must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors but the Flock of Christ is but one which they are to feed with unanimous consent there is but one Body of the Church one Spirit one Hope of our Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God this unity all men must endeavour to keep especially Bishops that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power but this place most plainly overthroweth it for Cyprian teacheth that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church which He settled in that beginning with one from him he proceeded to the rest not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place which he had first and that they should receive the same Commission together with him into which he was put first that they might know him to be the first of their Company for it cannot consist saith he either with truth with the opinion of St. Cyprian or of our Adversaries themselves that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter and were subject to him as to an Head and absolute Commander over them seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was and equal to him both in honour and power and besides both in this book and in many other places he is wont to derive the original of Schisms and Heresies from the intrusion of men into places without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all Well then to the places objected upon that one viz. St. Peter he builds his Church we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding The Church was built upon St. Peter but yet true it is the same thing is done upon others and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts That among the twelve one was chosen Cont. Jovin l. 2. that an head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest Answ Not as to any thing of Authority for then St. Jerome would contradict himself when he saith that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve so that his meaning is that before the Apostles were sent over the World and whilst they made up one particular company for better orders sake he was chosen Head that so things might be done communi concilio and there might be no Schism between them 2. He tells us this was given to Peter quia Petrus crat senior which being but a personal advantage cannot be applyed to the benefit of the Romanist who is to prove the Popes Supremacy and not only the Primacy of St. Peter not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms but Jovinians and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis p. 238. And for the second citation from St. Cyprian Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded cannot think that he is in the Church Lib. 12 de Oec Pont. c. 5. s 3. He might have learned from Chamier that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text and not to be found in some Editions but if it could deserve an Answer the learned Dr. Field will inform him That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in but the joynt commission unity and consent of all Pastors which is and must be such as if they did all sit in one Chair which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem Lib. ep 8 where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome but to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity others may not be admitted and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont Sect. 14 This would have perfect truthâ— in it saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192 had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles the Chair of St. John in Asia c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles which the Donatists could not pretend to see him exactly scanning the whole place p. 190 192 193. Parmen l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his particular Chair And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth viz. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatickâ— for so doing and he proves it by this Argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Châ—ir erects another Vnderstand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it We pass on to St. Chrysostome from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope but to the first I return a Non est inventus after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him * In Act. Apost c. 1.4 I can find nothing like the words produced In the second is evident prevarication for having told us that these words Follow me shewed his special care he had of St. Peter he adds How then was it may some say that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this I Answer saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is
4. c. 32. De Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Vniverse S. * l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1 Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban without a Sacrifice yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght And in St. Austins phrase the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations And of this sacrifice doth Irenaeus speak in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures not as if he wanted any thing but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my Body Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secunâ—um nos and the Câ—p likewise which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us he confessed to be his blood and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment to wit the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament of which the Prophet Malachy speaks cap. 1. vers 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people of the Jewes have ceased to offer unto God and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him Where first not to deal rigidly with him in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical or Ilastical or if Ilastical whether properly or rather metonimycally so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass or of Christs Body and Bloud the reasons are 1. From these words Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God and acceptable to him not because God wants our gift or sacrifice but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar Matt. 5.24 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother then come and offer it You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures Deut. 16.26 as Moses said Thou shalt not appear empty before God Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice not is so when to be and to be reputed are disparates But secondly the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited when thou offerest thy gift And thou shalt not appear empty before God Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here are not the Body and Blood of Christ and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world neither can that be such 3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said We offer this sacrifice to God not that he wants it but that we should not be unfruitful For that this passage must refer to Almes not to Christs Body Let Irenaeus himself assure us who in this 34. Chapter tells us that God wants not any thing of ours but yet 't is needful we offer somewhat to him for as Solomon saith Pro. 19.17 He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him that he may give us a reward of his good things for them as our Lord saith Come you blessed of my Father c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat I Mat. 24.25 and a little after he tells us that God will have these things done by us that we may not be unfruitful so that evidently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eucharist not of the Eucharist and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also Again in the same Chapter he addes The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man but the conscience of him that offers being pure doth sancâ—ifie the Sacrifice Seeing therefore with simplicity or sincerity The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God For we must offer unto God Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits and that of his Creatures and a little after we offer sanctifying the Creature Now first can it be tollerably said we sanctifie the sacrifice of Christs body and that it sanctifieth not us That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering That the Apostle in the place now cited speaks of the Body of Christ not Alms And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum munerum the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance is it not rationally inferred that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament not to any Oblation of the Sacrament well then 2. Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them and amongst the rest they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Minister of the Brethren who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor or for other uses of the Church as you may find in Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Irenaeus every where And to this it is that he here refers when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes Prayers Thanksgivings and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them But first Irenaeus doth no where say that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws but onely that they have ceased to Offer and in their places we now do 2. See this Argument shamtfully balfled in Mat. Boehart traitte du sacrifice de la Mâ—sse seconde partiè Chapitre 5. Will it hence follow that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did Doth not our service
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
to bee the Messias when none of the Rulers thereof beleived on him when Nicodemus was so twited by them for offering to speak for him yea P. 259. did they not with their President condemn him Mat. 26.57 Oh! but say they Christ was now come and their infallibility was ceased and God now permited them to be deceived Answ But was it not necessary that they should bee acquainted with the will of God for how else could the Senate be accused or the people for following their determinations when the Senate by the vertue of this promise as they interpret it must needs suppose themselves to be infallible in their judgement and the people being bound also to esteem them so must necessarily assent to their determination and had just cause to help forward his condemnation insult over crucifie and blaspheme him 2. Christ accuseth them of committing the like errour long before in killing and condemning the Prophets sent to them Mat. 21.35 36. compared with verse 45. And Stephen which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted slaying them which shewed before the coming of the just one yea our Saviour tells them they were blinde guides such as would neither go into Heaven themselves nor permit others Mat. 5. 15 23. His next Argument from Scripture is very rediculous Sect. 4 if God hath promised Gen. 49. that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor the Law giver from betwixt his feet that is that they should alwaies have a civil Government as all interpreters that ever I met withall do agree then must the Church or Ecclesiastical Government be infallible But the former is so and therefore the consequence must be good But did this Paragraph speak of the Jewish Church as undoubtedly it doth not yet what hath it of infallibility or if it would infer infailibility in some portion of the Jewish Church must that necessarily bee the Sanhedrims When Mr. C. is able to make these things good I shall hee contented to let this passe for a demonstration 3. Sect. 5 Our Author in his chapter touching the infallibility of the Roman Church produced in a Parenthesis that passage of the first Ep. c. 3. v. 16. P. 100. Tim. where the Church of Ephesus is stiled the Pillar and Ground of truth which because it was altogether impertinent in that place I have referred hither And Answ 1. With Mr. Chillingworth That it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy and the sense of the place run thus that thou mayest know how to behave thy self as a Pillar and Ground of truth in the Church of God This exposition offereth no violence to the words at all but only supposeth an Ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek very ordinary neither wants it some likelihood that St Paul comparing the Church to an house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house according as he had given other principle men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church an house to name it presently a pillar which seemeth somewhat Heterogeneous 2. The Church which St. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and that not the Roman now such you will not have to be infallible That this is the very truth is manifest from an impartial consideration of the place for the Apostle writeth to Timothy and giveth him directions that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of Ephesus and not the universal in part of which St. Paul was when he wrote this to him and consequently in a particular Church Now the same Church in which he directeth him to behave himself the Apostle calls the Pillar and Ground of truth therefore he gives this title to a particular Church 3. Mr. Chill Should wee grant you this on courtesie yet must wee put you in remembrance that many attributes are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not of necessity what the thing or person is but what it should bee Yee are the fait of the earth faith our Saviour to the Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to bee so for if it could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of being cast upon the dunghil as unsavory so the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet it may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 4. We say that this part of the verse may bee connexed with the following after this manner The Pillar and Ground of truth and without controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And that 1. Because Irenaeus seems to have read it so for in the beginning of his third book hee tells us that the Apostles had delivered to them the will of God which they before had preached in the Scripture to be the pillar and foundation of our Faith 2. Otherwise the Apostle would begin a new sentence with a conjunction copulative which is somewhat harsh 3. The Jews were wont to introduce those doctrines of their Church which were of greatest moment and consequence with such a form as this is thus Moses Aegyptius in the beginning of that great work which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks thus the foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdome is the knowledge of the first and supreme being 5. We say that if this also were allowed yet must this sentence be understood of the Church diffused which will be alwaies the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truths that being essential to her very being not of a representative Church collected in a General Council What hee adds farther that our Saviour enjoyned obedience to all the commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair cannot bee serviceable to him to prove an infallibility in the Sanhedrim For 1. How will it appear that he speaks of them considered as members of the Sanhedrim and not rather as teachers in their Synagogues in which case sure they were not infallible 2. If he plead for the infallibility of the Sanhedrim seeing he the Shilo was already come the Sanhedrim must bee held infallible after his coming which as it is contrary to Mr. C's assertion in this very place so it laies a necessity on us to acknowledge that either their decree against our Saviour was to bee believed by the Jews or that to believe in the Messiah was no fundamental But 3. This clause of yeilding obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees is to bee limited to what they taught from and according unto Moses and the Prophets For elsewhere hee puts in a cave at against the doctrine of the Pharisees Mat. 16.6 12. calls them blind guides whom to follow
then your selves And the same might easily be shewed of your other notes were it worth the while 2. You call upon us to procure you an authorized conference wherein wee may understand one anothers Churches and know one anothers essential Doctrines which haply you may procure when you can give in good security that what S. C. or any other persons appointed as Members of this conference shall affirm to bee the essential Doctrines of the Church of Rome shall be accepted as the essential Doctrines of that whole Communion and by them declared to be such and no others for unlesse this be so we may by this means understand the opinions of S. C. but not what and which onely are the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome FINIS APPENDIX TO page 65. line 37. add And whereas he tells us page 76 77. that St. Austin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council Austin Ep. 92. writing to Pope Innocent acknowledge that the Popes Authority was de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta Wee Answ The words in St. Austin run thus Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae That is saith Chamier to thy drawing forth and confirming the truth from scripture they the Hereticks will more easily submit and therefore here is no acknowledgement that the Popes Authority was derived from Scripture Add to this 2. That it is no way evident that the authority he speaks of was any authority over the whole Church of God To page 173. l 30. add Nor is this sufficiently confuted by telling us that one or two of the Fathers call it an Apostolical custome seeing it is most notorious that they very frequently afford this title to such customes and traditions as unquestionably were not derived from the Apostles Yea as St. Jerome most clearly hath it praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisquis existimat every one esteemed and consequently called the precepts of their Ancestors Apostolical traditions Haer. 75. Decreverunt Apost feria quarta prosabbatho Jejunium Ep. 86. Thus Epiphanius tells us that the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually Where as St. Austin professeth quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare quibus oporteat precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum Christ or his Apostles have not defined what daies we should fast upon And by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitive Church alledged against the Montanists De Jejunio that the Apostles imposed no yoak of standing and common fasts In the first age after the Apostles Dr. Taylors liberty of Proph. sect 5. Papias pretended hee received a tradition from the Apostles touching Christs millenary Reign on Earth which pretence was received by all or most of the Christian world in the first three hundred years and yet there was no such tradition but a mistake in Papias now if a tradition whose beginning of being called so begun with a Schollar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some ages upon the meer authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a tradition Apostolical Again St. Austin called the communicating of Infants a tradition Apostolical and yet we do not practise it because we dis-beleive the allegation But I refer you to that excellent discourse now cited for abundant evidence And whereas they call this praying for the Dead an Ecclesiastical custome this name is frequently given by them to such things as were not universally practised by the Church of Christ and therefore is no sufficient evidence that this was so Thus St. Apol. 2. cont Ruff. To. 2. p. 314 apud Da. de usu Patrum p. 207. Jerome asserts the Church of Christ to have held the immediate creation of Souls whereas Prudentius Tricassinus Episcopus tells us expresly that it was absque certa definitione relicta This and many other instances of the like nature you may finde in Dally de usu Patrum p. 206 207. To page 176. l. 4. add Yea many of the Fathers especially the most Antient dreamed of a purging fire at the day of Judgement which was to try every Soul and purge it from it's dross if it had contracted any whilest it lived on Earth this was the opinion of Lactantius Hilarie Ambrose Austin Jerome Casarius Arelatensis Eusebius Emissenus Eligius Noviomensis as you may see in Dally de paenis Satis Hum. p. 387. Yea Maldonate confesseth in Luc. 11. 35. that this was the opinion not only of Origen sed fere Antiquissimi cujusque Scriptoris Dally p. 498. and therefore if the Fathers speak of any purging fire after death it will make nothing for Purgatory unless it can bee proved that they assert moreover that the Souls of the faithful presently after their departure are carried to it To p. 183 l. 4. â—dde And should you not blush to tell us p. 116. that without all controversie all Churches who professed Christianity before the reformation do agree unanimously in the practise of praying for the dead so as to beg forgivenesse of their sins a bettering of their state which Protestants allow an asswagement of their sufferings Dr. Field's Apen Where as the p. 68. Jacobites p. 69 Armenians and p. 70. Cophti pray not for the dead at all nor can it bee evinced that the Eastern Churches pray for the asswagement of their sufferings yea Nilus in his discourse de Purgatoria tells us that the Grecians reject and anathematize this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that if any remission of sins be given to the dead that it is given by the Divine bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by inflicting punishments see Dally p. 540. As vain is your â—â—mmiseration of the condition of the members of our Church P. 117. because shee doth not offer up those prayers for the dead which from the most Antient times were offered For as Mr. Dally hath it if the omission of those prayers bee criminal this crime is common to us with you who have together with us rejected those prayers which they were wont to make in their behalf for whereas the Antients prayed for all the faithful departed you esteem this a great absurdity and will have us pray but for some onely Again you have rejected the three great grounds of praying for the dead On which the Father 's bottomed their petitions for that which was the common opinion of all the Antients Atqui veterum pro mortuis preces omnes fere ad illa tria vel placita pertinebant Dally p. 534. horum aliquid in animo babebant cum pro mortuis precabantur qui ergo ista tria unde omnis veterum profluebat pro mortuis â—ratio c. viz. that the souls of the faithful departed were kept in some secret receptacles extra Coelum your Florentine
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
therefore to the prevention of Schism t is meet they should have an Authority to bound them But now for a Metropolitan he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing out of his own Diocess in which he is a Bishop without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province though he be in order and honour the first so in like sort the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction but only a Primacy of Order and Honour there needs none over them especially with a power of Jurisdiction to prevent their Schisms so then saith Cham. De Oecum Pontis l 9. c. 14. s 12. here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike as if one should say T is convenient that there should be one Primate over Bishops but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates endued with full power of jurisdiction 3. The Fathers which are for one Bishop over Presbyters upon the account that Schism might be prevented yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end but redressed all Schism by calling Synods neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church or Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors conspiring and consenting together as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastour Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes Answ Nor is it needful for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn But if the Schism be very dangerous and betwixt Province and Province Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us not that we must run to him but that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod quam quidem donec consequamur expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei ac Christi ejus Domini nostri who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man till it can be proved and not Begged that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled will his Verdict put an end to their Schism that think him as fallible as themselves And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse till they had evidence of his infallibility or the Delegacy of his power from Christ and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope we come now to consider what he hath to return upon the Doctor And first Sect. 4 the Doctor saith he accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ Mark 10.42 43 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but so shall it not be among you Now 1. he will tell us Pag. 34. that not the affecting but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept that it is established by the Text for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief To this stale argument it hath been Answered that to argue from this Mark 10.44 Whosoever will be chief that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles is as ridiculous as from Luk. 9.48 He that is least among you the same shall be greatest to argue that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest or from Luk. 22.26 He that is Chief as he that doth serve that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest 2. He tells us that this is so evident in the next verse Ibid. that had the Doctor but rehearsed it he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture It seems the Doctor is very much to blame but let us hear the Objection which Bellarmine will lend him which is this that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation who surely had Authority yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church How then are they to imitate Christ in renouncing their Superiority did he himself do so No. Well then they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction Answ This Argument hath been answered several times by telling Bellarmine that t is true in Christ there was supream Authority as well as humility but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation thence therefore to infer that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his is as vain a Fancy as because he that Commanded them his humility thought it no roberry to be equal with God thence to infer that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer 2 Christ though he had this power yet never exercised it upon Earth but was in the form of a servant and this he propounds to their imitation 3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us The Apostles were Church rulers what inference can he make For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept If so he is more impudent then this opposition if not then is that spoken besides the purpose and without any Contradiction to the Doctor Well then What is it that is forbidden viz. Pag. 35. quoth he The exercising it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do Ambitious seeking of Authority and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage Now here he jumps with the Doctor whose words are For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Saviours precepts Now that the Pope affects this may be aâ—gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers and invading the rights of others he bandies for it and albeit he knows t is one great occasion of Schism and of the breach of the Churches peace yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it and excommunicates all who do not then which greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this Abalens in Math. quaest 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest which
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
were to do it indefinitely appears because they are sent by him to all Nations not fixt to any part of his flock Yea I demand whether when St. Paul Act. 20. gave commandment to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock over which Christ had made them overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might not have charged them in these words feed the sheep of Christ Whether seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations common to him with the rest he might not indefinitely have constituted Bishops and given them this charge or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others were not an indefinite Pastor and had not a commission of feeding Christs Sheep or Lambs which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter If therefore what was given to St. Peter was likewise conferr'd upon all the rest how can it be that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded And whereas 't is argued that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christs flock indefinitely and therefore of the Apostles seeing they are Christs Sheep may it not with equal reason be concluded that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations and every creature they were commissionated teachers of St. Peter and he ought to be subject to them as a Disciple to his Teacher Yea the argument is more forcible seeing here we have mention made of every creature whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christs Sheep De Agon Christi c. 30. Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin Cum dicitur Petro ad omnes dicitur Pasce oves meas Nor Mr. C. p. 73. 4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only no this is common to them all for when in the Gospel of St. John Jesus said to his Disciples Receive the Holy Ghost he constituted them all such as was Peter to which Testimony may be added Hieron Ambrose Cyprian Hilary Austin Theophylact Leo Euthym. Bed Anselm Hugo Lyran and the Council of Colen All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s 6. Nor Mr. C. ib. 5. From this that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision or the Gentiles who yet will not be allowed to have this external administration Ibid. And to talk of a dedication of St. Pauls office by St. Peters going to Cornelius a Proselyte when St. Paul was at Tarsus is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation Especially if it be considered that notwithstanding this St. Lib. 1. de prov Dei Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak ubi supra Chrysostom will tell us That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul nay nor equal to him That he as another Aaron was anointed Priest over the whole world That he was a Pillar of the Church more firm not only than Peter but than any stone rock or iron To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed And which is most observable that he governed the whole world as one house or one ship In which ship as St. Ambrose tells us Christ is the foundation the Father is the Pilot the Holy Spirit Proram servat and which the twelve Apostles as her bank of Oares bring into the Haven So that here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter Now then these things being so I argue thus Either in these places our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration or he did not if he did then it follows evidently that he gave the same power to the Apostles also seeing what he gave to St. Peter we have proved he gave to them if not then let them tell us where Christ gave this power to St. Peter and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it 2. It is manifest 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter for he saith have not I chosen you twelve Joh. 6.70 Joh. 20.21 as my Father sent me so send I you 2. It is manifest that Christ gave supream jurisdiction to the whole company of Apostles and this your Bellarmine confesseth De Pontis l. 4. c. 23. yea that he gave them all power whether external or internal yea he proves it too 1. Because he saith as my Father sent me so send I you whosesoever sins ye remit c. But now saith he Christ without all controversie was sent with full and absolute power and therefore his Apostles must be so and this Exposition or Argument from the place he backs with the Fathers and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like 2. In locum He proves it hence that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church doth it thus first Apostles secondarily Teachers thirdly Prophets c. And this he doth when his design is to shew that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest and having done so puts the question Are all Apostles can they all plead to equal power with them Now had there been one supream over the Apostles why doth he say in general first Apostles when 't is his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church why doth he leave out the chief Certainly if the Apostles were all first Chilling to me it is very probable that no one was before the other for by first all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sence the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest or if you say that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors but St. Peter first of all then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles and therefore they must be first in the other sence and therefore no man and therefore not St. Peter must be before them Bellarmine elsewhere saith that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church but of those that were indowed with extraordinary gifts and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter But 1. What doth he think of Teachers were they extraordinary persons 2. If this be the reason why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11 where we have Pastors Evangelists Prophets Apostles without any distinction set over us till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men 3. He proves it because they had commission from Christ to go
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
thereunto Ib s 5. Secondly He tells us this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils and this is the reason why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General because all the Patriarchs were not there however saith Balsamon In Com. ad Synod Constant 1. ad finem the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council because the other Patriarchs were not there yet it is greater than all other Synods and the Archbishop of that See was stiled Universal Patriarch For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered that he would so as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril who would not vouchsafe to stay for him that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril S. 7 and excommunicated him And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy who came somewhat tardy gave thanks to God at his coming because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council and made it most compleat Nay they were not only called to General Councils but the custom was for honours sake to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed So at the Council of Ephesus they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes Id. s 10. and seeing they came not took this ensuing resolution Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes and thus much for that Argument He comes now to add a few examples more viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople P 58. s 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s 69. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Marcellus Primate of Ancyra and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza the Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain restored to every one of them their own Church and he adds further that he commanded them who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give an account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunished if they would not cease from innovating all this he did saith Theodoret not by usurping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church Now to this we answer Lib. 4. c. 4. s 10. in the words of the same Author who replies to Bellarmin that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him For 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope for that was not then in use He saith indeed that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops which were in the East fled to Rome as to an Haven of refuge that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed received them into Communion restored them to their Churches and writ to the Eastern Bishops whom he rebuked for deposing them but we must alwaies remember that they were Arrians and Persecutors and that the Controversie was not between party and party If Bellarmine deny it or if he answer that he must look here only to the form of proceeding which was ordinary we will take him at his word and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author who saith that these Bishops so soon as they had received these letters fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats and confessed as he said that the Church of Rome was the principal as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there came first out of the East but they were displeased that he should think they were inferior to himself because his Church was of greater lustre though they excelled him in Virtue and Sanctity of life they objected also against him as a crime that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him as if it were by a Council so that what he did was by way of Usurpation and not by Right and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus That Athanasius foreseeing what designs were on foot against him fled to Rome to Pope Julius and those that were Eusebians sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard and put in his plea for himself bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations and shew that their proceedings were just and equal and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the deciding of the Case at which Athanasius was ready to appear but these lyars would not In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church that he required evidence of the fact before he renounc't his Communion but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances which we meet with in Sozomen much less say that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them and so much for that instance Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him for this was common to him not only with other Patriarchs but other Bishops as the Fathers everywhere speak I will cite Origen for them all who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah saith He that is call'd to a Bishoprick is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat which made him Prime in order of the Bishops Again Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed affirming that according to the ancient custome the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman whereupon the whole Council
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
convince their private reasons the use of which we allow them but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them Now is it all one to say you must believe this because the Church which is infallible asserts it as you to us and you must do this because the Church hath enjoyned it and therefore not being unlawful ought for peace sake to be submitted to as we to them keep your weapons to your selves we can fight and conquer without them In the next place Sect. 8 when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason Mr. C. s 6. and the primitive Church this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Churches usurpations when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench they signifie no more there then do the Russian Emperours poor Senators at the solemn audience of forreign Ambassadours that sit only to make a shew The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scripture and Reason c. when they give them the name and title of judges and yet deny them the office of judges and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supream rule and guide for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees and not their decrees to Scripture and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit then their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule for that is the rule to which other things are reduced if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture which is Scripture it self then are they the supream standard and rule of faith and the sole judges of it As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws would be both judge and law too Thus when the Norman Conquerour promised the English that he would govern them by their own Laws yet if he did as some say he did take an absolute power of interpreting them and allow them to say only what he pleased could he be thought to satisfie his promise might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny and not the laws ruled them because he ruled them after the same manner as he would if there had been no such laws and so the laws were made useless as if they had never been laws Thus the Romanists may tell us that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it and put what sense upon it they please and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture it self they need no more to shut out Scripture and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith it s nothing for them to comply with Scripture when they have forced that to comply with them After the same manner Councils and Fathers and all their venerable Antiquity which they pretend so much to reverence must truckle to their present Church for they will allow us to receive them no further then they agree with their own Decrees seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees so that Scriptures Fathers Councils and all must bend to their wills and can give no other judgement then the Church of Rome will permit if we must as they contend that we ought receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome T is a pretty device first to rule the rule and then to be ruled by it When therefore they talke of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny their hypocrisie is so transparent through all its disguises that we cannot but discern it unless we were as blind as they would have us and lastly as for our private reasons Mr. C. will call them guides too strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious but to avoid the danger of that it must with humility follow the Church a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by another if the Church can command our reasons then must they necessarily cease to be guides and blindly follow her whithersoever she leads I wish they would make their Church but such a guide and then we should soon agree in this point If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter then what must all Romanists be for nothing is more plain then that what is wholly guided by another is not it self a guide otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church they cannot be your guides and then in your own opinions what difference between a Catholik and his Asse Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods Sect. 9 I may combate his great arguments so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions for his Churches infallibility and our meek submission to it but before I cope with them singly it s not impertinent to undermine an Hypothesis on which they seem partly to stand which stratagem might do me some service did I want it that is if his arguments were as strong as they are weak and that is this He through the whole Chapter slily supposes and sometimes asserts a necessity of an infallible judge as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain and controversies endless 1. But he should first prove that God hath appointed an infallible judge and therefore its necessary there should be one and not conclude that he hath appointed one because he conceives a necessity of it I could name an hundred priviledges that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly beneficial to the Church which yet God never granted to it and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conveniency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven and decide our controversies then why may we not conclude that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible Is it not more conducive to these ends that every Bishop should be infallible more still that every Preacher and more yet that every individual Christian would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven to expound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture might not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary might not God if he had pleased have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture that there should be no need of an infallible interpreter to make it plainer but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual existence the conclusion would confute the Premises 2. The plea for an infallible guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to heaven is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way which we cannot miss unless we will so that he
perhaps tell you that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the end of the world refers to the end of the Jewish state and so signifies only the end of that age as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time Now if this sense be taken as no reason but it may then did this promise dye with the Apostles and so could not be entaild on their successours But because I will not be too rigid with him it shall be The end of the world 2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world ergo the Roman Church is infallible Well leapt Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation were you not first resolved to be infallible and then catch at any thing to prove it For here is not one syllable of infallibility and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that I will be with you to the end of the world that is say you I will secure you from all errour and why not as well I will exempt you from all sin or from all persecutions are not these as express in the promise as infallibility and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin and not lyable to any persecutions Again could not Christ be with them unless he endowed them with infallibility Is there no other way for him to be with his servants unless by inspiring them with that Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church and must all Christians be therefore infallible If in a word wherever Christ is present by his spirit there is no errour then is every individual Christian infallible and then what need of any other infallible guide but if where Christ is present by his spirit there may be errour then how gross is the inference that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit that therefore he exempts it from all errour 3. This argument fights alike for every cause and may be listed for the service of all pretenders What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility would it not serve our turns as much as yours What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves how would you answer them Is not this consequence Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world ergo The Greek Church is infallible as good as yours that because our Saviour hath made such a promise ergo the Roman Church is infallible What disparity can you give unless you first suppose what 's to be proved And then what answer you would give to them the same give to your selves Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus Christ hath promised that when two or three of them meet together in his name he will be in the midst of them surely to direct them therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only Ans This Argument is far more frivolous if that can be then the former Is Infallibility promised here or is it not if not then this Text is nothing to the purpose if it be then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible and then what need of General Councils seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies Mr. C. must own this inference if his own is good seeing therefore this is false his can not be true 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth as the Canons of the Trent Council Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines how would you Answer him fancy what Reply you please and that 's the very same we give you How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know Answ Now he seems to misgive and a little to mince the matter that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert what need of his running to that either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things or not if the latter then he either gives up the cause or beats beside the Question but if the former then let him speak out and let us see how sound his proof is Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible and therefore sets down no particular Text as he is wont to do in his other proofs Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles That he would send them his Spirit that should guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and shew them things to come which we find fulfilled Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles or if to any why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks the Abassines the Georgians c Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you that is as strong for your adversaries as for your selves Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they A. But the mischief of it is that this is the very thing to be proved Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future and though she did the event would soon confute her infallibility and therefore this promise belongs not to her It s a pretty inference that because the Apostles were infallible that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so But prettier still that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised that against his Church built upon St. Peter the gates of hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie Answ As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings he must now be impertinent too what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies which we grant his task if to the purpose is to prove That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true
Church doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem but now you say t is poisoned and destroyed by Heresie If then this promise was made to no particular Church why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church Before you use this Argument to any purpose first prove yours to be the Universal Church but of this you presume it s a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted Ar. 5. He hath commanded that whoever shall not obey his Church Sect. 15 shall be cut off from his body as an Heathen and a Publican therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith Answ 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers it will be superfluous to Criticize in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by not applying it to any established Christian Government when it may be and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews by others to any multitude by agreement convened as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.20 and then what 's all this to the Churches Authority but let this go 2. What 's this to Infallibility will he infer that particular Churches are infallible because their Decisions must be submitted to if he will then he proves what himself will deny and constitutes us infallible Judges at home without recourse to Oecumenical Councils but if he doth not then how enormous is his deduction because the Decisions of particular Churches which are granted to be fallible must be obeyed therefore the Church of Rome is infallible 3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees are they infallible too children are commanded Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things are all Fathers too therefore infallible we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes cannot they err neither and is not the inference as concluding We are bound to obey Parents and Governours ergo they are infallible as because we are bound to obey the Church therefore that is infallible 4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren but doth it follow that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels that it may be Judge of our faith too if it do we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize without going to Rome its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man 5. The Greek Church saith she is the true Church and you are Hereticks but to your selves you are the true Church and she is Heretical How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you if they tell me as you do that unless I obey the Church that is their Church I cease to be a Christian how shall I answer them if you can teach me you will but teach me how to answer you Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity which is an unappealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to preserve unity without an infallible Authority as you have with it We believe the Churches unity yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith and an agreement in the essentials of Religion we are all but one in Christianity and so one Church But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions as you would perswade us we must believe against experience for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own which would be a most uncharitable presumption we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith And if there were no Church without it then your selves must be unchurched seeing you cannot deny but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves even about the very means to preserve unity Urge us not then with this Argument any more till you can prove that we believe any other unity in the Church beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith and that you are any more then so one among your selves Now let all that 's rational judge whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine when you can exhibite no better Credentials for it then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks and so your selves who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven to be most notorious cheats and impostors By these Answers Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more I hope t is clear that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Churches infallibility Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth viz. That all these promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church Governours I say disingenuously For 1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chillingworth only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown For 2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is that suppose God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture would it follow thence that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture not only sufficiently but irresistibly he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night and a pillar of cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance is he not free from his promise and yet you in an errour too do not call this a shift but shew that it is so 3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift read and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the
to what these testimonies seem to speak nor doth he there say as our Author cites him Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants indeed one of the places tels us that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme and consequently if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio he will not be obnoxious to any thing agreeable to which is the place cited from venerable Bede but hence we can only infer that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with through the mercy of God but yet 't is evident he held they had a right to the Sacrament and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. he cites cap. 22. From an Antient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme and the body and blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them Now if this opinion which St. Austine saith was so deeply setled in the See Austin ep 95. De usu Patrum p. 263 264. Church of God and which was held by Innocent the first by St. Cyprian and others as Dally may inform you be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils Anathema upon those who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem let any reasonable man judge CHAP. X. The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquitie Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered Sect. 6. Of Tertullian Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian Sect. 8. St. Chrysostome Sect. 9. Eusebius Sect. 10. Epiphanius Sect. 11. An evasion confuted Sect. 12. St. Ambrose Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory Sect. 16 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered S. 18 19. IN this Chapter our Author tells us Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further Sect. 4. 5. 111 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord and also another which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin Now saith he if it can be demonstrated That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead it unavoydably follows that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hell and if so where are they Dr. Pierce speak like an honest man Sect. 1 Answer This is a shrewd Argument which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty or his Cause But sure the Case is not so desperate For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which yet is an evident untruth and were these Prayers used from the beginning and that through the Universal Church of God which cannot be proved yet would I defie his Conclusion and his Argument to infer it For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven then is there not one Saint one Martyr nay not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ Sess 9. De invocatione Sanctorum and then farewel the Council of Trent which talks of Saints reigning with Christ aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not from righteous Abel to that very day that they might rest in the Region of the living in the Kingdome of God in the delights of Paradise in the bosome of Abraham Isaac and Jacob And yet will our Authour say That there is not one of these souls in Heaven And so for the absolving of their sins which is his second instance The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that had gone before them for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Mansions worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance and prayes God to pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God in the hope of the Resurrection and Eternal Life Dall de Satisfact page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins Confes l. 9 c. 13 I know O Lord saith he That she was merciful and from her heart forgave her Debtors Do thou therefore forgive her debts if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme for so many years Forgive her Lord forgive her I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her And so on and yet the same Austin tells us what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome there his Mother is ibi vivit nam quis alius tali animae locus for what other place was fitting for her Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall ubi supra pag. 520. Now then is Abrahams bosome Purgatory Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory or if not is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory Sect. 4 2. We shall tell him in the sequel of the Chapter That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself partly upon other things which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers why then may it not be Heaven for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers as the Fathers generally affirm 2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers and the holy Councils hath taught us that there is a Purgatory and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed held and every where preached Now
I ask whether the Scriptures Thus Bellarmine lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory appears from these words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3. He shall c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire and this he puts among the thing in which all agree upon which especially they build their Purgatory be not such as these They shall be saved yet so as by fire some sins are forgiven in this world some in the world to come And as for the Tradition of the Fathers is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins Well then if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented or something analogous thereunto 2. It must needs follow that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins 3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit that Purgatory is a place under the Earth in the lower regions of it wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings and in their Sermons ad populum And being so I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of If it be not then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught And if so either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge and so they live continually in a wilful sin or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church and then must our Author say that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops If it be then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Again are these things tending to Edification or not if not then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught contrary to the Council If they be then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of Again De Puigatorio Their Bellarmine will tell us l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned and prove it from the second of the Acts solutis doloribus inferni the pains of Hell being loosed which Saint Augustine saith he understands of Purgatory and that hence it is that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell and the deep Lake Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni de profundo lacu Yea secondly He will tell you from the venerable Beda That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell And thirdly that omnes fere Theologi almost all their Divines assert that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place and tormented with the same fire as the damned are Well then first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal de profundo lacu then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held Sess ult doc de Purg. Again I suppose your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it That if true penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission by fruits of repentance their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ or his Saints to the dead So then out of these things so deduced we have all that usually we charge you with First That there are some sins venial such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment Secondly That you hold that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it This is clear from the Council of Florence and these two Bellarmine joyns together De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins which are the hay and stubble mentioned 1 Cor. 3. and again for those that depart with the guilt of punishment the fault being formerly remitted Thirdly That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory to satisfie for these venial sins or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned Fourthly That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer however they may differ for Degree and Space Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead Sect. 5 And first whereas you say De Satisfac page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them here Dally telling you That of the custome of praying for the Dead Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age do make no mention so that it is credible it came in after that Age for Causes we shall hereafter mention Sect. 6 But to pass on to your proofs p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite by Confession of Protestants lived within the second Century after the Apostles when as even Bishop Forbs upon the Question tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century and it is clear that he speaks of Monks which had no being till the third Century of Temples and Altars which Origen and Arnobius who flourished in the third Century have told us the Christians never had And therefore whereas he sayes that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles his Divine Teachers this lye can sure avail you nothing but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand But as he is
is the body which we worship Saint Austine will tell us presently no for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus You eat not the body which you see I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer but onely to note that our Adversary hath added it to worship determining the object which Saint Austine did not and by the same reason saith the Lord Du Plessis may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words Lib. de trans towards the end If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain formes consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand That which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burn'd that was subject to the injury of rats and mice of worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought as they have at Rome in these last ages might not they have said why might not we as well as you Do not you worship that with divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the oven first hardens And then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell then the silver and gold upon our images Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons by way of Triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us But did not the Jesuites carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances In vain it would have been to have replyed Yea but ours is the true God and yours the false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument In the mean time all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you upon this account since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and Illusion and need no particular consideration Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did I answer But were not there wise and subtle Apostates such as Julian such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause Doth not Saint Paul tell us that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth 2 Tim. 1.15 And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this when as Avicenna presently cries out Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis CHAP. XII The State of the Question Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea Sect. 5. Nor lastly from communions sent to other provinces Sect. 6. Christs institution respected Laicks as well as Priests Sect. 7 8. An evasion obviated Sect. 9. Further evidence of the Laicks interest in the Cup and a farther evasion obviated Sect. 10. Christs Institution a Command Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance Sect. 13 14. Three Arguments against it Sect. 16 17 18. The vain pretences alledged for this half communion Sect. 19. Vpon what conditions a dispensation may be granted Sect. 20. THe State of this Question is not Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion Albeit that be very true but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people or Priests non-Conficients capable of it in both kinds be not necessary necessitate praecepti or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour or in a word whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ If so then farewel Trent Council Now this we assert to be so our Author on the contrary will make it good that the Fathers thought the contrary and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience Ibid. whether if he should side with us in it he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty And first he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone Ibid. and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions To which we Answer P. 184. First in the words of Doctor Featly That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds and not in one as the Romanist here pleadeth And this is proved from Justin Martyr who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church saith thus Of the things that be consecrated viz. the Bread Water and Wine they give a part to every
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
are they not Earth and taken out of the Earth But as for me I have learned to tread upon the Earth not worship it So Saint Augustin saith they are worse then bruit beasts Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum and if you are asham'd to worship the one you may be asham'd to worship the other So Origen we do not venerate Images with many other like places In Consul lit de Imag. which made Cassander cry out How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione from all veneration of Images one Origen declares Cruces saith Mintius Felix nec Colimus nec optamus and there we find it objected to them cur nulla nota simulachra habetis Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these Images appear not not as if they had any kept secretly but as * Dallie puts it beyond dispute because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images and terrene figments God hath made thee straight and when other animals are made prona ad terram depressa thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven thither look thither direct thy eyes not to Images seek God above The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was there should be no Images in the Church * De Imag. Ep. ad Demetr Lib. 2. cap. 19. Lactantius tells us there can be no Religion where there is an Image Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Idea's and divers Figures of Images Yea Ambr. de sugâ secul c. 5. this was so notorious to the very Heathens that when Adrian commanded that Temples should be made in all places without Images they presently conceived they were for Christians Lamprid. in vit Alexandri Severi What should I say Orig. in Cels l. 2. p. 373. there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you Nay you can scarce find out any excuse which they have not prevented with their contradiction 1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your memories the Objects they represent Orig. tells us If we be not out of our wits we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Images and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby In Ps 113. Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is borrowed from the Heathens who use to say I neither worship the very Image nor the Devil but by corporcal representation I look upon the sign of that which I ought to worship Dissert 38. And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent That in procuring them you do like lovers who willingly behold the Images of those they love that so their memory may be stir'd up in them 2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tels us we help our selves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Common people In Ps 113. But Saint Augustine saith they are very dangerous especially to them for who is it that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps Have this in your memories beloved Children not to bring Images into the Church nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints no not into any ordinary House but alwayes carry about the rememberance of God in your hearts Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros Tom. 1. oper Hier. Ep. 60. for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried about in suspence by his Eyes and the wandering of his mind He will tell you that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture Give charge against it He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant An. Dom. 754. Eus Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra and tear such a one though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour Amphilochius will adde we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables because we have no need of such things but by virtue to imitate their conversations Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custome from the Heathens And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence who tells you that the use of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoniam tenuitatis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was the cause of it You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it Sect. 11. They say that God and Religion forbid it And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder and the Jews abhorred it had they razed out their natural principles You say that we call this Honour given to him worship sect 9 to make you odious Ans 2. Council of Nice by them General Sâ—e the places in Dally de Imag. Cat. Rom. par 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Colantur licet illis cultum adhibere In 3. par Th. quaest 24. Art 3. Orthodox Consul par 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest 25. Art 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr ib. p. 796. Hath not a General Council call'd it so an hundred times do not almost all your writers call it so Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped and that it is lawful to worship them and that it hath still been done to the great good of the faithfull Doth not Cajetan tell us that they are painted that they may be worshipped ut adorentur as the frequent use of the Church doth testifie And Boverius that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church imagines piâ religione colendas esse will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you that albeit you speak warily in this matter yet the very truth is that the faithful in the Church do adore not only coram imagine sed imaginem Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better that you must downright and absolutely say that images are to be worshipped in Churches and out of Churches and that the contrary is heretical And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so Yea and Arriaga for a close will tell you Haeretici negant non Exemplarium venerationem and what you plead for he does not think any Heretick so simple as to deny I might here adde half an hundred of your Authors who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar but I let that pass for haply I may have another opportunity to acquaint you with them I shall conclude with the Roman
yet is it a more cogent Argument they being men so notorious for the abuse of the Scripture as never were the like What brought up their Phylacteries but an abuse of the place fore-cited What caused their obstinacy against the Gospel but the mis-interpretation of the Law And a supposition falsely deduced from Texts that it was eternal How much of this may any body see in Buxtorf Selden Lightfoot and others that concern themselves in these matters Our Saviour pardon the expression was either not so wise as to know this was the way to make them worse or else so malicious as to set them in that way which would be so pernicious to them Origen as great a Scholar as he was Hom. 2. in Esai knew not the danger we are now acquainted with when he so vehemently cries out De Baptismo l. 2. cap. 4. In cap. tertium ad Colos I would to God we could all do what is written viz. search the Scriptures Nor Saint Basil when he requires the same duty from us Nor did Saint Chrysostome consider this when he so passionately called upon the people O all ye secular men get you Bibles the physick of the Souls else sure he would have bid them throw them away as the poyson of the Soul but the good Father had not learn'd to blaspheme the Scripture Yea even Saint Paul himself was ignorant of this Divinity so necessary to prevent the murther of Kings the dissolution of Governments the Schismes and Ruptures of the Church the swarmes of Heresies that fly about if we may believe this Advocate of the Church of Rome For this is the Encomium that he gives to Timoth 2.3 That from a youth he had learned the Scriptures and makes it a part of nobility in the Beâ—eans that they compared his Doctrine with the Word of God brought it to this touch stone to see if it could abide the proof And lastly writing to the Corinthians assures them 2 Ep. 1.13 that the matter of his Epistle was no other then what they read and did acknowledge But let our Confuter proceed p. 167. he tells us Sect. 9 That Catholicks knowing how impossible it is for ignorant persons to understand it and for passionate minds to make good use of it think it more conducing to Edification that such easily misled Souls should be taught their duties rather by plain Catechismes and inst ructions prudently and with all clearness gathered out of Scripture Answ Be it so but let them not perswade us to think that the one must exclude the other when we protest against them still for doing so let them not be angry if we with our blessed Saviour and his Apostles think both expedient and very much conducing to Edification if we adhere in this to the Primitive Church and among other instructions exhort them diligently to read the Scripture Nor do we think any person so ignorant that can read as not to know the Essentials of his Christianity and to find things plain and easie which will suffice for his Salvation Nor is it therefore fit to be restrain'd because we have some of passionate minds which whilest such are not like to make good use of the Word of God no more then they are to be hindred from a good Sermon Catechisme or other means of instruction because whilst such they are not like to make good use of them or to be deprived of their goods because they are apt to abuse the creature But rather they are to read the Scripture that they may learn thereby to lay aside their passion 'T is true Sect. 10 what he tells us Sect. 6. That the abuse of Scripture by ignorant and passionate Laicks is not so certain and probable to follow in the Catholick Church where men are bred up in a belief of that most necessary duty of submission even of their minds to her authority for the delivery of the onely true sence of Scripture whereas in our Church no person can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by us can challenge an internal assent or that it may not with sin be contradicted But then we say First If this be so how can you plead the danger of your peoples erring as a pretence to restrain Scripture when as this would more confirm them they being bred up in a belief that what sence you put upon Scripture is the mind of God What an evident contradiction therefore is there in these two pretences Secondly We dare not thus Lord it over the Consciences of men as not thinking we have any such assistance of the Scripture as will guide us infallibly into the true sence of Scripture and therefore supposing our selves fallible we do not bind our people to an internal assent unto our interpretations upon our sole authority lest we should bind them to believe an Errour Glad would we be to find the Roman Church indued with this infallibility how fast would we nestle into her bosome were it so But we know that challenge is vain and idle Yet seeing they pretend thus much is it not a wonder that this Church which hath authority given her to deliver the true sence of the Scripture should never do it To what end I pray you hath God given it but that your people should have the benefit thereof Why then are parties at so great a variance among you about the true sence of Scripture and your Church still neglects the exercise of its authority in putting an end to those strifes by her declaration of it But speak your Conscience do you not know or fear that this would be a most convincing Argument against that infallibility you so much boast of When we should make it appear as no doubt we could that some of your interpretations were false and contrray to the infallible Rule of Scripture Thirdly Therefore albeit we do not require of our people that they should assent to such an interpretation of Scripture because that we who interpret it are guided by an infallible Spirit yet do we say that the people ought to receive the interpretation of doubtful places from the Pastors God hath placed over them not contradicting them without evident reason but submiting to them that when they are by some passage of Scripture induced to think otherwise they ought not presently to condemn the Church of Errours but reflect upon their own weakness and seek for better information from men of Learning and Judgement and acquiesce in it unlesse they can evidently shew that they err in their interpretation And indeed I could never perswade my self that the vulgar Jews were bound to accept all those false and corrupt interpretations which the Scribes and Pharisees put upon Scripture And indeed had they been so obliged then might they have refused to give maintenance either to Father or Mother by telling them that it was Corban by which they should be relieved yea then they were bound to believe that our Saviour Christ was not
the most publick service should be in the most publick tongue but Latine is the most publick tongue in Europe But 1. This Sophisme will turn our Sermons into Latine which yet the Romanists notwithstanding their other impudent oppositions to the word of God have not asserted Secondly What reason can any mortall man imagine why the service of God should be celebrated in that Language which is most publick in Europe rather then in Asia Thirdly How blind were the primitive Churches which could not see so great a fitnes in this way of worship Cont. Cels l. 8. singuli precentur propria lingua Just novel 123 Ed. Haloandri for amongst them as Origen tells us every one prayed in his own tongue and Justinian commanded all Bishops and Presbyters to celebrate holy prayers and mysteries clara vernaculâ voce so that the vulgar might understand telling them out of the Apostle to what little putpose it was to do it otherwise and that they should not only be accountable for it at the day of judgement but punished by him also upon transgression of this command Fourthly We deny that the Latine tongue is the most publick in Europe or that there is any fitness that the Service of God should be celebrated in all Europe in that Language which is most publick And what if the Latine tongue be understood which yet is not always true by those that frequently recite the prayers Sect. 18 even as the unknown tongue which S. Paul so vehemently cryed down was understood by him that spake it what if that were a truth which you so crudely suggest p. 175. that a great part of the service was composed for the Clergies proper use when as the thing you are blamed for is that in the publick service which concerns the common people and according to the Apostles Doctrine ought to be done so as that they may understand it and be edified thereby is lock'd up by you in a tongue unknown Again why do you marry in the Latine tongue is that proper to your Clergy Your last evasion is Sect. 19. Ib. 6. that by this means viz. the keeping of your service in the Latine tongue your Doctrine is kept from being innovated whereas by the change of other Languages the Doctrine would lie under a danger of being changed Liturgyes preserved the same in the Latine tongue must ever and anon be altered and infinite expences be laid out in Printing them Ans Is not this a shrew'd sign of a sinking cause to lay hold upon such bul-rushes as these to catch at such vain and empty shadows what is it better that the poor people should want the bread of life the comfort and edification of the Churches service then buy a Common Prayer Book once in 20 or perhaps an 100 years Is there any danger of being undone by such a contribution of the parish that in an age will rob each family of a single peny should these infallible keepers of the truth of God fear the loss of their Religion upon the change of a word or 2. In the Chruches Liturgy what new Doctrine hath been broached by having our Liturgy in the vulgar tongue what great need have we had of new translations or what danger have we found by turning Paul the knave of Jesus Christ into the servant of Jesus Christ how did the Syriack Greek c. corrupt in the time of the Antient Fathers who yet did never complain of these inconveniences or think them sufficient to make use of the Latine tongue in their publick service these objections are so absurd as that nothing can make them more ridiculous For a close he tells us that Popes have granted p. 177. that the service of God should be celebrated in that maner which we contend for one of them having been induced to it by a miracle Sect. 20 A. And is it not wonderful that they should dare to contradict a miracle and when upon their consultation touching this matter God answered from heaven let every tongue confess unto me should say not so only the Latine tongue shall do it Farther he saith Sect. 21 that haply an indulgence may be granted Ans Very good but till then let them not blame us for not communicating with them seeing we continually proclaim that we are ready to communicate with them when ever we can procure a dispensation from these and the like enormities yea let them acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath erred by introducing this service into the Church hath contradicted the verdict of the infallible word of God which that it is the very truth we come now to demonstrate from that place of 1 Cor. 14. mistaken if we may believe him by the Doctor Now to pass over those arguments which with sufficient evidence may be drawn from the 11 first verses of this Chapter in the 12 vers Sect. 22 the Apostle thus exhorts these emulators of the gift of tongues that seeing they so importunately desired to abound in gifts they would do it to the edification of the Church endeavouring to excel in that which tends unto this noble end Now what was that the Apostle Ans The interpreting of tongues that the people may know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the import of the voice wherefore seeing we ought with greatest vigor to pursue those things that make most for the edification of the Church he that speaketh with an unknown tongue let him pray that he may interpret where two things may be inquired 1. To what part of service that verse refers Ans Prayer As is evident from the reason given vers 14. Let him pray that he may interpret for if I pray in an unknown tongue c. Secondly Why must he pray that he may interpret Ans That the Church may receive edification vers 5. Yea this is farther evident from the series of the words vers 12. seek that you may excell to the edification of the Church wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret as also from the Apostles precept that all things should be done to edification and consequently prayer Now hence I argue That which is requisite that we may excell to the edification of the Church we ought to practise in our publick prayers for as much as the Apostle bids us seek to excell in this matter to the edification of the Church but praying in a tongue known to the people which joyn in service with us is requisite to this and this being the end of our praying that we may interpret therefore we ought to practise it Our Authour here tells us that the Trent Council observes the mind of the Apostle in that she hath commanded all Pastors during the Celebration of the Mass to expound some part of what is read An Answer worthy such a cause For 1. Was it ever heard before that expounding perhaps an Epistle or Gospel or something else which to be sure is not a
prayer should be interpreting the Churches Prayer or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read 2. Doth the Apostle require that onely some part of the Prayer should be interpreted is there not equall reason for the whole especially when he adds let all be done for edification 3. Were this done frequently yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected though more rarely His 2 Ans I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. It follows Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays that is v. 14. the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me thus Chrysostome Theodoret Photius I know the Rhemists by Spirit understand affections and make the sence run thus in this case my heart and affections pray albeit I understand not what I say But were this the truth that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself Then 1. We must acknowledge that when the Apostles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues they understood not what they said which will not easily be granted Secondly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Chapter ordinarily imports the gift of tongues and therefore most probably it doth so here Thirdly The Fathers generally do thus interpret it besides the three already cited Saint Hierom Basil Oecumenius are clearly for this sence and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it But 4. The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us he that speaks with tongues edifies himself vers 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edifie vers 15 16. Fiftly In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit we should adde praying with the Understanding also so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit yet must you pray so also as to be understood well then our Exposition must take place It follows but my mind is unfruitful that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer viz. because although our spiritual gift perform it's work the mind becomes unfruitfull now here by mind some understand the Intellect some as the Reverend Bishop Morton the matter of the prayer which is the effect of the mind and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of Gods Church c. But this is not material in our dispute this mind is said to be unfruitful not to our selves as the foregoing arguments evince but to the hearer thus Saint Jerome mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti In loeum and Saint Basil In locum when they that are present understand the prayer then he that prayeth hath fruit to wit the edification of those that are helped by his prayer now to be unfruitful in this sence what is it but to be such whereby the Auditour reaps no benefit the Church is not edifyed others are not instructed as the 19. verse doth clearly intimate where we have these words in the Church I had rather speak five words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with my mind understood that I may instruct others then ten thousand in an unknown tongue now hence I argue That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition but the expressing of publick prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer Vers 15. Sect. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what therefore is the result of this even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in prayer that the Church may understand us that this or somewhat like it must be the sence of orabo mente is evident as from the precedent verse which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vol sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to understand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ridiculous inference after this manner if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitfull unto others therefore pray so as to understand your self or that your mind may be employed Nay it is further evident from the next verse which tells us that otherwise the Ideot cannot say Amen Now surely my understanding my own mind will nothing contribute unto the Ideot or make him more able to say Amen Well then to pray with the mind or understanding is to pray so as that the Congregation made up of learned and unlearned may comprehend the import of our words and so this verse affords us a third Argument If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation made up of literate and illiterate persons Ideots then must we not pray in an unknown tongue but in the publick service of the Church we should thus pray according to the mind of our Apostle Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit which is a part of prayer how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks for he understandeth not what thou sayest still the Apostle speaks of Thanks-giving which is a part of prayer and must be concluded with Amen Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Clerk say some Papists but surely they themselves are Ideots for 't is very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle yea See Du Plessis ubi supra a great while after their Martyrdome as Justine Martyr Clom Alexand and others do inform us did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour Well then t is an Hebrew Idiotism and signifies no more then he that is an Ideot for as Moses Egypt informes me More Nevoc part 1. c. 8. and Bux lex Talm. p. 2001. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended to note estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re and they use to say N est in tali loco in hac vel illâ re and such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth patrissare So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is an Ideot And thus the Fathers generally interpret it Chrysostome and Oecumenius indoctum and Plebium Jerome and Theodoret laicum Ambrose imperitum Sedulius Anselme Haymo and Thomas Aquinas propriam linguam tantum modò scientem all in locum Well then this Ideot is he that understands not the learned Tongues and the Congregation is divided into two parts see Acts 4.13 the literate and the unlearned and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them and the reason given because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue Whence we infer First That 't
is the duty of the unlearned to joyn with the Minister in prayer for he must say Amen which he cannot do if he joyn not with him that is if his understanding doth not accompany his prayer Secondly That such are unable to perform this duty unlesse they understand the matter of the prayer for that is the reason assigned by the Apostle why they cannot say Amen Thirdly That to say Amen is not barely to pronounce the word for that assuredly might be done by him that understands not what we say but to professe our Assent to what is prayed our willingnesse that it should be granted our confirmation of the benediction which the Ideot cannot do as not knowing whether thou dost beg a blessing or imprecate a curse whether thou blessest God or rather dost blaspheme him Now hence I argue First That which the Ideot or unlearned cannot say Amen to is not to be used in the Church but prayer in an unknown Tongue is such according to the Apostles Doctrine Secondly That which the Ideot understands not is not to be used in the Church because he cannot say Amen thereto but an unknown Tongue is that which the Ideot understands not and consequently ought not to be used in the Church Now here our Author answereth That the Latine Tongue is alwayes a known Tongue to some if not to all and there are alwayes of those that understandingly say Amen But First What is this to the purpose when the Apostle distinguisheth the Congregation into the Ideot and others and blames the prayers which were uttered in an unknown Tongue because they were such as the Ideot could not understand will he have the whole Church besides the Minister to be Ideots Secondly Is God an accepter of persons would he have the learned edified by the Churches service which have least need of these helps and the unlearned want the benefit If not must it not be acknowledged that the Apostles Reason dictated by the Spirit of God concernes them both Thirdly Is it not the duty of the unlearned to say Amen unto the prayers that are used in publick service And if so then must he also understand them for otherwise as the Apostle here assures us he cannot do it Again Sect. 26 verse 17. For thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified It might have been replyed why may not the Ideot say Amen seeing the matter of my prayer is good Answer True saith the Apostle thou for thy part givest thanks well but albeit it be so that which makes thy thanksgiving unlawful is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that are Ideots are not edified thereby thy benediction or thanks-giving contributes nothing to his spiritual joy doth not enlarge his heart with a sense of Gods goodnesse into thanks-giving and prayses and so he is not edified whereas 't is better to speak five words to his instruction and edification then five hundred in that Tongue which he understands not and consequently is not profited by Hence I argue that which the Ideot is not edified by is not to be used in the Church this being the reason assigned by the Apostle why the unknown Tongue should not be used but prayer in an unknown Tongue is that by which the Ideot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of verse 16. is not edified The other answers which our Author returns are very weak but as they are we shall consider them Sect. 27 First Then he tells us that the service of the Church being a known set form in one set Language P. 176. recurring continually the same according to the feast those that are ignorant of it at first may by due attention and other diligence arrive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof they having in their Manuals Primers and Psalters ready translated both the Psalmes Hymnes and Prayers c. And there being severeal Books both in English and all vulgar Languages that expound the Church-service even to the meanest Answer Quid verba audio cum facta videam what do you tell us that such and such things might by the due attention of the ignorant be done When it is notoriously known that the people still continue ignorant and whilest it is so you transgresse the Laws of the Apostle by praying in a Tongue they understand not was it not notorious here in England in the dayes of Q. Mary that scarce two in a Parish under stood the Service Let us have service in a vulgar Tongue untill you find the Latine service understood and then we will cease to charge you with contradicting the Apostle Secondly Could they at last be able to understand the Latine service as to its chief parts yet would not this acquit you from a violation of the Apostles precept Who would have every benediction spoken to their capacity all things done to their edification and consequently so a that they may be able to understand them Do not his reasons conclude against the performance of any part of divine service in an unknown Tongue Seeing that Hymne Prayer or Psalme that is so performed is such by which the Ideot is not edified with which he cannot joyn as being not able to understand it Yea farther do you not read your lessons and other portions of holy Scripture in Latine also And will you permit them an English Bible by which they may learn to understand them Thirdly is it not a thing extremely difficult if not morally impossible for an illiterate person to retain in his memory a bulky quarto Mass or at least by comparing Manuals c. with it to understand it and be able to joyn with the Priest each Holy-day Can you produce any illiterate Papists amongst us that have used this diligence And if some were able What must those many thousands yea Myriads that know not Letters do What will their Manuals and Primers avail them Fourthly and lastly For I might be endless is the whole Mass extant in these Manuals or not Is it so extant as that the meanest of the vulgar may have recourse unto it Are you diligent to instruct them what parts of their English Manuals c. do Answer to the parts of their Mass read on every day throughout the year Do you suffer them to bring these Books into the Assemblies and is it usual so to do Do you exhort them to the attention so requisite to their understanding of the Churches service reprove them for not doing it If you deal sincerely with us here all these questions must be answered in the affirmative which I suppose you will blush to do Your last Answer is Sect. 28 That the Latine Tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar Tongues P. 177. and its constant use is not so much unknown as we imagine and so there is not the same motive for a dispensation as in other places Hil. l. 1. c. 1. yea and our venerable Bede informes us that in his
to your precept And in the Feast of Saint Peter and Paul to Saint Peter they pray much after the same manner and yet the Scripture puts the question Who can forgive sins but God Mar. 2.7 Secondly They pray to them for Grace and Glory * Ps 56. Lady in thy name let me be safe and free me from my unrighteousness have mercy upon me and cleanse me from all mine iniquities and again * Ps 27. 50. Dissolve the Bonds of mine iniquities Take away the bundles of our sins purge my soul from its filth * Ps 3. 87. By thy Holiness are my sins purged * Ps 44. Thou art the beginning and end of my whole salvation totius salutis meae c. * Ps 41. * Ps 136. By her are sins purged by her is made true satisfaction for sins c. whereas 't is Gods propriety to be the God of all Grace Thirdly they pray for these things upon the account of the merits of the Saints Thus the Roman Breviary By the merits of Saint Franciscus April 2. Let us enjoy our promised rewards and grant that by the merits of Saint Peter and Saint Paul we may attain to eternal Glory July 6. That by the merits of Saint Nicholaus the Church may enjoy perpetual peace by the intercession of the merits of Saint Basil Sept. 10. Let us be absolved from allour sins and to the blessed Virgin Mary Jan. 14. By thee let the wrath of God be averted from me appease him by thy merits and again By the blood which Saint Thomas shed for thee Ps 72. make us to ascend that Heaven whither Thomas is ascended and this is consonant to that of Bellarmine Prec ad usum Sacrum in fest Th. Becket who tells us that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints even for salvatian and other spiritual blessings if so be we understand it thus that they should impetrate them by their merits Now if this be not derogatory to the Merits of Christ to have veram satisfactionem de'peccatis to have Grace and Glory purchased by the blood and merits of others let any unreasonable Man judge Section 4th and 5th Sect. 3 Our Authour affords us some considerations from which I suppose he would infer the lawfulness of this practise and first saith he we may beg prayers from one another as Saint Paul himself did from the Ephesians and others c. 6.19 c. 2. Thes 3.1.4 Col. 3. where he bids the Brethren pray for him Answer Very good but yet we dare not beg from these our Brethren Grace Glory pardon of sins nor say with the Roman Breviary to the Virgin Mary We flye unto thee O Virgin Mary for thy defence and for as much as being conscious of our great offences we fear the wrath of a severe Judge whom we dare not see We flye unto thee his Mother that thou wouldst intercede for us unto God excuse our sins and obtaining for its the Grace of thy Omnipotent Son procure us the pardon of what ever we have committed Secondly He tells us such begging of prayers is far from Idolatry or diminution to Christ since holy persons living or dead are not invocated as donors but fellow beggars with God for us Answer Why then doth your Breviary talk so often of procuring Grace and Glory and the pardon of sins by the merits of the Saints Why do you tell us that by the Holiness of the Virgin Mary are your sins purged That she is the beginning and end of your salvation that she hath made true satisfaction for us are these things no diminution to Christs merits and satisfaction to procure mercy for us upon these scores is this to procure it as fellow bâ—eggars Thirdly say you the refusing of the assistance of those whose prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect of using all means helpful to us Answer True but if the neglect of this Invocation of Saints be the neglect of any means thus helpful then were the Apostles negligent in giving us no intimation of our duty in this particular Yea the Saints of God for some thousand of yeares under the Old Testament and the Primitive Church for 300 years must be accused of this negligence for of their practise in this case nullibi vola nec vestigium Scripture and Histories afford us no one Tittle but pregnant Evidence to the contrary But you proceed Mr. C. S. 5. If the praiers to Sts. departed be prejudicial to the merits intercessions of our Lord Sect. 4 so is the beging of the prayers of those alive if one be unlawful so is the other and if both be lawful the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual and therefore will better deserve to be made use of then the other Answer Is it not then a wonder that Saint Paul if he may be permitted to have known as much as Mr. C. should thrice call upon his Brethren alive for their supplications and yet not put up one Petition to a Saint or Angel Secondly We know it is the duty of living Saints to pray for one another but whether the Saints departed pray at all whether for any in particular and how far we know not We know a certain way to excite the Saints on earth to the performance of that Duty in reference to us but we are ignorant of any way of conveighing our desires to the Saints in Heaven We have Rule President and Command in Scripture for the first not one jot of all these in reference to the second the Requests we make to the living are no elicite Acts of Religion the requests made by the Romanist to the Saints departed are We pray to the living neither directly nor indirectly but desire them only by vertue of our Communion with them to assist us in their prayers as we might ask an Alms or any other good turn at their hands the Saints departed are by you directly invocated and in your devotions you immediately step from God and Christ unto a Saint We do not plead the merits of our Brethren nor bid them do so in our behalf you do both in reference to the Saints departed we do not kneel to our Brethren or ly prostrate before them on these accounts we do not invoke them in our Churches insert them into our Liturgies believe them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any way or that we are committed to their care or custody all this you do believe in inreference to the Saints departed Is not this therefore a very good Argument if the prayers made to Saints departed by the Romanists wherein they beg of them Grace and Glory and all spiritual good things trust in their Patronage plead for audience on the account of their merits be prejudicial to the merits of satisfaction and intercession of our Saviour or otherwise unlawful then must the asking of my brothers prayers in spight of all these differences be
and justice here from his Domestick Servants 'T is pitie that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint that Abraham was ignorant of her It would have taught her better divinity 2. 'T is no Demonstration sure God would not hide from Abraham the thing he was to do which concern'd so much his Brother Lot albeit he never revealed afterwards to any of his dearest servants that we read of unless his Prophets any such thing therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the praiers that are made to them by any person whatsoever By what hath been said I may be bold to infer that the invocation of Saints is very foolish and if so that the Church of Rome is not infallible But our Authour claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all Sect. 10 to prove I know not what and albeit they have been answered an 150. times he shall not bate me a single unite Yet doth he bolt them forth without any notice of the answers given We read saith he not only an Angel but every one of the four and twentie Elders to have in their hands golden Censers and Vials full of Odours Rev. 8.3.5.8 which are the prayers of the Saints that is of their Brethren upon Earth Now to take these two places in their Order 1. Revel 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood before the Altar having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints upon the Golden Altar which was before the Throne and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand Now 1. Let it be granted that to one Angel was this given to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints How doth it follow that they are to be invocated or that he knows when any particular person praies to him or any other Saint May not he offer up his incense continually as knowing onely this that praiers are made continually 2. If one Angel do this How will it follow that all do it or that all Saints 3. If this be a created Angel is there not a fine round of Praiers 1. They are carried by an Angel or revealed by God to the Saints then he pteseuts them to the Angel the Angel to Christ and Christ to the Father 2. This Angel is said to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints which surely is to do somwhat which may make them more acceptable to God and will they say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint or that any Created Angel offers somwhat to God which makes her praier more acceptable Well but we denie it to have been a created Angel but say it was the Angel of the Covenant who by the incense of his merits and intercessions offers the praiers of all Saints to God and makes them more acceptable unto him For 't is manifest that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Golden Altar whilest the people in the Court put up their praiers to God Luk. 1.10 Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the prayers of the Saints Now the Levitical Priest who offered incense was a type of Christ not of the Angels and this is that which the Apostle intimates that Christ the Angel of the Covenant Typified by the Levitical Priest offers up the praiers and sighes of his members groaning under the Tyrannie of wicked men and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8 where we are told That twenty foure Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands which are the prayers of the Saints Answ 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ and gathered from the Nations also he sheweth in what Heaven they are saying they shall reign upon the Earth And so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps and Haimo 2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical praiers not petitory and the four and twenty Elders onely intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven did render continuall Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on and that is taken from the miraculous effects not onely of prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints but also directed to the Saints themselves Now to this I answer First By denyal that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to shall be answered anon Secondly I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions and that upon several accounts First From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders in the three first ages albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions seems incredible and that which cannot easily be admitted by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil Secondly from the nature of them which rendreth them very ridiculous Basilius Selutensis l. 2. c. 10. Thus of Saint Thecla we are told that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her driving a fiery Chariot in the aire and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the scituation that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian C. 24. forsaken by the Physitians what he ailed and he had replied upon her in that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou knowest why should I tell it thee that knowest all things the Martyr being delighted partly with the man and partly with the verse for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory C. 21. 24. and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth with the touch whereof he was presently healed Yea the same Basil tells us how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extream pain in his ear C. 27. that the Auditory was like to be quite disappointed But that the Martyr the same night
service Now that he for bids them 't is argued 1. Because he bids the Church Governours refuse them lest they should marry 2. He calls this marriage a casting off their first faith as all the Fathers Interpret it and tells them that it will procure their damnation Now saith he whether Widdows are esteemed by the Preacher to bee more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine Service by the Office of Deaconesses then men by Priest-hood It is expected he the Dr. should declare Now albeit this stale Objection hath received variety of answers Yet wil not our Antagonist take notice of any of them 1. Then the learned Camero tells us In locum Vide Thes Salmur de voto con pt Post Sect. 36. the Papists would have the Apostle here to approve the vow of Continency and dis-allow the solution of it upon any terms but saith he this must not be granted For the Apostle discourseth of such Widdows who had devoted themselves to the Ministry of the Church promising the performance of those Offices which were proper for persons so devoted Now seeing there was no legitimate pretence for such as were so addicted to decline the further performance of these Offices but the necessity of marriage When they began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Hesychius tells us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wax insolent and weary of this ministry to the Church partly for the labour and partly for the seeming vilenesse of it that they might become free they did pretend necessity of marriage as a covert of their pride and floath That therefore which the Apostle reproves in them is not their marriage but the using of it as the veil of their idleness and thence it is that he accuses them first of their insolency in vilifying that Ministry in which they were ingaged And herein is the wisdome of the Apostle Conspicuous that least he should seem to condemn simply the marriage of such He first shews wherein they had offended viz. not in that they married but that they did so out of such an end as knowing that such a pretence only was a just cause of rejecting the burden they had cast upon them For it could not be that she who was not sui juris but at the power of her Husband could bee able to perform the office of a Deaconess as then was requisite Now this interpretation is evidently contradictory to that of the Papists but that it is the truth I offer this Argument to evince Either the Apostle inveighs against the pretence of Marriage in these younger widdows or against their Marriage Not the latter therefore the former That it is not the latter I prove because the Apostle bids them marry Juniores volo nubere Verse 14. You will say with the Rhemists that he speaks of other widdows that had not yet enter'd into the Churches service not of those which had made this promise I Answ It must be extended to them also as may be proved First In that he requires that widdows should be blameless which condition could not well agree to younger widdows who were in danger of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for doing that which is blame-worthy in violating such a promise Secondly He would have such widdows refused which were in danger to wax wanton against Christ to marry and so violate their promise to the Church but such were those younger widdows which had made this promise Verse 11 12. Nor can it here be said that it could not be free for them to go back from their promise For 1. There can be no reason assigned of such an assertion seeing it must be made with this tacit limitation if the Church will accept them and therefore if the Church see cause to refuse them they are ipso facto absolved 2. Be it they had vowed which cannot be proved yet that vow cannot be obligatory to performance which puts a person in a real danger of waxing wanton against Christ of having the condemnation of violating his first faith it being absolutely unlawful for any one to continue in such a condition and contrary to the Apostles precept of abstaining from all appearance of evil and therefore such a vow made to binde one in such a state is a bond of iniquity and consequently Null Thirdly The Apostle would have such widdows refused who were in danger to be idle tatlers busie bodies wanderers c. but such were younger widdows already made Deaconesses verse 13. Fourthly The Apostle would have things so managed as that no occasion might be given to the Adversary to speak reproachfully but this could not be if younger widdows already Deaconesses should not be refused as well as others Verse 14. Fifthly The Apostle would have that altered which might be an occasion of turning young women aside unto Satan but such was the keeping of them in that condition and had been already as the Apostle tells us v. 15. For some viz. of these young Widdows are already turned aside unto Satan But you will say that the Apostle plainly saith they are therefore blame worthy because they have left their first Faith I Answ 1. They are therefore blame-worthy because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Pride Sloath and Insolency they have broken their Faith Not if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had left this office as being supposed to have made this promise only upon condition of the continuance of the gift of Continency seeing to make it absolutely we have proved unlawfull 2. By first Faith we may understand the Faith they took upon them when they first became Christians which because it bindes them not to be insolent but humble and ready to do the meanest office of love to their fellow-members not to be sloathful but to bee diligent in Gods service They that are guilty of these crimes may bee said to have made Null their Faith seeing it will be of no vertue nor efficacy to their souls 2. Others have long ago answered that the Apostle is to be understood not of any promise made to the Church but to God or Christ upon their entrance into Christianity and tell us that these women having haply moved with sorrow for their Husbands death cast themselves into the Colledge of Widdows and afterward finding themselves not to have the gift of Continence but to want the remedy of Marriage least they should be branded with the note of infamy inconstancy and lightness in departing from their purpose they chose rather to fall off from Christ unto Gentilism and Marry whence they are condemned of forsaking their first Faith not simply in that they would Marry but that they would do it cum abnegatione fidei Christianae religionis Obj. But you will say if they had a minde to Marry what necessity of doing it with Jews or Pagans Answ Because had they Married to Christians they would continually have been twited by them for their levity and inconstancy for their negligence in the office
of the Church gadding abroad c. yea and being such could scarce hope to procure a Husband among them and therefore that they might not fail of them and that they might live more free from these taunts and disgraces they rejected their office and faith together Now that they did so as it is probable from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies excutere habenas Christi so is it more then so from the 15 v. which tells us that they had turned aside to Satan a phrase in Scripture used to denote Apostacy from Christ and God For as turning from the power of Satan to God is a description of turning Christian so Apostates are said to be transfer'd again into Satans Kingdome Luke 11.13 And to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 6.66 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12.13 1 Tim. 1.6.4.4 as here also it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly That it cannot be understood of a solemn vow of Continency joyned with an abnegation of the married state beside what I have said before is proved 1. In that the Apostle denies that he would cast a snare upon any that is lay a necessity on them to contain unmarried but on the contrary gives this general axiom that it is better to marry than to burn And therefore it is altogether unlikely that he would now tell them that they must continue though he found they had not the gift of Continence under pain of damnation No rather he would have admonished them to repent of their rash vow and told them with Epiphanius Epiph. de tradit who is clearly ours as to this that it is better to have the guilt of one sin viz. a rash vow then of many viz. Continual burnings Calling the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a fault to which he enjoyns pennance the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which will bring damnation 2. If the vow of Continence be the first faith here spoken of then may not any woman or widdow make this vow by the Apostles charge till she be sixty years old Sess 25. C. 15. which how is it this day practized in the Romish Church since the Trent Councel admits them at sixteen Let them then confess that this Text speaks not of votaries or else that they sin against the Apostles precept by warrant of their infallible general Council For it is evident the Apostle bids them not admit a Widdow under sixty for fear of her incontinency and for that reason requires them to refuse those that are younger then so I confesse besides Bellarm who is very frivolous and every where confuted Estius tells us 1. That there is not the same reason for Widdows as for Virgins For these having not felt the pleasure of due benevolence are not so much tempted as Widdows But to this 1. It is evident you admit even Widdows long before this time yea at any time 2. Seeing marriage was ordained for the abating of this fire of lust sure it will somewhat do so not more inflame it and it is unconceivable that women though thirty or forty once marryed should bee more prone to lust then those of sixteen or eighteen never Marryed 3. Be it that there were some difference yet surely not such as will put Virgins out of danger especially when the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 7. that there may bee need and therefore he will not put a snare upon them 2. Hee tells us that they had no Cloisters to bee immured in then as there be now and therefore they were more obnoxious to this failing Answ By no means when it must be granted that Church Discipline was more strict then Christianity more lively and better practized then now 2. Solitariness doth not help this disease but increase it rather 3. That their Cloisters do not abridge them of occasions of lust appears by their frequent pregnancy and the above cited Authors neither ought they to change the Apostles precept upon such sleight and frivolous grounds In a word to conclude why may not this sense of the words pass for currant you admit younger Widdows into this Office upon their promise of continuing in that estate when alas they are in danger to wax wanton against Christ by this means and when they have done so to marry which course of yours will bring condemnation upon them This waxing wanton being an evident breach of the promise of obedience to the Commands of Christ which they made at their entrance into Christianity And whereas he tells us that his Exposition which makes it plead for their vow of Continency is not contradicted by any of the Antient Doctors Bishop Hall will tell him p. 725. I had thought I had read in Holy Athanasius wo to you that make void the first faith of Baptism I thought that St. Jerom had said in the preface to the Ep. to Titus They are not worthy of belief qui primam fidem Baptismi irritam fecerunt who have made void their first faith in Baptism Now if a contrary Interpretation be not a contradiction to the sense contended for I may say as well that the Interpretation of these two Fathers was never contradicted by any of the rest But it is the consent of antiquity in which our Adversary vaunts himself Sect. 12 And 1. M. C. p. 216. As for the councel of Eliberis which if we may believe him Can. 33. absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children let it be considered Melchior Canus l 5. de locis c. 4. Binius p. 239. Bellar. l. 2. de Imag. c 9. Baron ad An. 56. Hum. 119. 1. That when the decree of this councel is urged by us against Images they presently deride us as producing a Councel of nineteen Bishops met in a corner of the world telling us that it was an erronious Councel bordering upon Novatianism and manifestly void and null in many things viz. In those in which it thwarts their superstitions Now if these things be true what advantage can they have from these nineteen Bishops may not we as lawfully reject them as the Romanist 2. The Canon doth not command this abstinence to Bishops and to other sacred Persons absolutely but onely in the time of their ministration or whilst it is their turn to assist at the Altar which thing is determined in many councels and is not in the least manner contrary to us 3. The words of the Councel run exactly contrary to what you have given us even thus this Councel hath thought good not to command but wholly to forbid Bishops Priests c. to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children And so it will be parallel to the Canon of the Nicene Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made in opposition to the condemners of due benevolence in Priests Another Councel produced by him is the seventh of
would have wives should procure them before their Ordination yea the Synod tells us in the preface that they despised the married Presbyters and would not touch the Sacraments administred by them Now against these Eustathians the fourth Canon thus decrees If any one separate himself from a conjugated Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though hee ought not to participate of the offering administred by him let him be Anathema From whence we gather that according to the sentence of these Bishops in this Synod yea and the whole world embracing their decrees that a Presbyter ought not to be deposed for being married or reserving of his wife Here First They quarrel at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were to be rendred who hath had a wife not who hath at present but 1. Balsamon tells us that the Canon Anathematizeth those who would not indifferently communicate in the holy things of married persons that have wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with him Gratian consents Distinc 28. and whereas the Synod and Sozomen have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea when 't is said they refused to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it credible that they would not pray in the houses of such as had once been married though afterwards they rejected that estate 2. 'T is evident that the word bears this sense ordinarily 1 Cor. 7.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To those that are married speak not I but the Lord let not the woman be separated from her Husband See Chamier l. 16. de cael c. 8. Calixtus p. 208. Secondly They tell us that Eustathius and his Disciples thought marriage absolutely evil Answ What is that to the purpose seeing it is also evident that the Synod thought the marryed state consistent with the Priest-hood 2. Wee grant they did so and this is condemned Canon the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man condemn Marriage or detest it and criminate a faithful and religious Woman giving due benevolence to her Husband as if she could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be accursed Lastly Perhaps they will say the Synod determines that it is lawful for a Presbyter to have a Wife and not to use her Answ 1. Can any imagine that the Eustathians could think a Presbyter so defiled by having once marryed a Wife when a Lay-man though he now rejected her from his bed 2. The Synod and Socrates inform us that many women upon their perswasions left their Husbands and being not able to contain they polluted themselves with Adultery and this grievance they came to redress which they do by requiring due benevolence and surely this being the onely case according to the antient Law Paph speaks of in which Priests marriage was permitted that they professed their inability to contain or else entered upon that state before they came to Ordination as finding in themselves a defect of Continence the Councel could not think it unlawful for them to enjoy this remedy of their incontinence A third Synod is that convened in Trullo Sect. 18 and called Quinisexta Can. 13. seeing we have heard say the Fathers that in the Roman Church it is delivered as a Canon that whosoever are to be ordained Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters should profess that they would not henceforward use their Wives we following the Antient Canon of the exact Apostolick constitution declare our pleasure that the cohabitation of Sacred Persons according to the Laws be from henceforward firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. copulam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lat Mutua consuetudine and established no way dissolving their conjunction with their Wives or depriving them of giving due benevolence to each other at times convenient and therefore who ever is found worthy of the order of a Sub-Deacon Deacon or Priest let him not bee prohibited from this degree because he cohabits with his lawful Wife least by so doing we should be compelled to bring an ignominy upon that Wedlock which God hath instituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 19.6 the Gospel in the mean time crying out What God hath joyned let no man separate and the Apostle Marriage is honourable and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 and further art thou bound to a Wife seek not to bee loosed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any therefore rising up against the Apostles Canons dares to deprive any Consecrated Presbyter or Deacon of the commerce of his lawful Wife let him be deposed Now here let it be observed I That in this Synod or rather supplement of the two former Synods Paul of Constant Peter of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Praefat. 6. Syn. Totius Synodi Romanae Ecclesiae vicem gerentes Anastasius of Jerusalem George of Antioch all Patriarches were present and the rest of the Bishops out of every Province and Region as the sub-scription hath it and as Balsamon tells us hee found in the subscriptions Basilius a Metropolitan of Gortina in Creet and a certain Bishop of Ravenna were there to represent the Roman Church and besides as legates of the Pope were present the Bishops of Thessaly Sardis Heraclea and Corinth 2. Act. 2. quod in sâ—xtae Synodi divine legaliter predicatis Canon c. Act. 4. 7. That albeit Sergius did not acquiesce in his subscription to this Synod yet did Hadrian the first receive the Synod and its Canons and that as rightly and divinely decreed as you may see in an Epistle of his extant in this second Nicene Councel Yea farther in this second Nicene Councel the Roman Legates not at all contradicting it they are cited under the names of the Canons of the Holy Oecumenical sixth Synod 3. That this is done in perfect opposition to the Roman Church and therefore they little dream'd of its infalibility or any submission due unto it 4. That they affirm that this depriving Presbyters c. of the use of their Wives or the Marriage Bed is a flat contradiction to two aphorismes of the Apostles a separating what God hath joyned and a casting ignominy upon the Gospel and consequently that in the judgement of this Synod the Roman Church her practise then and judgement at this present are justly charged with all this 5. That all this is done in compliance with the Apostles Canon which allows and approves according to their judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure is a little more then providing for their Wives or cohabitation without the use of the Marriage bed and the words of the Apostolick Canon do infer it For they do not onely say that it is unlawful for a Bishop to put away his wife but that hee must not do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under a pretence of piety now how could they under a pretence of piety refuse to provide for their own flesh Apud Grat. causae 3. q. 2. c.
Justine in his Apology to Antonius Pius 4. Lib. 7. Consonant to this is that of Origen against Celsus who tells him That amongst the Christians there were men which needed not Hemlock as the Athenian Pontifex to keep them Chaste but the Word of God was sufficient for them Now had there been any sanction of the Apostles any custome of the Church which enjoyned this Celibacy to the Clergy could it be imagined that this amongst other things should not have been mentioned by any of these Champions of the Christians But that their apologies should run so generally as they do in the places mentioned Could it reasonably be thought that Origen would have said so crudely there wants not men amongst us if he could have instanced in the Clergy would he not rather have opposed our pontifices to theirs 5. That Tertullian was married his books written to his Wife do sufficiently assure us that he did not separate from his wife is evident from the seventh Chapter of his first Book quare facultatemcontinentiae c. where speaking of Continence he saith quod in matrimonio non valemus inviduitate sectemur that which our matrimonial condition will not bear viz. the former abstinence in Widdow-hood let us follow after embracing the occasion which hath took away what necessity viz. that of the married state required C. 3. delendis conjunctionibus c. Yea in the same Book he saith Christ came not to separate marriages or to dis-joyn those that were made one and chap. the first he exhorts her that after his decease with as much Continence as she could she would renounce marriage But if in respect of humane infirmity shee could not that she would marry to a Christian not an Heathen Would he have writ thus to her if she had already abstained from the embraces of her Husband from the time of his Ordination and already promised perpetual Continency 6. How many marryed Bishops Priests Deacons do we meet with in the Primitive Church Sect. 24 See them in Chamier and Calixtus reckoned up according to the Centuries they lived in To 3. lib. 16. c. 13. Now as to the answer usually given that these abstained from their wives it is very improbable if it be considered 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante medium propter quod conjugia copulâ—nda sunt de Hares C. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paeda g. l. 2. ab initio That they tell us procreation of children is the very end of Marriage Justin Martyr ubi supra wee saith hee do not marry at all but to get children St. Austin Without doubt they condemn marriage and as much as in them lyes forbid it when they forbid to beget children to which end the Marriage knot is to bee tyed And Clemens Alexandrinus the aime of the marryed parties is the procreation of Children 2. That the marriage of the Clergy was required to bee before Ordination onely upon this ground that the person professed hee either could or would not Contain and it is strange that they who marryed upon these accounts should not use the remedy which they thought necessary 3. That they who were Orthodox esteemed marriage honourable in all and the bed undefiled by this act as wee shall see hereafter And 4. That it is recorded of some of them that after their Ordination they did not abstain Car. de ejus vita as Gregorius Nazianzenus tells us that he had not lived so many years as his Father had spent in the Priest-hood To these testimonies we add the suffrage of Scripture by them interpreted Sect. 25 1. The Scripture tells us that St. Peter and St. Mrt. 8.14 Marck 1.30 Luke 8.18 1 Cor. 9.5 Philip with others of the Apostles were marryed Now here it is answered they begot no children no young Apostles Rep. Clem. Alex. tells us they did It is again answered that however after their Apostleship they ceased to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stro. 7. 1. Who told them so 2. It is evident they might have done it by their own rules seeing the marriage bed hath nothing of defilement in it we never read of their divorce nor it is permitted by our Saviour but in case of Adultery due benevolence is commanded to be given and the with-holding of it is styled fraud and therefore undoubtedly had it been required they would have given it 2. VVe produce the Apostles testimony Sect. 26 let a Bishop be blameless the husband of one Wife so that a Bishop may have one wife and yet bee blamelesse 1 Tim. 3.2 nor is the having of one wife sufficient to hinder a man from ascending the Episcopal chair but the having two Now here some give this answer The Apostle saith a Bishop may be ordained not who is but qui fuerit who hath been the Husband of one wife To which we reply 1. That Dominicus a Soto a great stickler for Celibacy sufficiently confutes this answer L. 7. de just jure qu. 6. Art 2. con 1. thus It doth not sufficiently clude this place to say the Apostle speaks of such as have been married but now are separated from their Wives for St. Pauls Text manifestly shews that he speaks of those that remained in the state of marriage for as much as unius uxoris vir is the same with uxorem habens and also because the Apostle requires amongst other vertues of the Bishop that he look well to his house c. 2. The very text is contradictory to this sence for the words in Timothy runs thus 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 2. It behoveth a Bishop to bee blamelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Epistle to Titus ordaining in every City Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Hee that had a Wife but now hath her not is not any longer unius uxoris vir but nullius and therefore a Widdower for these relata mutuo se ponunt tollunt 2. Others answer that he permits them to have a Wife but yet they must cease from the use of wedlock Answ Neither can this exposition hold good for in the Apostles times it was a thing unknown that a man should have a wife and yet no power to make use of her which all husbands from the Creation to those daies had seeing therefore he reiterates the phrase it is manifest he understands it in the common sense yea 2. It is contrary to the Apostles rule of not defrauding each other contrary to justice for the wife hath power over the husbands body contrary to the Apostles decree touching widdows that they should be permitted to marry and get children Now the widdows of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons could not do so without adultery by the Papists own tenent of the indissolubility of the knot of Matrimony 3. ad Oceanum in multis uxoribus liberos spargeâ—e The Fathers here are for us St.
Ministers a vow of Celibacy which is a snare the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kinde which is open Sacriledge the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue which bids continual defiance to the Apostle there is a necessity of our separation from her and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical This being so Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church Mr. C. p. 232. had been guilty of Innovation in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession those points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her communion will be in Gods esteem very Schisme For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned as the truths of Christ and the practise of such of them as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God as the Dr. every where asserts he apparently affirms that albeit it be required of us to beleive what we count an errour which is impossible to assert an Innovation to be the truth of Christ which is to lye to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God which is to live continually in Hypocrisie and disobedience to the revealed will of God yet cannot these conditions bee refused but we must incur the guilt of Schisme And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt he must consequently enjoyn us to lye to live in continual Hypocrisie and disobedience to his will as being necessary to this end albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes which is horribly blasphemous And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book As 1. Where he saith Mr. C. p. 259. that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing not fundamental contrary to the sense of the Law the Jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of judgement and internal assent to such commands that they are agreeable to Gods law because it would bee utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the subject beleived to be contrary to Gods law Ans And sure it may be reasonably thought that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbies which the Jewish Nation did afford some might believe that to bee contrary to Gods law which indeed was so and then poor creatures they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty to an impossibility viz. of yeilding internal assent to that as agreeable to Gods law which they beleived to bee contrary thereunto is it not wonderful that the decision of seventy persons contrary to Gods law to the belief of which all Jury was obliged should not only disanul the obligation of seven hundred thousand of giving credit to that law but force them upon the utmost penalty to beleive the contrary that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those who say Ezek. 13. the Lord saith when he hath not said it should yet enjoyn his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe to say so too That he who sends them to the Law and to the testimonies telling them that those who speak contrary unto them have no truth in them should yet oblige the same persons upon the utmost penalty to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies as the truths of God Credat Judaeus Apella Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears saith he in this Sect. 5 Ibid. that it was a less evil and inconvenience that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed then that contentions and disputes should be endless Answ God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters as his breach upon Uzzah and the sons of Aaron doth evince 2. How unwarrantable is it to plead an inconvenience against a Precept for whereas hee talks of a command we shall consider that pretence hereafter might not the greatest Rebels who pretend Religion for their Rebellion plead with parity of reason 't is a less evil and inconvenience that some petty precepts of subjection to Governours should be transgressed then that Religion should bee hazzarded But 3. What is this but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing and to keep close to his precepts were the way to make contentions endless or that if the disobeying of any of Gods precepts might conduce to the ending of contentions we might do so in pursuit of such an end And is not this apparently to do evil that good may come on it to say that God hath need of our lye and disobedience to preserve the unity of his Church The like wee have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect 14. where he tells us that albeit upon supposition of the Churches fallibility in non fundamentals she should erre in such decisions which he is pleased to call not much concerning and by consequence our assent would be erronious yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenced with the most acceptable virtue of obedâ—ence love of peace and unity which accompanies it Answ Let him not talk of obedience till he can shew a precept something from God which obligeth us to beleive an errour or to tell a lye when their Church commands us To disobey God and play the Hypocrites that we may perform obedience to her injunctions to deny his truths out of humility and to purchase peace and unity by these means 2. Seeing fundamentals that is doctrines See Mr. C. c. 19. sect 6. without an explicite belief whereof none can be saved are very few doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God yea of assenting to what is contrary to it if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions and is this agreeable to Gods frequent injunctions to try all things and hold fast the truth And whereas he further tells us Sect. 7 that both truth and errour in such things lyes only on the Churches Ibid. and not at all on their account This cannot bee built upon any other foundation then this that wee are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church of Rome or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schisme though contrary in our judgements to reason and the Word of God which is the very thing in question 2. If this be truth why doth Christ call us out of Babylon least we should be partakers of her sin and consequently from any other assembly with which wee cannot communicate without sin seeing their sins whether they be erronious practises or opinions lie only on their account not ours Seeing therefore it is evidenced 2 Proposition that we are free from the guilt of Schisme it follows undeniably Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must bee the Schismatick as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust and this
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
to her in them albeit this errour hath nothing of the will in it What I have here said I refer to the judgements of sober and impartial men with whom I am confident these instances with an hundred of the like nature will more prevail then any thing that on the contrary is tendered by Mr. C. and comes now to bee considered 1. Sect. 3 Then he gives us a similitude from civil Governments wherein to entertain principles which if put in practise would with-draw Subjects from their due obedience is an offence of an high nature Mr. C. p. 228. but the actual cantonizing of a Kingdome and the raising in it Courts or Judicatures Independent on and opposite to the common tribunal of the Countrey is the utmost of all crimes and both the Seducers and Seduced here are pursued by arms as the worst of enemies it is so saith hee in the Church whose Vnity we are taught to believe for if Vnity then Order then Subordination of Governours with an c. at the end of them to signifie the Lord knows what What therefore is the great sin against the fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism a dissolving the communion and connexion that the members of this great body have among themselves with relation to the whole Answ This confused stuff cannot very well be dealt withall especially in the lump 1. Therefore as to his example in civil Governments I Answ 1. That the case cannot easily bee the same for seldome is it that there is such a conflict of reason with reason authority with authority amongst men learned in those matters but suppose it should ever happen to bee so as that the most learned Lawyers can scarce tell how to decide the case Would a gracious King think you presently condemn all those to the utmost severity who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duely made should by reason of some prejudices or weaknesses in reasoning bee induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party Put the case some leading Papist should rebel and seek to reduce our Nation to the government of the Pope by force of arms albeit the case be not so difficult but it may easily be resolved for his Majesty against the Pope should those Incendiaries of Kingdomes I mean the Jesuits and other of your Priests by all the arguments they could invent sollicite the illiterate Papists of this Nation to side with this Rebellion as too frequently they have done answer all their demurres and propound to them Indulgences and deliverance from Purgatory and the meritoriousness of the fact and such like motives which should bee effectual in them all and these deluded souls thus thinking it their duty to obey their spiritual guides and having no other means to inform them better should make a party in an Insurrection would you not put in one plea for the excuse of these persons Would you think it meet without respect of persons to make a general slaughter of them all in cold blood I am sure the bowels of our Gracious Soveraign would yern towards them and must the bowels of God bee more contracted Shall we charge him with such austerity as is hardly incident to humane frailty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true a great severity may sometimes be necessary in these cases but still upon political reflexions which are not incident to our Maker Now then apply this to the Unity of the Church and you have an Answer to your Argument But 2. I deny the supposed parity of the similitude for there is greater reason why such severities should be exercised by the civil government in the case proposed because the raising of Courts and Judicatures thus independent do ipso facto dissolve the frame of Government but now the cases of Schism by mee mentioned and many other do not so for albeit they do somewhat disturbe that external unity of order and sub-ordination of Governours which ought to bee preserved inviolate in the Church yet is not that the Unity which is essential to the Church but an internal Unity of Faith and Charity the Unity mentioned by the Apostle Ephes 4.4.5 and albeit the dissolution of the other Union bee a sin yet that it is not damnable seems evident to mee in that God sure hath not made it as a necessary condition of eternal life to believe this subordination of Governours in which this unity consists and that hee hath not done so I conclude because it is no where so manifestly revealed to us that the meanest capacity may apprehend it Whereas what ever is necessary to be believed under pain of Eternal Damnation must bee plainly and evidently revealed c. 6. v. 8. for if ever that of Micah will hold hee hath shewed thee O Man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee It is in this particular As an Appendix to this Objection Sect. 4 I shall consider another of his similitudes of like nature produced against our English Church viz. that if a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil Authority p. 231. it wold not excuse them to say wee do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King c. Which if you produce to evidence this onely that in case wee had really substracted our obedience from lawful Authority excuses like to these would bee unserviceable to us it is very pertinent and close but that it may do you any further service it must bee evidenced not beg'd that you had any Authority de jure over us and that such as we could not lawfully refuse to grant or that to with-draw from usurpation is sinful which will be as easily performed as the former Again Sect. 5 you argue thus the Schismatick is divided from the body of Christ and so from Christ himself and therefore is inevitably damned Answ This division from the body of Christ is twofold either in things in which it is absolutely necessary to be united and hee that is thus divided is necessarily cut off from Christ and must bear his burthen or in these things in which it is not absolutely necessary to bee united as in the same Liturgies or Ceremonies the same opinions as to matters not fundamental in which it is as impossible to obtain a general consent as in the lineaments of our faces Now to assert that a Schism in such matters by reason of the infirmities which are incident to humane frailty should presently cut off our weak Brother from the body of Christ is to assert that God requires upon pain of damnation that a man should truely judge of that which many thousands even of learned men very differently decide and which is so obscurely revealed if at all it be so as that the most piercing intellects dare not peremptorily assert they have found the truth Thus whether the Church of Rome is the onely Orthodox Church of Christ whether a general
dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible seeing therefore it is evident that most of the questions proposed by mee are variously maintained by men of learning and abilities and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them it seems apparent unto mee that he never intended a general Council as a Judge to whose decisions upon pain of damnation wee must assent and to which wee must necessarily submit our judgements if wee would avoid the ruine of the Church For sure it cannot bee that what is so necessary to the unity that is the being of the Church should bee left by an all-wise God at such infinite uncertainties And I appeal unto your self whether we who say the Scripture must bee Judge in fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation as that God is and that hee is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him that hee is holy just and good that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners dyed for us rose again will raise us up at the last day and bring us unto judgement that faith repentance and obedience or holinesse of life are necessary for our attainment unto happinesse are at such uncertainties Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity Are they not writ as with a Sun beam Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if shee doth not Now as for other things which may bee variously conceived and held without the destruction of faith or good manners a liberty of judgement may bee allowed onely with such restrictions as shall obviate all publick disturbances of the Church Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals seeing it cannot rationally bee denied that whatsoever is so is perspicuously laid down in Scripture albeit we cannot say è contra that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental 4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England he would have the infallibility of General Councils to bee asserted by Dr. White Dr. Field and the most Reverend Arch-Bishop Lawd but it is no where so affirmed by them Arch. Lawd confer sect 37. Num. 3. Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points fundamental and this he had reason to affirm but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council appears 1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages And 2. Those that have been assembled have not taught all fundamentals but some only at the most And therefore he understood it if he ever said so which we have Fide jesuiticâ of the visible Church diffused through the universe The other passage out of sect Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essentiall and diffusive Ibid. sect 21. N. 5. that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise one could not possibly beleive him For he tells him divers Protestants beleive the same with him Cites Keckerman thus speaking The question is whether the whole Church universally considered for all the Elect who are members of the Militant Church can erre in the whole faith or any weighty points thereof and answering 't is simply impossible And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus that 't is impossible that the Church should ever by Apostacy and mis-beleif wholly depart from God taking the Church for all the beleivers now living and in things necessary to be known expresly And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy he thence infers that she the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in fundamentals albeit she may erre in superstructures for if shee could shee would not bee Holy but Heretical it being most certain that no assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy He goes on and tells us that the Arch Bishop asserts Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is p. 254. when it's decisions are admited once and received Generally by Catholicks Now because he could not but know that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation instead of sect 38. he gives us sect 33. But to pass that the Arch Bishop saith only this That a General Council is a very probable but yet a fallible way of introducing truth but after it's determinations are admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also infallible that is saith he it deceives no man for so all truth is and is to us when it is once known to be truth So that he only saith this when the Church hath found it's determinations true they are infallible Hear his words 'T is true a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church which he supposes cannot erre in matters of faith is then infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath truly determined already without errour as that is supposed to bee which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith But that a General Council a parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be infallible in all it 's after determinations what ever they be I utterly deny P. 305. What hee further cites from Mr. Ridley Dr. Bilson Dr. Potter is evidently inconsequent nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely that the will of God is to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality as our Ceremonies are as you may see in his preface sect 6. Lastly As for the consent of universal Antiquity Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour bee alledged nay we have strong presumptions that they little dreamp't of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for and indeed had it been otherwise how is it that in so many Volumes writ by them against all kinde of Hereticks they never touch upon this Argument never press the infallibility of General Councils never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost or tell their adversaries that they must yeild the same obedience to them as Scripture had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church should have over look'd so facile and compendious a proof and yet they have not only done so Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem eâ—postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians Epist ad Epict. but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence Thus Athanasius 't is
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
him that not the asserting of these opinions but the imposing of them on us as conditions of our communion with them the obtruding them into their Liturgies and publick offices are the causes of our refusing Communion with them and therefore that Mr. C. would he draw the Parallel must evidence that this was done by the universal Church in the daies of St. Gregory Nor 4. That it is not evident that there was such an Harmony betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches but rather the contrary as touching the Celibacy of Priests the power of the Pope c. I say to omit all these and many other things my last Proposition shall be this That neither St. Sect. 10 Gregory taught all these Doctrines nor yet were they embraced by our Church at that time 9 Proposition For to begin with St. Gregory 1. I have sufficiently evinced already that hee denied the Popes Supremacy 2. As for the infallibility of the Roman Church had hee known this to have been the opinion of those daies is it not a wonder that he should never plead it against his opponents and Adversaries 3. Touching transubstantiation Communion in one kinde the Sacrifice of the Mass what can you produce out of Gregory for them And 1. Mr. C. p. 137. As for Communion in one kinde you acknowledge that it was not practised for a thousand years and upward and where doth St. Gregory tell us that it may bee practised otherwise we have shewed you above that Pope Leo and Gelasius thought it no better then Sacriledge to Rob the People of the Cup and therefore if you affirm Gregory to have held the contrary as it is gratis dictum so will it be but an evidence of his departing from what was formerly maintained by his own Church 2. Where doth he say that Christ is corporeally in the Sacrament and that the substance of bread and wine remains not Nay Sacrificium quod passionem filii semper imitatur Dial. l. 4. c. 58. Non inordinate agimus si ex libris licet non Canonicis sed tamen ad edificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonia proferamus Moral l. 19. c. 16. Graeg in Ezek. l. 1. Hom. 9. that it then obtained not in the Church of God nor was esteemed as an Article of their faith is fully evidenc'd by Bishop Usher in his book de Christ Eccles success l. 1. c. 2. And for the sacrifice of the Mass he tells us that Christ is Mystically there offered and that this is such a sacrifice which is an imitation of Christs passion Against your new Canon of Scripture which the Dr. quarreld with he is most evident in his Morals where hee saith citing the 6 of Maccabees that it was not Canonical Against your Traditions necessary to supply the defect of Scripture hee tells us whatsoever serveth for edification and instruction is contained in the Volume of the Scripture And again Hereticks do usually for the confirmation of their perverse opinions suggest such proofs which are not found in Scripture and what I pray you are your Traditions yea all the doctrines you contend for in this Book And whereas you Sacrilegiously Rob the People of the use of Scripture he on the contrary assures us Graeg l. Epist 40. ad Theod. Med. that it is an Epistle sent from God to his Creature that is to Priest and People And if thou receive a Letter saith hee from an Earthly King thou wilt never sleep nor rest till thou understandest it The King of Heaven and God of men and Angels hath sent his Letters to thee for the good of thy soul and yet thou neglectest the reading of them Therefore I pray thee study them and dayly meditate on the Word of thy Creatour and learn the minde of God in the words of God You tell us that the worship of images must be observed Graeg l. 9. Ep 9. Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita and acknowledged by all means he contrariwise that by all means it must be avoided And again in the same place 't is unlawful to worship any thing that is made with hands because it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and again in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia I commend you that you had that Zeal that nothing made with hands should be worshiped but yet you should not have broken them c. but let them bee proserved and forbid the people the worshiping of them that the ignorant may have whence to gather the knowledge of the history and yet not sin in worshiping the Picture You assert a Purgatory after this life he is thought to contradict it by John Pank who p. 20. proves the contrary 1. Moral l. 8. c. 8. From his Morals where he saith whom mercy now delivereth not him justice after the world alone imprisoneth To which purpose is that of Salomon That in whatsoever place the tree falleth whether toward the South or towards the North there it shall be because at the time of a mans death either the good spirit or the evil spirit shall receive the soul going from the body he shall hold it with him for ever without any charge that neither being exalted it can come down to punishment nor being drowned in eternal punishments can thenceforth rise to any remedy of Salvation If then after death there bee no deliverance there be no change but as the Angel either good or bad receiveth the soul out of the body so it continueth for ever either exalted in joy or drowned in punishment then there can be no Purgatory then there can be nothing but Heaven or Hell where they that come shall abide for ever And in another place It is undecent to give our selves to long affliction for them whom wee are to beleive have come by death to true life This therefore seeing wee know we are to have a care not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow our affliction on the living to whom our piety or devotion may bee profitable and our love yeild fruit Here is no place for Purgatory seeing he teacheth us to beleive that the faithful in death do attain to true life and that their passage from this world is to a better Neither doth hee acknowledge any use of Prayers Masses Trentals or any other offices or obsequies for the Dead who saith that our devotion and love yeildeth no fruit or profit to them Lastly as for Marriage of Priests I do not deny but that at first Pope Gregory did command them to live single but when hee understood that they were given secretly to fleshly pleasure and that hereupon many Children were Murthered many infants heads found in a Fish-pond hee disanulled that commandment p. 288. Vid. Sup. chap. 17 sect ult Now against this evidence we have nothing but the confession of an Osiander an Hâ—mphry and a Carrion whose citation by the way is altogether impertinent with
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.
that account which God hath no where required to his entrance How can they generally promise perpetual Celibacy when no man can be assured that he shall continually be free from Burnings but upon these two accounts Either 1. that God will grant the freedome to all that use such means as they prescribe for the procuring of it which I have already disproved Or 2. that God hath made some peculiar promise to such an order of men rather then to others which no Papist that I know of hath ever asserted I am sure there is not one Iota in the word of God to warrant it But the Learned Doctor hath Sect. 10 with the Apostle derived this their doctrine from the Devil and his argument is this To forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils saith the Apostle 1 Tim. 4.13 But to enjoyn perpetual Celibacy is to forbid Marriage Ergo. to this our Authour answers with the rest of his Fellows P. 210.211 Sect. 11. That St. Paul intends such Apostates as abstain from and prohibit Marriage as unlawful and unclean which thing the Encratites Montanists Marcionites and Manichees held as esteeming Marriage the work and design of the Devil But that their Church prohibites it not absolutely but upon the undertaking such an employment which they imagine not to suit so well with Matrimony And this is the substance of his first and second answer To which it is replyed 1. That the Apostle asserts the very doctrine of forbidding Marriage to be a doctrine of Devils Now as poyson is poyson whether it be absolutely taken or conditionally even so the Doctrine of Devils remains such whether absolutely or conditionally propounded 2. P. 723. 'T is answered by the Reverend Bishop Hall that the doctrine thus stigmatiz'd is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those in general that forbid Marriage not condemn it upon such or such particular accounts The act is one saith he the prohibition of Marriage whether to some or to more or to all St. Paul expresseth not The number doth not vary the quality of the Act This then only they have gained that some others have been deeper in the Condemnation than themselves 3. Hee adds that the Romanists have condemned Marriage absolutely also as evil in it self Who was he that accused Marriage of unholiness out of Sancti estote of uncleanness out of Omnia munda mundis of Contamination with carnal Concupiscence Exup Tolos Eâ—is Ep. 3. c. 1 dist 182. proposuisâ— was it not Pope Innocent who was he that interpreted the text Rom. 8.8 Those that are in the flesh cannot please God of Marriage that called the married man no less then whore manger sectatorem libidinum praeceptorem vitiorum a follower of lust a teacher of vice Lad. dist 1. plurimos ad HimeriuÌ„ Taruca Epist 1. that said Marriage was a loosing the Reins to luxury an inhiation after obscene lusts was it not Siricius the first founder if we may beleeve their now defaced gloss of forced continency who was it that called Marriage a defiling with unclean society and execrable Contagion was it not his Council of Toledo Con. Toledo 8. c. 5. cit a. c. â— P. 231. Vide regist Ecc. Wigron postea l. 3. Fulk in locuÌ„ who was it that called marriage filthy beastlinesse was it not St. Dunstan and St. Oswald Thus he 4. Dr. Fulk tells you that these old Hereticks that ascribed the first institution of Matrimony to Satan and the creation and procreation of Mankind to the Devil spake not falsehood in Hypocrisie but in open blasphemy and therefore might easily be avoided but you that under pretence of religion holiness chastity purity fasting and Prayers by laws and decrees forbid Marriage to some sort of people are they of whom the spirit of God speaketh evidently that they utter their false doctrine in Hypocrisie and therefore had need to be described by their special notes and the Church be forewarned by this prophesie against them But hee adds when these Hereticks were accused by the Fathers for such errours It was ordinary for them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things and they received from them such replies Ambros de offic Cap. ult as the Romanists give us Answ They might well recriminate when some of the Fathers spake of Matrimony as a stain and others tell us 't is forbid by Scriptures and an evil thing as St. Jerom. Wee acknowledge that some of the Fathers as Austin and Jerom were a little addicted to the present Romish errour And therefore they might well answer as the Romanists do But we will undertake to shew that the greatest and purest stream of antiquity runs against them And yet he is somewhat unhappy in his instance Omnino facere Vergines for St. Austin in the place here cited hath this dilemma either it is the doctrine of Devils absolutely to make Virgins that is by telling them that shee that marryeth doth well but she that marryeth not doth better that the unmarryed careth for the Lord c. and by suffering those that are thus inclined to keep their purpose without perswading them to the contrary which waies the Church of Christ useth either saith he you think that procuring of any persons to keep their Virginity by these or any other way is a doctrine of Devils or to do it by the prohibition of marriage if this last this concerns not us yea he adds that he would be not onely a fool but a mad man who thinks that what is granted by a publick law of God as marriage is can be forbidden by a private but then if you say that to favour the purpose of continence in a Virgin not to bear a reluctancy to her desire be the doctrine of Devils I am afraid of St. Paul And this being so with what face could our Author tell us that Faustus the Manichee Unde viro non tam concumbere quam nubere prohibetis concumbitur enim causa libidinum numbetur autem non nisi filiorum made the very same objection which wee do seeing wee never objected any thing against spontaneous embracing of Virginity but against the prohibition of marriage to their Priests and therefore the close of St. Austins answer to that objection exactly fits you viz. It is not we Protestants that teach the doctrine of Devils but you in detesting that enjoyment of the marriage bed which alone is honest and conjugal and which the matrimonial tables mention for the procreating of Children whence not so much the enjoyment of lust as marriage is forbidden by you to your Priests for then are you properly said concumbere when lust is the motive but to marry when the procreation of children is so Oh but our doughty Antagonist will raise up the ashes of an old argument Sect. 11 1 Tim. 5.11 82. to prove the Apostle cannot so be understood forsooth because he forbids marriage to Widdows who had consecrated themselves to the Lords