wine Hence the Greek Fathers call this mutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming after the Consecration the Symbols to be chang'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek words importing Transelementation Transfaction Transmutation Transfiguration Thus St. Ambrose Lib. 4. de fide Per Sacrae Orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur sanguinem and Lib. 4. de Sacramento Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod jam corpus est Christi ipse dixit factum est And again Sermo Christi qui poterit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant And accordingly George Nyssen in orat catechet Recte Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credo transmutari And Cyril Hieros in his Catech. Myst says Panis
sermonem ad medium Noctis ut post Sacramenta celebrata c. Thus 't is apparent that tho' Christ did Institute it in both kinds it was no violation of this his Constitution to Minister it in one for this there be Presidents in the same Scripture which mentions both Species The next thing to be considered is whether Communication under one kind be an Imperfect Lame Communion Herein upon consulting the Holy Writ I find as much ascrib'd to one kind as to both sometimes it attributing Salvation to the Bread and Wine sometimes to the Bread only Thus in the Sixth of John the same Christ who says Nisi manducaveritis Carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus Sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis says likewise in the same Chapter as much of the Bread alone Si quis manducaverit ex hoc Pane vivet in aeternum He that says Qui manducat meam Carnem bibit meum Sanguinem habet vitam aeternam says of the Bread only Panis quem ego dabo Caro mea est pro mundi salute He that says Qui manducat meam Carnem bibit meum Sanguinem in me manet ego in illo says likewise Qui manducat hunc Panem vivet in aeternum By these places it is evident that Christ ascribes to the Bread alone everlasting Life and Salvation of the World which is a sufficient proof that it is no imperfect Communion no Soul desiring more than that It remains then that it appears not by the Scripture that the reception of Christ under the Species of Bread only is a Defective Incompleat Communion it being visible from thence that Christ who gave the Sacrament but twice gave it in one of those two times in Bread only and the Apostles after him are found to Communicate without any mention of Wine From the Scripture I shall have recourse to Councils for my fuller satisfaction they being the most fit Interpreters of it Totus Christus continetur sub specie Panis totus sub specie Vini sub qualibet quoque parte consecratae hostiae Vini consecrati separatione facta totus est Christus says the great Council of Florence consisting of Greeks and Armenians as well as of those Bishops of the West Firmissime credendum sit nullatenus dubitandum integrum Christi Corpus Sanguinem tam sub specie Panis quam sub specie Vini veraciter contineri Consilium Constans Sess 13. Nec ullatenus ambigendum est quod non sub specie Panis Caro tantum nec sub specie Vini Sanguis tantum sed sub qualibet specie est integre totus Christus Concilium Basil Sess 30. And accordingly the Council of Trent Sess 21. says Sub alterâ tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi verissimum est tantum sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque contineri and in Sess 13. Totus enim integer Christus sub specie Panis sub quavis speciei parte totus item sub Vini specie sub ejus partibus existit The Church is very clear in expressing her Sense herein by the Mouth of these unanimous Councils declaring that in one kind is contain'd the whole Substance Essence and Parts of the Sacrament either part having Christum totum integrum secundum Divinam humanamque naturam for Bread and Wine are not the two integral parts of the Sacrament our Savior instituting the whole Sacrament both in Bread and Wine as two distinct entire matters not as integral parts thereof so the Flesh cannot be participated without the concomitance of the Blood that being not disjoyn'd from it neither can the Blood be taken apart without the Body that being contained in it neither can there be a participation of either without the Soul and Divinity by reason of the inseparable Hypostatick Union The next thing I shall consider is whether the Laity be by any Divine Precept Commanded to participate of the Cup. The Council of Trent determinates it in the Negative Sess 21. Nullo Divino Praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utrâque specie sumendum Here they likewise exempt Clericos non conficientes from that obligation which I find to be according to the Council of Basil Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem Divinarum Scripturarum Sacrorum Canonum c. they thus affirm Clerici communicantes non conficientes non adstringuntur ex Divino Praecepto ad suscipiendum sub utraque specie Sacrum Eucharistiae Sacramentum The Priest Conficient is oblig'd to the participation of both Species for as the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was perform'd by a distinct effusion of Blood so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Incruentum Sacrificium upon the Altar which is a Commemoration and Representation of that ought to be perform'd by a distinction of Symbols this being not only a Sacrament but a Commemorative Sacrifice representative of the Bloody Passion The following matter to be weigh'd is whether the Laity be injur'd or robb'd of any thing hereby The Council of Trent says no. Nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem eos defraudari qui unam speciem solum accipiunt This follows upon Christs being entire and whole in each Species as Canisius affirms Vbi Christus totus integer sumitur illic deesse non potest integer fructus efficax gratia Sacramenti tanti Laici nullâ utilitate fraudantur sive rem in Sacramento contentam Christum scilicet Deum Hominem spectas sive fructum gratiam quae Eucharistiam sumentibus ad animarum salutem donatur quaeras sed tantum hi sub alterâ accipiunt quantum sub utrâque si liceret essent specie percepturi So herein they cannot be injur'd unless you can prove the Body and Blood of Christ to be separated and that he that receives him under the form of Bread receives his Body only and of Wine his Blood only As for those of the Antient Church had they believ'd that Christ so instituted the Blessed Sacrament as that he would not have one part taken without the other and look'd on the usage of the Cup as of the Essence of the Sacrament necessary to Salvation they would not have Communicated under one Species only as it is apparent they did and the custom hereof is so antient that its Cradle and beginning cannot be defin'd It was practis'd in the time of Persecution in Domestick Communions in which the Eucharist was delivered to the Faithful under one Form to be carried home as may be prov'd out of Tertull. Lib. 2. ad Vxorem Cyprian Lib. 1. de Lapsis Ambros Orat in the Death of his Brother Satyrus It was given to Children Sick People and Travellers in one kind And that they did so in their Churches is highly probable by the Manicheans hiding and lurking amongst them who could never have found shelter and opportunity of Communicating with
Catholicks had the use of the Cup been frequent they being a sort of Hereticks who by the Principles of their Religion would not drink Wine abhorring it as a thing unlawful to be drunk as a Creature of the Devil as Fel Draconis and so superstitiously abstaining from the Chalice in detestation of which Heresie the Church Commanded Communion in both kinds not as if the other were either unlawful or imperfect but for the detection of those Hereticks pursuant to their Exclusion from Catholick Societies At that time the Bishops to crush and extirpate that Heresie highly extol'd and commended the use of the Chalice but that Error being extinct and in process of time another Heresie arising against the Essential Integrity of Christs Body under either kind as also avouching the absolute indispensable necessity of both the Church began universally to practice Communion under one kind and to confute this Error did not only declare and publish the Truth by her Decrees and Definitions but likewise by her Practice well knowing that as it was not unlawful in its self to Communicate under both sorts so it was likewise not necessary but in its own nature indifferent and so consequently determinable to one or both kinds according to the Discretion of the Church the Precinct and Line of whose Power extendeth it self to things Adiaphorous for things absolutely Commanded Man cannot forbid nor Command things absolutely forbidden This thing being thus of a middle nature was as such within the territory of the Churches Legislative Power which according to the differences of Place Time and Persons hath power to enjoyn both or command but one as the juncture of Affairs may be and the benefit of the Church may require and upon these accounts the Church may restore the Cup again having Power to dispence in this Point of Discipline according as may be most advantageous to its Peace and Unity and accordingly as a tender Mother for quietness sake she restor'd the Cup to the Bohemians and there is no question but that she would have granted it you upon that account had it been requested before your Revolt rather than see you perishing in Damnable Schism Now that the Church has this Power is acknowledged by the Council of Basil Sess 30. Ecclesia quae regitur Spiritu veritatis c. ordinare habet quomodo ipsis non conficientibus ministretur prout pro reverentia ipsius Sacramenti salute fidelium viderit expedire and accordingly the Council of Trent Sess 21. Declarat Synodus hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse ut in Sacramentorum dispensatione salvâ illorum substantia ea statueret vel mutaret quae suscipientium utilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum locorum varietate magis expedire judicaret Hence 't is that the Church varied from the first institution in reference to time which was then after Supper whereas 't is now taken fasting and before Dinner so I believe that Christ did not strictly tie us up to the first institution but left it to the discretion of the Apostles who afterward referr'd it to the Judgment of the Succeeding Church this seems to be St. Austins Sense of it Non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur ut Apostolis per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat servaret hunc locum 118 Epist ad Januarium and certainly 't is more fit that this Power should be lodg'd in the Hands of the Church than committed to the Arbitrement of Private Persons and you had better herein have acquiesced in her Determinations than in your own Elections for what have you gain'd by extorting this Cup but instead of a Cup of Salvation a baneful Potion your departure and Schism from the Church tainting your very Sacraments and poisoning the very Springs of your Holy Actions Omnia Sacramenta Christi non ad salutem sed ad judicium habentur sine charitate unitatis August Lib. 3. Con. Literas Petil. Neque sides neque Sacramenta ullis nisi persistentibus in Ecclesiae unitate sunt salutaria De Vnit Eccles Quid prodest homini vel sana fides vel sanum fortasse fidei Sacramentum ubi lethali vulnere Schismatis perempta est sanitas Charitatis De Baptismo con Donat. Lib. primo CHAP. VI. Concerning Publick Prayers in Latin and of several other Points THe Fourth Point by which you would prove the Roman Church guilty of Paternal Schism is her Publick Prayers in Latin This Point is highly opposed and fancied to be against the Word of God as contrary to the Sense of the 1 Corinth 14. which is generally brought against it and fully believ'd by your Flock tho' if rightly understood nothing to the purpose for this place do's not reprove the Practice of the Roman Church in having her Liturgy in Latin but prohibits Extemporary Prayers in Publick Meetings in an unknown Tongue according to the Inspir'd infus'd Devotion of the Speaker Here is not a Word concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Liturgy which hath set known Offices for every Day If there were it would be an admirable place for you to confute Fanaticks and to establish your Common-Prayer against Sectaries I know no reason why the Western Church should not have the liberty to make use of the Latin in her Religious Worship which is her Sacred and Learned Language and in her extent the most generally known as well as the Jews use the Hebrew or the Eastern Churches the Greek which altho' consisting of several Nations that speak Languages as much different from Greek as ours is from Latin Nay altho ' the Grecians have lost their own Language which is now no more resemblant to the Learn'd Greek than French is to Latin yet they retain their Liturgy unalter'd in the pure Language of Chrysostom not understood but by the Learned St. Hierom in his Preface in Paralip says That in those Days all those Churches were serv'd in Greek using Basil's Liturgy And Alexander Ross will tell you in his Review of Religion That the Copthies Jacobites Georgians Circassians and others to whom you will give the Right-hand of fellowship use not their vulgar Language but an unknown Tongue to the Vulgar in their Divine Service Now you must understand that it is no Position of the Catholick Church that the Publick Service should be in an unknown Tongue but it being Compos'd at first ever since the Apostles days in Latin in the Western Church the Church did not think it expedient that it should be turn'd into the Vulgar Barbarous Language of every Nation This was not Englands case alone but France Spain Germany Poland c. far'd no otherwise nay most part of the World according to St. August in his Book de verâ Religione Quotidie per orbem universum humanum genus unâ pene voce respondet sursum corda se habere ad Deum And that the Divine Service was in Africa perform'd in the Latin and not in the Punic
Language is evidently to be prov'd out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ and in his Exposition on Psal 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this it might have been begun several hundred Years past for it can be prov'd that this Nation us'd Latin in her Publick Service above Nine hundred Years ago as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae under Archibishop Cuthbert But that which gives me full satisfaction herein is that our Apostle St. Austin who made us Christians taught us to serve God in that Language and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty to serve him in Publick Liturgies not in the Common Profane Vulgar Tongue but in the most Pure Sacred Language but it seems likewise to denote Unity that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church a German if in Italy a Frenchman if in Poland an Englishman if in Spain c. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day and being in one set Language they by vertue of their Catechisms Manuals Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue where the Prayers used by the Church are found and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day have several other Books Expounding the Churches Service to the meanest capacity Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein assisting them by their private Instructions so that the Sense of the Churches Liturgy is well understood even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity But this Practice of the Church in having her Liturgy in Latin being no Article of Belief but rather a Point of Church Discipline and as such not indispensable but changable whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable you who knew 't was in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein should have fairly requested it before you made the breach and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guids It may be the Church to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humour'd you condescending to what might have seem'd most expedient for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship the Church do's not hold it as unlawful but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue as she declares in the Council of Trent The Fifth Point is St. Peters Supremacy This is I must confess an Article which all Catholicks are oblig'd to believe and because it is of high import being the Basis of Papacy I intend to Discouse of it at large and to establish it The Sixth Point c. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy This flows naturally from the Fifth Jure successionis St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction The Seventh is the Popes Infallibility to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible separated from a General Council As for his granting Indulgences to break Gods Law as you accuse him of that is a false Crime of your own hatching for we deny any thing of that Nature knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes when 't is acknowledged as an Article of Catholick Faith I shall Discourse of it in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you or that you will absolve your self of your Allegiance and herein we shall desire no more of you than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes as we did by his Royal Brother and Father Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism for this you have Three strong Reasons The First is because she renounces Communion with other Churches c. As to this I must needs tell you that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her and then falsly to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you 'T is clear enough that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her and so found guilty of Schism and Heresie The Second is Because she denounces all damn'd who submit not to her This you look on as very hard and uncharitable tho' the Church herein is not blamable but those who dis-join themselves from her and stand in opposition to her she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate this she do's out of kindness rathan severity that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition may return to her Bosom and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconcil'd to her Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition cheating their baffled expectancy of their imaginary Paradise If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia Cyprian 62 Epist ad Pomp. and St. August in his 204 Epist to Donatus says Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris The Fathers are so strict herein that they look on that Person who separates from the Catholick Church to be in a damnable state tho' he leads a Religious Devout and Vertuous Life Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus non habet vitam sed ira Dei manet super ipsum says St. Austin to Donatus the Reason is because being separated from the Catholick Church he is consequently separated from Christ who is the Head to that Mystical Body Another Reason is Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur The Third Reason may be Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat as I find it St. Aust Serm. 181. de temp He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism is Because she sends her Emissaries into the known
World c. But instead of accusing her for this had you not been of an ungrateful temper you might have taken a fair opportunity of thanking her for sending her Apostles to convert this Nation to Christianity when we lay in the impure Arms of Heathenism But why should you take offence at her sending persons to propagate the Gospel even to the Remotest and most Barbarous Countreys as long as you whilst they are in the midst of Persecutions and Martyrdoms enjoy the soft Embraces of a Wife and the affluence of United Livings CHAP. VII Concerning Protestants objecting Errors to the Church of Rome The Authors Apologie for himself His Advice to the Protestant Parson with some other Particulars HAving hitherto followed you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tracing the print of your Footsteps and in as succinct a manner as I could examin'd your Reasons to clear your Church of Schism and to derive that crime on Rome they have appear'd to me too infirm either to justifie the one or to cast the other As for your accusing her of Errors that being but suppos'd and not prov'd it imports nothing Your Proofs to evince her Doctrines erroneous must be as manifest as your Actual Schism and your Arguments to justify your Schism must not be conjectural or Probable but they must be as Ostensive and as Irresistable as that you made it Nay you must prove her guilty of Damnable Doctrines and that Salvation was not attainable in her Communion or else you can expect none out of it For to accuse the Church of Error and upon that account to depart from her is Inevitable Perdition without a return I know it was always customary with her Enemies to object unto her the want of Truth but this was done by Schismaticks as St. Austin well observ'd Hoc dicunt qui in Ecclesiâ non sunt Upon this false surmise they audaciously attempt the reforming of her Doctrines broaching new ones in opposition to them which is done to authenticate and justify their Secession This was antiently observ'd by St. Hierom. Nullum Schisma non sibi aliquam fingit Haeresim ut recte ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur First they separate and so become Schismaticks then they mint new Articles of Belief and so turn Hereticks one follows upon the Neck of the other for they never continue long disjoin'd Schism being a very fair step to Heresie and Generally a Harbinger to it Quis unquam Haereses instituit nisi qui se prius ab Ecclesiae Catholicae universitate antiquitatis consensione discreverit says Vinc. Lyrinensis I know that in this case Truth is the pretence tho' indeed it is Pride and Arrogance which makes Men give the preference to their own Private Opinions and which keeps them from submitting to the Decisions of the Church for had they really with a pure ardour affected Truth they had never gone out of her who is the Pillar of Truth out of which when once departed they must not expect a Pillar of Fire to Pilote them but foolish Fires and Spirits of Delusion to misguide them through all the Serpentine windings and Mazes of falsehood In ventre Ecclesiae veritas manet quisquis ab hoc ventre Ecclesiae fuerit separatus necesse est ut falso loquatur says St. August on Psalm 57. I am apt to believe that if you would but once disenchant your self from the Spells of your unhappy Education and with an Impartial Judgment take a serious view of the Doctrines of the Church as propos'd and explicated by her not as wrongfully represented by her Adversaries that all those little Mormo's and Spectres rais'd by an injurious description of her Articles which have hitherto frighted you would disappear and that you then would be so captivated as not to be able to resist the charms of her naked Truths The force of Education is certainly great and lays violent anticipations on the Judgment which misleads us in our Elections disposing us to reject or embrace things rather as they suit or jar with our first receptions and prepossessions than by their conformity to Truth Till these false Ideas be dislodg'd Truth can expect no Introduction but must stand excluded by Preconceptions When this difficulty is conquer'd you would do well to question the Integrity of those Authors who have wrote in defence of your New Religion who first imbued your undiscerning Minority with adulterate Tinctures and then you are to apply your self with an unprejudicate Mind to those Authors who have oppos'd them After this you must lay aside all thoughts of Secular Advantage No Sophister can be more fallacious than Interest This imposes on our yielding Temper bribes our Judgments and by secret Attractions draws us to the wrong This made Alexander so violently stand up for his Ephesian Goddess tho' a false Deity and accordingly the Pythonissa was a long time maintain'd tho' possess'd with an impure Spirit for the lucre that she acquir'd for her owners In the last place you are to divest your self of your Conceitedness and high Opinion of your self assuming Humble Thoughts Fancy not your self unfallible in your Explications of Scripture look on it as unbecoming and arrogant in you to censure the Doctrines of the Church and to oppose the Definitions of General Councils When you shall have conquered all these Impedimental Obstacles you will soon descry those Mists which have hitherto benighted your Understanding to retire then through a serene and disclouded Medium you will clearly see the verity of Catholick Doctrines and by Gods assistance implor'd embrace them Nullus pudor ad meliora transire Amb. Epist 31. But now finding you to plant your Artillery to play on me I must take some care to defend my self which I do not at all despond of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both Shields and Spears are in my Armory To guard my self and gall my Enemy First You profess your self heartily sorry that I own my self revolted from my Mother Church But your sorrow being grounded upon a mistake I beg of you to supersede it Quam pro me curam geris hanc precor optime pro me deponas for I have not forsaken the Mother Church but the Schismatical Daughter But pray how can your Church be the Mother Church which began but in Luthers days and consequently so young that she resembles an Infant rather than a grave Matron I must confess I cannot see her reckon'd either by Irenaeus amongst those Churches which he calls Maximae Antiquissimae or by Tertullian amongst those which he terms Matrices Originales whereas the Roman Church is of that Antiquity and Renown that the very Holy Ghost by the Pen of St. Paul celebrates her Faith and Fame Henry the Eighth before he had violated the pure Faith he first imbib'd in his Book against Luther will tell you which the World acknowledged for the Mother Church Negare non potest Lutherus quin omnis Ecclesia fidelium sacrosanctam sedem Romanam velut
and reconcile Differences rather than by abusive Expressions and false Representations to exasperate and widen them Think how ingenuous it would be in you who are so influential and leading to the rest of your Flock candidly to acknowledge your Errors having been convinc'd of them disabuse them of their false pre-occupations rescue them from the Chains of their Erroneous Education dispose them to a right conception of Catholick Doctrine Shed no more Cockle amongst 'em as knowing your self responsible for the pernicious Principles you infuse into them Teach them sound Catholick Verities gratifie their distempered Stomachs with no more unwholsome viands humour their prurient itching Ears with no more empty gingling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deluding their dainty Ears with the Magick of the Tongue When you have exerted your best endeavours herein you may with some ground hope for Remission from Propitious Heaven otherwise you may justly fear that those Darts which you have thrown against the Catholick Church should beat back and reverberate upon your self for as St. Basil observes in his Hom. of Envy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Darts which are flung with violence if they light on any firm and obdurate Matter recoil upon him that threw them But I shall now decline things of this nature and return you my Thanks for the long Bedroll of Authors which you have recommended to me Jewel is the First and indeed you did well to place him in the Front as being most bold and frontless after him comes Whitaker Abbot Hall White Laud Hammond c. these you desire me to peruse not questioning but by an impartial reading of them I may be reduc'd from the strangers Lap into the Bosom of my True Chast Mother I shall not go about to extenuate the Credit of these Men but shall pay a just Deference and Respect both to their Quality and Parts But I shall not so overvalue them as to grant them the Prelation to the Catholick Church Councils and Fathers nay I shall not equalize them with Cardinal Bellarmine Perròn Baronius or multitudes of others in the Roman Communion I will grant you that they have wrote as well as possibly could be in your behalf and had your Case been desensible they had maintain'd it but it was their misfortune to be engag'd in a wrong Quarrel which they presuming to be true have bent all their endeavours and distended every Nerve to support Error and obscure Truth 'T is pleasant to observe how these cunning Fencing-Masters shift their Weapons when they fight against Sectaries in defence of Episcopacy one would swear they were perfect Catholicks Brandishing Glittering Weapons drawn from the Armory of Antiquity Tradition Practice of the Church Councils and Fathers but when they grapple with Catholicks the Case is altered Then Scripture is the only Rule Councils may err and the Church Apostatize and the Fathers guilty of mistakes making use of all the shifting evading ways imaginable to avoid the dint of the Argument But as soon as I came to understand the vast difference amongst them in their Disputings with Catholicks I did conclude their Case very bad Whitaker in his Answer to Campians Reasons appeals to the first Six hundred Years after Christ which Jewel likewise did in his Ostentatious crack at St. Paul's Cross but Dr. Humphrey in the Life of him do's much reprehend him for his bold appealing to the Fathers as if he had thereby spoil'd himself and his Church in giving the Catholicks too large scope Bishop Laud being sensible of Jewels rashness lops off very fairly Two hundred Years contracting the time to a narrower compass to the Fathers of the first Four hundred Years as appears in his Forty eighth Sect. The Protestants offer says he to be try'd by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first Four hundred years and somewhat further Dr. Hammond who I conceive to be much more Learned than the two foregoing finding Bishop Laud's Four hundred Years not to hold Water abates One hundred of them in his Eighth Chapter of Schism For the particular Doctrins saith he wherein we are affirm'd 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 Doctrins and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first Three hundred Years or the Four General Councils This pruning of Antiquity and shrinking it from the Sixth to the Fourth and so to the Third Century seem'd to me the most foul and unreasonable thing imaginable for by this means most of the chief Fathers whose Works are most Copious were excluded from attesting the truth of the Churches Doctrin and very few admitted only those who had wrote little or nothing of our differences but some small Treatises Epistles and Apologies against Heathens and Exhortations to Martyrdom the Church being then under perpetual Persecutions But to answer you concerning your Catalogue of Authors I have perus'd those parts of their Works which relate to the Catholicks but they are so far from removing me out of the Strangers Lap that they have much contributed to my fixing my self there But pray what makes you call the Roman Church a Stranger don't you know that she is the Origin and Center of Unity and that all true Christians are oblig'd to Communicate with her Don't Irenaeus to whom I shall give more credit than to all your List of Authors affirm That all the Faithful are oblig'd to have recourse to this Church for its more powerful Principality Do's not St. Hierom say That he is profane who Eats the Lamb out of this House This is the place where God planted his only Altar and here is fix'd that Cathedra against which whoever erects another is as Optatus affirms Schismaticus peccator 'T is clear that St. Hierom tho' in reference to local distance he was much remote from Rome as he acknowledges in his Fifty seventh Epistle to Damasus Neque vero tanta vastitas elementi liquentis interjacens longitudo terrarum me à pretiosae margaritae potuit inquisitione prohibere yet notwithstanding this in the same Epistle he says Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior The same happy state I heartily wish you and all other Schismaticks well knowing how deplorable a thing it is to die out of that Communion I shall therefore conclude this Point with St Cyprian's Advice Ad Matrem revertimini unde prodistis The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter 's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter WHAT I have hitherto wrote may resemble a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a light Skirmish it being but Prefatory and Introductive to that main design I am at which is the Vindication of St. Peter's Supremacy a Point of so high Import being the Common Center and Origin both of Catholick Unity of Sacerdotal Dignity and Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction but withal so strangely snarl'd
the Old Testament being Imperfect Carnal Umbratick and Prefigurative of one that was Compleat Sublime and Spiritual Hence St. Chrysost Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosie of the Body but to these the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul they bring Fire but these the Holy Ghost And in his Orat. 5. adver Judaeos speaking of the Pontificate of Melchisedeck he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish how much more glorious is the true one Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs is Because by Divine appointment they were Custodes utriusque Tabulae This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversie but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it That by the frequent reading of it he might learn to fear God and keep his Statutes and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword he should defend the true Religion therein concontain'd As for the Interpretation of the Law that belong'd to the High-Priest according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam Legem requirent ex ore ejus They were as Josephus affirms in his Second Book against Appio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges of Controversies And in Deut. 17. Princes were by Gods institution to take the Copy of it from the High-Priest And in the same Chapter in doubtful Cases the Jews were oblig'd to recurr to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations Now whether the Jewish High-Priest were liable to Error as you assert is not worth my present Discussion no Catholick being bound to believe the Popes Infallibility but in Conjunction with a Council But this is clear the Jews were absolutely oblig'd to submit to his determinations under penalty of Death he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS By this you may imagin how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirm'd him Fallible and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions You see our Savior put no such fancies into their Heads but paid much respect to Moses's Chair and tho' he knew that those who sat in it were bad Men yet he says Quaecunque vobis dixerint facite And St. Paul stiles the High-Priest tho' a Persecutor of the Christians Princeps Populi CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes these you assert to be Heads of the Church and your Reason for this Assertion is this That if a King be Head of his Kingdom he is Head of the Church because that is in his Kingdom This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument to prove a Nero Head of the Church because in its Infancy it was in his Dominions But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein and acquaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom and how they may be Supreme Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus non ut Christiani sed ut homines sunt Reges non ut Christiani praesunt sed ut homines politici c. And again Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos ut Christiani sunt homines id est Cives terrenae Civitatis Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum Domestici Dei Ecclesiae membra Hence you may see that a King may be absolute in his Kingdom and yet not be Head of the Church those two Estates residing in two several Persons as being of distinct and different Natures The ones Dominion extending to Mundan Temporal Corruptible things the Body and Goods of Fortune the other reaching to things Spiritual Eternal Celestial to things appertaining to another World and Salvation of the Soul And 't is necessary to have two such distinct Governors The Civil Power to maintain Peace to protect and secure us in our Temporals The Ecclesiastick to teach us the true Worship of God to feed us with Food that perisheth not to direct us in Spirituals to the attainment of Eternal Bliss These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another or any way interfere but by way of abuse but rather assistant to one another being in themselves Friendly and Amicable Hence Samuel having anointed David King kissed him the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement and Accord betwixt these two Governments they are both Independent so as one might not usurp on the other or hinder the other in the due Execution of their Charge The Prince is absolute in Administration of all Civil Matters in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor as Tertull. has it ad Scapul or as Chrysost says in Hom. 2. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth The Priest on the other side presides in Church Government in Spiritual Affairs in Resolutions of Controversies in Faith in Explications of Articles of Belief in Interpretation of Scripture c. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale They are both of Divine Institution The Kingly Power communicated to Princes from Heaven their Charter being deriv'd from God by whom Kings Reign The Priestly Jurisdiction originated from Christ subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power Now to admit and submit to the Sacerdotal Power as Supreme in things meerly and purely Spiritual do's not at all dislustre the Regal Sway nor defringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction the former properly insinuating it self to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses where the Scepter of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion Having premis'd thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes whom you affirm to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs is not deny'd several of them being Arians but that they did it de jure will not be yielded you neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right for 't is evident that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their
Successors into the Hands of Secular Princes I shall herein be satisfied This I am sure of that it continued in their Hands above 300 Years Constantine being the first Christian King and 't is evident enough that he never attempted to rob them of it and assume it to himself and the other good Emperours would not intermeddle with Church-Affairs but by assent of the Church and to assist it Some other Emperors that were busie herein ruin'd themselves thereby and some repented of it as Constantius by name who upon his Death-bed declar'd this to be one of the three things that most disquieted him which Nazianz. mentions to be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The murder of his Relations his proclaiming the Apostate Julian Emperor his Innovation in matters of Faith But that which gives me greatest satisfaction herein is because I find the Fathers to check the Emperors when they put their Fingers into Church Matters which had been very unproper had they look'd on them as Heads of the Church Thus Athanasius Ad solit vit agentes speaking of Constantius the Emperor's usurping Power in the Church says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who is he that seeing him ruling over the lawful Bishops and presiding in Ecclesiastick Judgments will not consequently say this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel And in the same Epistle he tells the Emperor wherein his Power properly consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God has committed the Kingdom to you but he has intrusted the Affairs of the Church with us And accordingly St. Ambrose tells the Emperor upon the like occasion Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum non sacrorum ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent ad Sacerdotem Ecclesia In his Epist 33. ad Imperat. and in his Epist 32. he tells him In causâ fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare This Power of the Clergy in Ecclesiasticks is acknowledg'd by Ignatius ad Smyrn where he expresly says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Bishop Vsher thus translates Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent the words may be translated either praeter Episcopum or sine Episcopo This Priestly Power is acknowledged by the Fathers Hence 't is that Nazianz. in his Orat. 17. ascribes to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Dominion Tribunal and Principacy And in the same Orat. he affirms their Power nobler than the Secular where speaking of the Governour he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we our selves rule I will add that our Principacy is greater and more perfect And accordingly he tells the Governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law of Christ had subjected him to his Dominion and Tribunal St. Chrysoft seems to be of the same Opinion Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae Vidi Dominum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priesthood is a more venerable and greater Principacy than a Temporal Kingdom affirming that God subjected the Kings Head to the High-Priests Hands instructing us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was the greatest Prince of the two And accordingly Cyril in his 17th Catech. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this very day we see Earthly Princes govern'd by Ecclesiasticks I have not quoted any of these Authorities with an intent to decide which of these two Powers be the greatest but to prove that the Fathers did acknowledge them both as distinct and as I have declar'd both of them Absolute and Independent in their kind so I shall conclude this Point with the saying of Ignatius to that purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are now pleas'd to descend to particulars mentioning the Christian Emperors by name who de facto jure govern'd the Church The first you pick out is Constantine whom you have most falsly traduc'd by making him a Head or Governor of the Church as assuming to himself Ecclesiastick Supremacy A Crime he both abhorr'd and was wholly untainted with 'T is well known he was a great Honourer of Sylvester Pope in his days looking on him as Peters Successor Supreme Head of the Church and he was besides a great enricher no Sacrilegious Robber of it He attempted not to alter any of its Articles but embrac'd its Doctrin and ratified its Conciliary Definitions as Athanasius affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strengthening them by his Imperial Law And he was so far from acting as Head of the Church as he dar'd not to judge a Bishop as Augustin affirms in his 166 Epist Sed quia Constantinus non est ausus de causâ Episcopi judicare eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And Ruffin likewise Lib. 10. Hist Cap. 2. mentions this Answer of his to the Bishops Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos a vobis recte judicamus As for the Objection of Caecilianus I find it fully solved by Card. Perròn in his Third Book to King James Cap. 4. Besides whoever considers his behavior in the Council will not think he acted as Head of the Church For first he would not sit down till he had desired permission of the Bishops which Theodoret expresses thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having ask'd leave of the Bishops to grant it Eusebius thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Valesius thus translates Nec prius sedere sustinuit quam Episcopi id nutu significâssent Theodoret after he had mention'd the Speech he made adds this Haec similia tanquam filius amator pacis Sacerdotibus veluti Patribus offerebat Here he acted as a Son of the Church not as a Head neither did he any thing in the Council by way of defining but by assenting to its Dicisions being present there rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Decency and Order than for any thing else As for the Emperors Justinian Theodosius and Charlemain whom you likewise particularize upon the same account as you did Constantine I must acknowledge that they did make Laws concerning the Affairs of the Church but none of them made any in opposition to it or the Definitions thereof but rather agreeable to them reducing the Churches Faith and Canons for Discipline into Imperial Laws to the intent they might be more obey'd by their Subjects This is no more than what was practis'd by Jovinian who in those great differences of Opinions which were in his days desir'd of the Orthodox Bishops a Platform of the True Faith which Athanasius gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianz. calls it A Royal Gift indeed which he confirm'd by his Imperial Power But to return to the above mention'd Emperors and to see how their Examples will jump with your Case First They made Laws that the Catholick Religion should be observ'd in all their Dominions You make Laws for its subversion altering its Articles and foisting in their room new Negatives in opposition to them They made Laws in defence of the
Pope acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests You make Laws in defiance of him pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper They made Laws which were according to his Approbation the Rules and Definitions of the Church backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword You make Laws in affront to him and against the Decrees of the Church Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastick Laws nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons But that you may more be convinc'd herein I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party and see how they quadrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 131. We enact that according to their own Sanctions the most Holy Pope of Old Rome be the Prince of High-Priests And in his Decrees about Justiniana he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Justin eod Lib. 7. he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church not to be referr'd to your Holiness as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God As for Theodosius I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd as deliver'd to him by St. Peter should be observ'd enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of under penalty of being reputed Hereticks and Infamous and deservers of Punishment Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King and to speak the Truth 't is their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators not by usurping Authority over the Church depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with and appropriating it to themselves changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils and Antient Traditionary Truths handed down from Father to Son these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful for me who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home and being return'd into your own Countrey you affirm of our English Kings that Church-Affairs were both de facto jure govern'd by them This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian I have already prov'd that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power and that these two Governments are distinct and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be other limits of a Kingdom and other limits of the Priesthood but this is greater than that As for Matter of Fact I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated either by their Passion or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not appertain to them have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church and asserting a pretended Right have clashed with the Roman Bishop and medled de facto with Church-Matters but quo jure is the Question You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power unless it be allow'd of for granted That whatever a King do's is lawful Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures and disposal of Bishopricks They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy A Pope may be to blame and so may a King but neither of these Institutions as Sacred ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil Did they rob the Pope of his Power and assume Papal Jurisdiction Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs ordering Laymen Vicar Generals in Spiritualities as Cromwell was who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops as Head over them This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome did they ever part from her and all other Christian Churches besides as you did in your Reformation making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils changing Religion and altering Articles of Belief Did they pick Quarrels with the Church and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths Demolishing Religious Houses violating Sacred Orders Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh or of those brave Princes before him But I shall not proceed further on this Point we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven who well knows how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church and his own Royal Right betwixt what belongs to God and what to Caesar what to the Miter and what to the Crown A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Heathenism and Conversion to Christianity In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith for defending whereof this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title For this Prince Pietate insignis Armis no less Pious than Valiant no less Just than Good endued with all those Adorable Qualities which render him amongst Kings the most Conspicuous amongst Monarchs the most Renown'd we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God whose Lieutenant he is hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate Perjur'd Villains who have so long triumph'd over us bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him according to the Platform of Tertullian wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam Imperium securum Domum tutam Exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem Populum probum