did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles
learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person
THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
properly so called as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation as the Articles of Pope Pius IV. Bulla Pii 4ti apud Concil Trid. are declared to be or else the force of his Argument is quite lost For if they be only Articles of Communion such as are necessary only for our admittance into and our peaceable and orderly living in that Society of which we are Members then are they no Additions to the Apostles Creed which only contains Articles of Faith. And that they are so will evidently appear if the Church of England may be but allowed to speak for her self Art. VI. She will tell us That the Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Art. VIII And she will further tells us That the Three Creeds the Nicene the Athanasian and that commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture But when she speaks of her own Articles she tells us they were agreed upon and designed for this end and purpose viz. For the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It is a scandal therefore upon the Church of England to say that she ever thought it lawful to add to the Apostles Creed or that it was in hers or in the power of the Church of Rome or of all the Churches in the World to make or coin any one new Article of Faith. Which if it be true then will it be a very hard task indeed to justifie Pope Pius IV. who hath added XII new Articles as necessary to be received and believed by all Men in order to their Salvation To bring off this Prelate as well as he can our Vindicator tells us That these Articles were collected by him at that time in opposition to the then broach'd Errors of Luther and Calvin that in so doing he is warranted by Primitive practices and that the Articles do not contain any new Doctrine but only a Declaration of that to be the true and Orthodox Doctrine of the Church which was really so antecedent to that Declaration And therefore saith he We have now only to enquire Whether the Doctrine propos'd in the profession of Pius IV. be according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers if it be not they do well that reject it but if it be the noise of Additional Articles will be but a weak justification of those that have made a breach in the Church on this score That these Articles were collected in opposition to some pretended Errors of Luther and Calvin and that it was the practice of the Primitive Church when any Error or Heresie was raised against any point of received Doctrine to condemn the Error or Heresie and the Abettors of them and to declare the opposed Doctrine to be Orthodox is readily granted But Whether the Doctrine delivered in these Articles be new or old is the thing now in question The Vindicator undertakes to prove that it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers which if he do then we must own our selves to blame but if he fail in it then notwithstanding this his Vindication he must if he be ingenuous acknowledge that we have just cause to withdraw from their Communion upon that score The Profession of Pope Pius IV. I steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other Observances and Constitutions of the Church IN this Article there are III. things which we are required to admit and embrace I. Apostolical Traditions II. Ecclesiastical Traditions III. Other Observances and Constitutions of the Church As for the first of these viz. Traditions truly Apostolical and universally own'd for obligatory through all ages we are ready with all due Veneration and profound Reverence to admit and embrace them We are well assured that the Apostles were Men divinely inspired and whatsoever Doctrine was delivered by them or whatsoever Rules of practice they did prescribe to be perpetually observed in the Church were no less than the Dictates of unerring Wisdom and therefore to contravene or not comply with them if they be sufficiently propounded to us would be great impiety But if we do not receive every thing as a Tradition truly Apostolical which is pretended to be so we ought to be excused by the Imposers If we are told as we have been by some of the Romish Writers That the whole Canon word by word as it is now used in the Mass came directly from the Apostles Or That the Apostles appointed their Orders of Monks Or That Christ was the Captain and Standard-bearer of Monastick life Or That private Mass Half-Communion Purgatory Pardons Indulgences and I know not what else are all from the Apostles This will want a confirmation and till we have it we must beg leave to suspend our belief and crave their pardon if we do not admit or embrace it as a Tradition truly Apostolical The next thing we are required to admit and embrace are Ecclesiastical Traditions Now those are either such as have been universally received by the Church in all Ages or are recommended to us by the present Church only The former of these we have a very great regard and reverence for are willing to admit and embrace them Sess 4. de Canon Script Contra Crescon Gram. l. 2. c. 31. Aug. ad Hieron Epist 19. and to give them the next place in our esteem to Scripture Tradition But we cannot be so complaisant nor so far comply with the Council of Trent to receive them with equal affection and reverence We think with St. Aug. That it is no injury to St. Cyprian to distinguish his Writings from the Canonical Authority of the holy Scriptures And with the same holy Father We think That the Jugdment of St. Paul alone is to be preferred before that of all the Fathers taken together The latter of these viz. The Traditions of the present Church though we have a very great esteem and value for them yet without a strict examination how far they agree with Scripture and Universal Tradition we cannot so readily admit and embrace them For as St. Hierom in his time said so we say now Those things which Men invent of themselves Hieron in 1. c. Agg. Proph. as it were by Apostolical Tradition without the Authority and witness of the holy Scriptures are confounded by God. The third thing we are here required to admit and embrace are All other Observances and Constitutions of the same Church If by Church here be mean the Catholique Church of all Ages whatsoever is made appear to have been an Observance or Constitution thereof we shall
the place Now if this be as undoubtedly it is the sence of the Apostle here let us see what consequence the Vindicator can draw from hence to favour his undertaking The Apostle here assures those to whom he wrote That all Prophecy of Scripture is not made of their own Explication i. e. as he explains himself Prophecy of old came not by the Will of Man. Therefore saith the Vindicator it belongs to the Church i. e. the Church of Rome and her only to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture for all Christians If you can swallow this consequence I do not see what you need to stick at One would have thought the more natural consequence had been this Therefore trust not every thing that pretends to come from a Prophetical and infallible Spirit but try whether it do so or no. Thus you see what a firm foundation this Gentleman hath laid which thus failing him his Superstructure thereupon must needs be in a very tottering condition His next Scripture is Acts xx 28. Where St. Paul charges the Elders of Ephesus To take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his own blood To these St. Paul saith he had declared all the Counsel of God v. 27. and then bids them to take heed to the flock c. i. e. to instruct those committed to their charge in that Doctrine which they had learned of him That by a parity of reason all Pastors and Teachers are to feed the flock committed to their care we willingly grant but how he will hence infer That all Christian People are to receive the true sence and Interpretation of Scripture from the Church of Rome I cannot imagine His next is 1 Tim. III. 15. Where St. Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth There is an excellent Treatise lately printed at London intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth to which if this Gentleman be permitted to read it I would referr him for his better understanding of this Text. His next is Matth. xxviij 20. Where our Saviour having given his Apostles his last and largest Commission promiseth to be with them alway even unto the end of the World. This promise was made to the Apostles and not only to them but to the whole Church of God in all Ages but how the Church of Rome comes to claim a Title to this promise more than any other I know not or if she had it I do not see what service it would do her in this case For that Christ will be alway with his Church so to preserve it as it shall never cease to be a Church we do not doubt but to preserve it from all error as he never promised it so we have no reason to expect it His next is John xvi 13. Where our Saviour tells his Disciples When he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth This promise was not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles whose case was so peculiar and extraordinary that the Church now hath no ground upon which to hope for the same Assistance which they then had and which indeed was then necessary for them to have That Christ will assist his Church in all Ages by his Grace we do not deny but that that Assistance implies Infallibility we cannot grant for then every private Christian who is assisted by Divine Grace would be infallible But if it did why the Church of Rome should put in a peculiar claim to this privilege more than the Church of England or any other particular Church I see no reason But it seems the Vindicator found great reason for it for thus he argues Christ promised his Apostles when he the Spirit of truth came he should guide them into all truth Therefore it belongs to the Church of Rome to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture Just as if one should argue Christ promised that these signs should follow them that believe In his name they should cast out Devils They should speak with new Tongues They should take up Serpents and if they drank any deadly thing it should not hurt them They should lay hands on the sick and they should recover Mark c. xvi v. 17 18. Therefore all that believe in Christ at this day shall do the same things His last Scripture proof is Matth. xviij 17. Where our Saviour saith If he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican To this I answer I. That our Saviour in this place doth not speak of Controversies in Religion or points of Faith but of quarrels between neighbours as is plain from v. 15. where our Saviour saith If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone c. II. By Church here we cannot understand either the Catholick or that which they call the Roman Catholick Church Not the former for that would make the thing not only impracticable but altogether impossible for when a quarrel happens to arise between two Neighbours if they must stay for the Decision of it till the Vniversal Church is assembled for that purpose their quarrel may last long enough Nor the latter for that would be as impracticable as the former for if two Christians have a quarrel in Syria or in Aethiopia must they go to the Roman Church to end their difference III. By the word Church therefore in this place we must understand any particular Church or Society of Christians of which the the two quarrelling Neighbours are Members Now it is confessed on all hands that any such Society in giving Admonitions and using of Censures may err being subject to be mislead either by passion or prejudice or ignorance 'T is plain therefore that this Scripture is not at all to his purpose or if it were it would do him no service Thus have I considered his Scripture proofs and now let us see what the Fathers will say for him He produceth two passages both out of one and the same Father viz. St. Aug. His first Authority is taken out of his first Book contra Crescon Gram. c. 33. Then says he we follow the truth of the Scriptures when we do that which hath seemed good to the whole Church which Church is commended to us by the Authority of the Scripture To the end that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates I cannot imagine what was in this Gentlemans mind when he pickt up this passage of St. Aug. for a proof of this Article St. Austin indeed says Then we follow the truth of
one kind after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And in his Book of Sacraments he hath these expressions In eating and drinking we signifie that Flesh and Blood which were offered for us Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4 5. And l. 6. 1. Thou receivest the Sacrament in a similitude It is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. And again Bread and Wine remain still the same thing they were before and yet are changed into another thing i. e. They are the same things really and in substance but another thing Sacramentally and in signification As to his last Authority taken from St. Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Coloss Though there be some Rhetorical aggravations the like whereunto may be found in other of the Fathers some of which I have given you an account of yet do I not see that any thing more is design'd by St. Cyril in this place than only to assure us of Christ's real but Spiritual presence in this Sacrament For that he never dreamt of any real and substantial change of the Elements therein is plain from his own words in another place where he saith * Cyril in Johan l. 4. c. 24. Christ gave to his believing Disciples pieces of Bread not pieces of his Body And again †Id. Ad Object Theodor. Our Sacrament doth not assert the eating of a Man i. e. Flesh and Blood that were to draw the minds of the Believers in an irreligious manner to gross cogitations I confess also That under one kind alone is received Christ whole and entire that being a true Sacrament THIS he tells us is a consequence of what is declared above and if so then must they stand and fall together If the foundation be defective the Superstructure is in danger If the Antecedent be false the Consequence can scarce be true Having therefore throughly sifted and examined the preceeding Article and found no Foundation upon which to build our Faith that there is any such real and substantial change wrought in the Elements of the sacred Eucharist after Consecration as is there pretended nor any reason to receive their monstrous and new invented Article of Transubstantiation into the Articles of our Creed we may justly reject this which he calls a consequence thereof But to shew that we have other reasons besides the inconsequence thereof to reject this Article as a Sacrilegious robbing of the People of one half of the sacred Eucharist let us consider the Institution of it and the constant practice of the Church thereupon If we consider the Institution we shall there find that our blessed Saviour in words as plain as possible did institute his Holy Supper under both kinds we may also find that as he did institute it so likewise he did administer it under both kinds we may also observe that He who said to his Disciples Take eat did also say unto them Drink ye all of this and in the close of all he leaves this word of command with them This do in remembrance of me as if he should have said what you have seen me do the same do ye And it is evident by the Apostles practice hereupon that they understood this to be the meaning of their Master And that this was not to remain a duty only during their time but in all after Ages of the Church St. Paul is very plain saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup 1 Cor. xi 26. ye shew forth the Lords death till he come And as for the practice of the Church thereupon it is very evident that for above a thousand years after Christ the Eucharist was always administred in both kinds So that if we have any regard either to the Institution or Example or Command of Christ or to the Practice of the Apostles or of the Church of Christ for so many Ages we have great reason to reject this Article as a great Novelty And indeed so it is for the first Foundation of it as a thing necessary to be believed and practised is laid in a Decree of the Council of Constance in the year of our Lord 1416. But the Vindicator will tell us that we are mistaken here for he pretends to find some footsteps of it in the Scriptures and for this alledgeth certain passages out of the sixth Chapter of St. John where our Saviour speaks sometimes both of Eating and Drinking and sometimes of Eating only To this I answer That our Blessed Saviour in that place doth not speak any thing of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but only of a Spiritual feeding upon him by Faith. For when he held that conference with the Capernaitan Jews this Sacrament was not then instituted nor of two years after and therefore no conclusive Argument can be built thereupon But he urgeth us with the Authority of St. Basil in his Epistle ad Caesar Patr. where he saith he finds these words It hath the same efficacy whether a person receives from the Priest one part or more Whether these be the words of St. Basil or how truly they are transcrib'd I have not the opportunity now to examine but admitting for the present that they are what is all this to the denying of the Cup to the Laity and forbidding the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds under so severe a penalty But I find St. Basil cited by Johannes Gerhardus for a quite different purpose Johan Gerhard de Sacra Coena c 9. §. 43. Basil l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. for he brings him in speaking on this wise If he who by eating offends his Brother be void of Charity what shall be said of him who dares idly and unprofitably both eat the Body and drink the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And again What is the duty of a Christian Id. in Moralib sub finem Let him cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and so let him eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ But at last he urgeth us with the opinion of Luther Melancthon and Spalatensis That in this point Christ hath left no necessary precept but that it may profitably and lawfully be received under one or both kinds To this I answer 1. That our Faith is not founded upon Luther's or any other Man's assertion but upon the Institution of Jesus Christ 2. That Luther wrote his Epistle to the Bohemians before he was fully grounded in the truth and that afterwards he did retract according to the example of St. Austin many things that he had written To this end you may find him begging and beseeching his Reader to read his former writings with pity and commiseration In praefat Tom. 1. Before all things I pray and beseech the godly Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake that he would read these my writings with judgment yea and with great pity remembring
heartily desire that he may do it Greg. Naz. in Epist ad Caesareenses Chrysost ad pop Antiochenum Hom. 3. and do it diligently And that this Holy Father meant no more than this may plainly appear from what he saith of the Church of Caesarea It is saith he in a manner the Mother of all Churches and the whole Christian Common-wealth so embraceth and beholdeth it as the Circle embraceth and beholdeth the Center Thus Jerusalem is frequently stiled the Mother of all Churches and St. Chrysostome calls Antioch the Head of the World. Now as these Churches are called Mother Churches because the Cities in which they were planted were the Mother Cities of those Provinces so for the same reason the Church of Rome is oftentimes called the Chief the Principal and the Mother Church because that City was the Metropolis or Head-City of the West And as the Bishops of those Churches may be and oftentimes are called the Chief Rulers and Governours of the Church so likewise and no otherwise the Bishop of Rome is sometimes stiled the Head i. e. the chief Governour of the Church And that by the whole Church here we are to understand no more but only the whole Church of that Province Polydor. Virgil explaining those words of St. Cyprian The Chair of Peter Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor rerum l 4. the principal Church from which the Vnity of the Priesthood first began thus writeth Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other wise be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from the Bishop of Rome unless we understand it only within Italy For it is clear and out of question that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before Peter ever came to Rome To this I might add That every Bishop may be called the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is his duty to take care not only of his own Flock but of the whole Church of God. As also that this Title Head of the Church hath been given to several godly Bishops who were never Bishops of Rome nor ever dreamt that any Supremacy of power over all other Churches was thereby conferred either upon him or them But I am not willing to enter farther into the Controversie than the Vindicator leads me And to this Evidence of his I think enough hath been said to show that it will not much avail him His next witness is St. Chrysostome l. 2. de Sacerd. c. 1. For what reason did Christ shed his Blood Certainly to purchase those sheep the care of which he committed to Peter and his Successors The whole force of his Argument if he can frame any out of these words must be That the Bishop of Rome is the true Successor to St. Peter Which if we should grant him I do not see how it would thence follow that the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor Head and Governor of the Catholick Church For if St. Peter himself was not so he cannot have it by Succession from him De Unitate Eccles Edit Oxon p. 107. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 38. Now St. Cyprian saith The Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined in the same fellowship of Honour and Power And their own Pope Gregory saith Peter the Apostle is not the Head but the chief Member of the holy universal Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but the Heads of several Nations Yet notwithstanding under one Head viz. Christ they are all members of the Church And to speak in short The Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints in the time of Grace all accomplishing the Lord's Body are placed among the Members of the Church And there was never any one yet that would have himself called the Universal Bishop So that as Paul Andrew and John were Heads of the Church in like manner and no otherwise was St. Peter Head of the Church If therefore St. Peter was then they were all so too for they were all equal and what a confusion that would be let the Vindicator judge To this may be added That if St. Peter was really the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Church constituted by Christ St. Paul certainly was very much to blame Gal. ii 2. to withstand him to the face as he did And it must be a very great Arrogance and presumption in him to say That in nothing he was behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. xij 11. Gal. ij 7. Or to share Jurisdiction with him saying That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter But St. Chrysostome Chrysost in Epist ad Galat. c. ii whose Authority he so much depends upon will tell him That Paul had no need of Peter 's help nor did he want his voice but was equal unto him in Honour Besides all this One may be said to succeed another either because he possesseth the same place that he did or because he teacheth the same Doctrine and with the same diligence that he did Now the former of these will not be enough to make any one the true Successor of St. Peter Alphons contra Haeres l. 1. c. 9. for as their own Alphonsus de Castro saith Though it be matter of Faith to believe the true Successor of St. Peter is the Supream Pastor of the whole Church yet are we not bound by the same Faith to believe that Leo or Clement though Bishops of Rome are the true Successors of St. Peter And yet this is the Succession they so much boast of and if this be it Dist 40. Multi the same St. Chrysostom will inform him That it is not the Chair that makes the Bishop but it is the Bishop that makes the Chair Neither is it the place that Halloweth the Man but it is the Man that Halloweth the place Dist 40. Non est facile And St. Jerome will tell him They are not always the Children of Holy Men that sit in the rooms of Holy Men. Nor did these Holy Fathers speak without Book for the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's Chair Matth. xxiij 2. And the Abomination of Desolation shall stand in the holy Place Matth. xxiv 15. And the Man of Sin as God shall sit in the Temple of God 2 Thes ij 3 4. As the first of these did Succeed Moses in place but not in Doctrine so the two other shall succeed Christ and his Apostles And thus Pope Liberius though an Arian Heretick and Pope Coelestinus though a Nestorian and Pope Honorius though a Monothelite may be said to succeed St. Peter in place though not in Doctrine But will the Vindicator say or can he imagine that St. Chrysostom meant That Christ shed his Blood to purchase a Church and when he had done committed the care of it to such Successors of St. Peter as these were His next is St. Jerome Epist 57 and 58.
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and
the reasons of it are expressed at large in the Epistle of that Council to Pope Coelestinus Thus have I considered the Proofs brought for Vindication of this important Article and having laid them in the Balance have found them all too light But he hath yet one Authority more not from Antiquity but from a Modern Author and one of our own viz. the Reverend and learned Doctor Sherlock This I confess Disc of the Knowl of Jes Christ p. 163. I did not expect for who would ever have thought that that worthy Gentleman should ever have been brought upon the Stage as an Advocate for the Popes Supremacy But this Gentleman thinks that whatsoever is said by any Body touching Order and Discipline in the Church and the necessity of subjection and obedience to the Governors thereof must needs terminate in the Pope who they say is the Center of Unity though in so saying they do but beg the Question For we can with great cheerfulness and willingness subscribe to all that Dr. Sherlock hath there said and yet think our selves never a jot the more obliged to swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome I undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent and I condemn reject and anathematize all things contrary thereunto and all Heresies whatsoever the Church hath condemned rejected and Anathematized THIS he tells us is the consequence of that Doctrine of our Creed wherein we profess to believe The Holy Catholick Church But how comes this to be the consequence of that Doctrine Very naturally for the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church 'T is boldly said but how doth this appear Very plainly for there are the greatest reasons in the world to believe it So that now we must either show our selves to be unreasonable Men or else of necessity we must subscribe this Article But are we obliged to take all this upon the bare word of the Vindicator May we not look into and consider these reasons whether they be so great and good as he talks of Surely we may or else he would not have exposed them to publick view Well then let us see what they are R. 1. His first Reason is Because the Church of Rome has continued in a visible Succession of Pastors from Christ's time till now Ans The point of Succession hath been already considered and I think enough said to show the unreasonableness of that Plea. But because he so much insists upon the visible Succession of Persons in the same place let me ask him two or three questions 1. Who was the Bishop of Rome next by Succession to Peter who the second who the third who the fourth For in this they are not yet well agreed Some say Linus was the second others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the third others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the fourth others say Anacletus 2. Whether an Heretick or a Necromancer or a Blasphemer being in the Chair be the true Successor of St. Peter and if not whether that do not break the Line of Succession 3. Whether when there was no Pope for some Years the visible succession of Pastors in that Church was not discontinued 4. When there were three or four Popes at one and the same time and not known who was the true one there was not an apparent interruption of their visible succession R. 2. Because the Church of Rome never went out of or separated from any precedent Church but all other separate Congregations have gone out from her Ans If by going out of or separating from any precedent Church he mean departing from the Doctrine and renouncing the Discipline of that Church which he must do if he mean any thing then we say That in both these the present Church of Rome hath gone out of and separated from the Primitive Church as hath been plainly made appear in this Discourse And that those who separate from her do not separate from the Church but from the corruptions of that particular Church which they are well warranted to do by St. Paul who having told the Corinthians That there can be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord between Christ and Belial nor any Agreement between the Temple of God and Idols at last thus inferrs Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. vi 14 15 16 17. Because the Church of Rome hath sent Apostles abroad and converted all Heathen Nations to Christianity R. 3. Ans This is so notoriously false and so well known to be so to every one that hath but looked into Church History in which we have an account of most Nations when and by whom they were converted that I cannot but wonder at the Confidence of this Gentleman in asserting it But if we should grant him this would it thence follow That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Might I not as well reason thus The Scribes and Pharisees compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes therefore those two Sects were the whole Jewish Church Because the Church of Rome in publick Synods has opposed and condemn'd in all Ages arising Heresies R. 4. This is as notoriously false as the former Ans as is plain from those two Instances of the Milevitan and African Councils which I mentioned in the precedent Article and might easily be made more plainly appear by Instances of other Councils which have not only not desired but rejected the Authority of the Church of Rome when it would have inposed But the thing is so well known that I shall not need to do it These are all the Reasons he alledgeth and these he tells us are the greatest in the World. If they be so the World is in an ill condition and men like the great Nebuchadnezzar may be sent now to graze amongst the Beasts of the Field having lost their Reason I am of Doctor Sherlock's mind That Men cannot own the Authority and Government of Christ till they submit to the publick Instructions Authority and Discipline of the Church But what is all this to the Church of Rome's being the Catholick Church 'T is plain he doth not say it and I am well assured he never meant it I subscribe to St. Austin's Judgment That particular Councils Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 9. must yield to General because the whole is deservedly preferred before a part But did ever any Council either particular or General decree a part to be the whole or a particular Church to be the Catholick Church If not I do not see how the Vindicator can avail himself of this passage nor for what end he did produce it Thus it appears that the New Articles in Pope Pius
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
to admit of them and embrace them And this he pretends to do both by an Apostolical Precept and Apostolical Practice Two mighty arguments if they be apposite to the thing in hand and well managed which whether they be or no I shall now examine The Apostolical Precept which he produceth is in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 7 17. in these words Remember them which have the rule over you c. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as they that must give an account c. In the former of these Verses as their own Lyra upon the place tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers that are dead Lyra in Hebr. c. 13. v. 7. We ought to remember them by following their Faith and imitating their good Examples And lest we should be at a loss to know who they are whom we are to remember and whose Faith and Vertue we are to follow the same Lyra tells us They were the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ In the latter place the same Lyra tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers who are alive viz. by obeying their Commands and giving due Reverence to their Persons That obedience is due from Inferiors to their Superiors we readily grant But then I. They must be such Superiors as not only pretend to have but really have a right to rule over them Now we do not think that any particular Church no not the Church of Rome it self hath any authority to give Laws to another Church for it is a certain Rule Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no power over one another And if so then the Church of Rome hath no reason to expect our compliance with every thing which she thinks fit to require of us II. As they ought to have a right to rule over us so their commands ought to be such as we may without sin obey them otherwise the rule of the Apostles will dispense with us Act. 4.19 Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye Now whether they be so or no how can we tell if we are not allowed before-hand to know what they are These things being thus premised I dare now venture any unbyassed Reader to be the Judge whether by virtue of this Precept the Church of Rome may justly challenge a power to impose what Observances and Constitutions she pleaseth upon the whole Christian World For that is truly the question between us Having considered the Precept by him procured and found him mistaken in it Let us now consider his argument from Primitive Practice and see whether that will stand him in any more stead This he tells us was the practice of the Apostles even of St. Paul himself and Silas who as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem And so were the Churches established in the Faith Acts xvi 4 5. The Apostolical Council held at Jerusalem having finished their Decrees commissionated Paul and Barnabas with Judas and Silas to publish the same among the Brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia Acts c. xv v. 22 23. These Men faithfully discharged their duty in performing their Commission and their so doing had a good effect for thereby the Churches were established in the Faith and increased in number daily Now what is all this to the Vindicator's purpose Will it necessarily follow That because Paul and Silas published the Apostles Decrees in these places Therefore the Church of Rome may impose what Ordinances and Constitutions she will upon all Christians If not I do not see what good this instance of Apostolical Practice will do the Vindicator I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that Sence which our Holy Mother the Church has held and does hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation thereof Nor will I ever admit or interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers WHAT Tertullian said merrily of the Heathens in his time Tertul. in Apologetico Vnless God please Man well He shall be no God and so now Man must be friendly and favourable unto God may with a little variation be here applied to the Church of Rome Vnless the Holy Scriptures please Her well they shall be no Scriptures For unless they speak according to Her Sence they are not to be admitted it belonging to Her to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of them For I do not at all doubt but it is of that Church that this Article speaks and which it stiles Our Holy Mother the Church And for this I have the warrant of Pope Pius himself who in his XXIII Article stiles it The Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Nor indeed can it be otherwise understood for if the true Sence of Scripture must depend upon the Judgment of the Universal Church i. e. of all the Christians or at least of all the Bishops and Pastors in the World how is it possible to get them together to declare the Sence thereof or must we reject all Scripture till we have such a Declaration If you tell me that we must look for it in the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers I answer I. That this is an impossible task for all sorts of Christians for Women and unlearned Men can never perform it if therefore their Salvation depend thereupon they must inevitably be damned II. Those that are learned and able to read and understand the Fathers do not find any such unanimous consent among them so that if according to this Article we must not admit the Scripture till they are all agreed about the Sence of it both learned and unlearned will for ever want a Rule to govern themselves by in the eternal concerns of their immortal Souls To avoid these difficulties The Church of Rome by Catholick understands the Roman Catholick Church and by Our Holy Mother the Church the Church of Rome which they call the Mother and Mistress of all Churches But will this make the business ever a jot the more easie Must all the Christians in the World out of Greece Egypt and many other more remote parts repair to Rome to receive the true Sence and Interpretation of the Scriptures Or if they do are they sure to meet with it when they come there Will they not find as much difference in opinions between the Doctors of that Church as of any other Will they not find that Councils have contradicted Councils and Popes condemned Popes And if so where then can they hope to meet with an infallible Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures To this may be added That if it belong to the Church to judge of the true Sence
the Scriptures when we do that which has seem'd good to the whole Church And who denies it We have too great a Veneration for the Doctrine and Practice of the Vniversal Church to suspect that there can be any ill in them let but any thing be made appear to have been universally received or universally practised by the Church in all Ages and we will readily admit and embrace it we will acquiesce in it and seek no farther Thus far do we perfectly agree with this holy Father nor do we dissent from him in the rest Which Church says he is commended to us by the Authority of the Scriptures Well then by his Rule we must understand the Scriptures before we can know the Church Now the Scriptures they themselves confess do not consist in the Letters and Words but in the Sence and meaning And if so then we must understand the sence and meaning of Scriptures antecedent to the Churches Interpretation of them But he goes on To the end says he that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates And here I cannot but remarque I. That according to St. Austin Holy Writ is the only infallible rule to judge by for it cannot deceive II. That by this rule we are to find out the true Church for without any ambiguity or leaving room to doubt it plainly demonstrates it to us III. That having by this means found out the true Church we ought in all questions which are too hard and difficult for us to consult her about them All which we readily agree to Now let the Vindicator once more put on his spectacles and seriously review this place of St. Austin and I dare appeal to himself or any man of sence whether it do not directly conclude against this Article which he undertakes to prove by it But perhaps he may have better luck with his next Authority let us therefore consider that too which he cites out of the same Father de Vnitat Eccles c. 19. whence he quotes these words If we had any wise man whose Authority was recommended to us by Christ himself we could no ways doubt of following his judgment having consulted him upon this point lest in refusing we should not so much seem obstinately to withstand him as Jesus Christ our Lord by whose testimony he was recommended to us Who doubts of all this If it had pleased our Blessed Saviour to have given such testimony to the Church of Rome or any other Church we should never have doubted to follow the judgment of that Church and when they can make it appear that he hath done so we shall without any the least scruple submit to it But St. Austin goes on Christ hath given testimony of his Church True but where is it not in the holy Scriptures and if so then we must understand them before we can be satisfied concerning this Testimony and as this Church directs you ought with all readiness obey Right but first we must know which is this Church and that according to St. Austin we cannot do but by the Scriptures And if you will not 't is not to me you are disobedient or any man but most perversly to the prejudice of your own Soul you withstand Christ himself because you refuse to follow the Church which is recommended by his Authority whom you judge it a wickedness to resist All this we can readily subscribe to for when by the Holy Scripture we have once found out which is the true Church we ought with all readiness to yield obedience thereunto because it is recommended to us by the Authority of Jesus Christ whom to resist in any thing we account a great wickedness But where shall we meet with this Authoritative Recommendation except in the holy Scriptures So that still we must understand the Scriptures before we can know which is that Church that is recommended to us by Christ And now pray'e what is all this to the proof of this Article That it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture and that we are not to admit Scripture to be Scripture but according to that sence which she gives of it And yet all this while we cannot according to St. Austin know the Church but by the Scripture I do also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for the salvation of Mankind though all be not necessary for every one to wit Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony that they conferr Grace and that three of them Baptism Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege HERE the Vindicator tells us That the holy Scripture no where assigns the number of the Sacraments either of their being two or seven Neither doth it give us the definition of a Sacrament and the word is not so much as named in the English Translation and only once in the Vulgar viz. Ephes v. 32. speaking of Matrimony All that we believe therefore in this point we receive from the Church as it hath been delivered founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture To this I answer That it is not more plain that in Scripture there is no mention of Sacraments than that in the Fathers there is no mention of seven The determination of the number is of so late a date Cassand Consult Art. 13. de numero Sacram. An. 1439. that their ingenuous Cassander freely confesses That it is not easie to find any man before Peter Lombard who lived in the twelfth Century which hath set down any certain and definite number of Sacraments The Council of Florence indeed insinuates this number of seven Sacraments as Suarez contends But it was never determined till the late Council of Trent in the last Age and therefore must needs be a great Novelty An. 1546. But to vindicate the Doctrine of seven Sacraments as it is now taught in the Church of Rome and summ'd up in this Article from the imputation of Novelty This Gentleman undertakes to prove that it is founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the sence of the Scripture wherein how well he acquits himself we shall now consider But because he tells us that the Holy Scripture gives us no definition of a Sacrament It will be necessary to state the notion of the thing and to agree what it is before we dispute how many of them there be To the constitution of a Sacrament properly so called we say that these three things must of necessity concurr viz. the word of Institution a visible Sign or outward Element Aug. in Joan. Tract 80. and a promise of invisible Grace annexed thereunto Which is the same that St. Austin saith Accedat verbum ad
through laying on of the Apostles hands the Holy Ghost was given he offered them money Here we have a narrative of matter of Fact but nothing that looks like a Sacrament in it for here is neither any word of Institution nor any outward Element which are things agreed to be absolutely necessary to the making or constituting of a Sacrament Here is no mention of Chrism or Unction or of the blow on the Ear or of the Head-band which are look'd upon as things necessary and of the Essence of the pretended Popish Sacrament of Confirmation Besides the Imposition of hands by the Apostles in this place was not to celebrate a Sacrament to perfect or strengthen Baptism but to conferr miraculous and extraordinary gifts i. e. to give the Holy Ghost This Simon Magus saw and therefore offered money for that gift which he would never have done for Popish Confirmation To this I may add the testimony of their own Alexander de Hales Alex. Hales part 4. qu. 24. memb 1. who saith The Sacrament of Confirmation as it is a Sacrament was neither instituted by our Lord himself nor by his Apostles but was afterwards instituted in the Council of Melda So that though this may be an ancient Rite it can be but a new Sacrament i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Penance TO prove this he produceth John xx 22. Where it is said He breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost and v. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained Before I give a direct answer hereunto let me premise That the difference between us and the Church of Rome in this point is not Whether Penance be necessary to Salvation or whether men ought to confess their sins amend their lives and turn unto God by true Repentance but whether this Penance be a Sacrament wherein a contrite sinner ought punctually to confess his sins to a Priest and from him to receive judicial Absolution upon condition to make satisfaction unto God by Corporal or Pecuniary Penance which whosoever doth not accomplish in this life shall suffer for it in Purgatory The former of these we willingly assent to as being founded on the Word of God but the latter we reject as having no foundation either in this or any other Text of Scripture That our Saviour here doth commit to his Church the power of the Keyes i. e. of publick Discipline by virtue whereof she hath Authority to admit into or cast out of the Church such as she shall judge worthy of it we readily grant and do heartily bewail the want of it But that it is of such absolute necessity that the truly penitent sinner cannot receive Pardon of sins without it we cannot subscribe to Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in these words But the Vindicator in compliance with the Council of Trent Concil Trid. Sess 14. cap. 1. Can. 1. which teacheth That those who fall from Grace after Baptism have need of another Sacrament to restore them and therefore our Saviour instituted this of Penance and Anathematizeth all those who deny this Doctrine hath found out a Sacrament in these words But if our Saviour did by these words Institute a Sacrament I would fain know which is the Element or Visible Sign Instituted by Christ for this on both sides is acknowledged to be a necessary part of a Sacrament According to the Church of Rome this Sacrament consists of Four Parts viz. Contrition Confession Absolution and Satisfaction Contrition of the Heart can be no sensible nor visible Sign Nor can Confession pretend to it for 1. Confession is so far from being a Sign of the Grace of God that it is a declaration that we are unworthy of his Grace 2. It is designed not to signify the Grace of God but to ask it 3. The sacred Signs ought to be administred by the Priest but Confession is made by the Penitent Nor can Absolution lay any claim to it for 1. Absolution if it be good and available is the Grace of God and therefore cannot be a Sign of it 2. If it could be a Sign yet can it not be a Visible Sign for the words are not Visible Nor can Satisfaction pretend to it for that is accomplished by the Sinner and not administred by the Priest So that in all these we can find no outward Element or Visible Sign of Invisible Grace Instituted by Christ and without that it cannot be a Sacrament There is one thing yet which may make some colourable pretence to it and that is The Imposition of the Priest's Hands This we confess is a Visible Sign But 1. It is no Element but an Action as the distribution of the Bread in the Lord's Supper is not the Element but the Bread sanctified 2. This Imposition of Hands is not of Christ's Ordination or Institution and therefore cannot be a Sacramental Sign He did never command That the Priest should lay his Hands on any one to conferr Sacramental Absolution If he did let them produce the command But if we review these words we shall find that they were spoken to the Apostles after that Christ was risen again from the Dead And if so then Repentance preached before whether by the Prophets Matth. iij. Mark i. 15. Acts ij 38. Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. or by St. John Baptist or by Christ himself was no Sacrament nor that preached by St. Peter after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because the persons to whom he preached were not then Baptized For thus the Council of Trent hath determined the point Repentance was not a Sacrament before the coming of Christ nor after his coming is so to any one before Baptism And yet all good Christians in the Primitive and purest Times of the Church for many hundred Years after Christ never knew nor dream'd of any other Penance than what had been preached either by the Prophets or by St. John Baptist or by Christ himself or by his Apostles nor ever doubted of obtaining Pardon thereby The truth is Anno. 1215. till the Council of Lateran we do not find that ever Penance as it is now used in the Church of Rome was determin'd to be of necessary Observance Anno. 1546. Nor till the Council of Trent that it was required to be received as a Sacrament of divine Institution and absolutely necessary to Salvation All which considered notwithstanding this Gentleman's Vindication I think we may safely conclude That though Repentance be an old Duty yet it is but a new Sacrament and that Penance as it is now used in the Church of Rome is neither a Duty nor a Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Extream Unction TO prove this he produceth James v. 14 15. where it is said Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over
him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him This place of Scripture hath been often enough brought upon the stage by one or other of the Roman party and as often considered and the Arguments drawn from it baffled by some of our Men. And therefore when I met with it here I did expect that this Gentleman who is so brisk at a Vindication had found some new Matter in it and thereby cut us out some new Work but instead of that he only quotes the place transcribes the words and leaves them to shift for themselves What therefore is here to be done by us save only to consider the design of the Apostle in these Words Which is plainly this St. James directs the sick person to call for the Elders of the Church to assist him in that condition The means by which they were to assist him are Two 1. They were to pray over him And 2. To anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And that in order to Two ends 1. The Recovery of the Sick. 2. The Remission of Sins Of these Means and Ends the one is Perpetual viz. Prayer and Remission of Sins the other Temporary viz. The Anointing with Oil and the Recovery of bodily Health That the Apostles had the Gift of Healing we grant and that in order to the working of their miraculous Cures they did use the Ceremony of Anointing with Oil we deny not but the Gift of Healing being now ceased in the Church that Ceremony is become useless and unprofitable and for that reason laid aside for God loves no unprofitable Signs Whilst it was in use it was used only in Order to bodily health but now in the Church of Rome it is not to be used whilst there are any hopes of Recovery but only in Articulo mortis when Men are at the point of Death as a viaticum into the other World. That this was design'd and used only in order to bodily health is plain from the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred Years after Christ And Cardinal Cajetan freely confesseth Annot. in loc that this was the only use of it for saith he These words of St. James speak not of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction whether we consider the words or the Effects of them but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel to be used by his Disciples to the Sick. For the Text saith not Is any sick to Death but absolutely Is any sick Nor doth it assign any other use of anointing of the sick person but only the recovery of bodily health And the Ingenuous Cassander Cassand in Consult Art. 22. without any hesitation freely delivers his Opinion saying It is no Sacrament properly so called because it hath neither Word of Institution nor outward Element The eldest Evidence that we meet with for this pretended Popish Sacrament of Extream Vnction is the Council of Chalons Anno. 813. which was held above Eight hundred Years after Christ and was but at best a National Synod neither So that though we do not deny but that Anointing the Sick with Oil was a very Ancient Rite yet we cannot but look upon it as a very New Sacrament and one that was never advanc'd to that honour by any Appointmant of our blessed Saviour Of the pretended Sacrament of Orders TO evince this he produceth 2 Tim. i. 6. where St. Paul saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands St. Paul here admonisheth his Son Timothy to a vigorous exercise of that Power and Authority which by the Imposition of his Hands he had received to Preach the Gospel Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in this place But the Question between us is not Whether the Office of a Priest ought to be conferred upon him by the Imposition of Hands but whether such Ordination be a Sacrament of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ To this I answer That if by the word Sacrament they only mean any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion in which sence it is frequently used especially by the Latine Fathers we can very willingly and readily admit this Imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament But if they would advance it higher and have it called a Sacrament in the same sence as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are or as this Article requires That we should receive it as a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind we cannot in this consent with them and that for these Reasons I. Because Imposition of hands though it be a Sign yet is it not a sacred Sign of the Covenant of God in Jesus Christ II. Because it is not common to all the Faithful but confin'd to a certain order of Men only III. Because there is no express Institution of it to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and consequently no promise of Grace annexed to it IV. Because it is well known that many of the Roman Communion do not think Imposition of hands to be Essential to Holy Orders and if not then can it be no outward Sign of a Sacrament in them Nor can Ordination it self be a Sacrament seeing there is no outward visible Sign of it ordained by God. For these Reasons Though we acknowledge the Conferring of Orders by Imposition of hands to have been a very ancient usage in the Church and of Apostolical practice yet we think it to be a very new i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony AS an evidence of this he produceth Eph. v. 31 32. where St. Paul saith For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined to his Wife and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and his Church The Church of Rome calls the marriage of Priests Sacrilege and yet will have the Marriage of Lay-men to be a Sacrament which conferrs justifying Grace And to prove this the Vindicator alledgeth this Text of Scripture as many others before him have done and have received their answer but as if there had been no such thing this Gentleman with sufficient confidence barely cites it and so leaves it To which however I shall return this answer The Apostle in this place as is plain to every considerate Reader speaketh of the sacred Union between Jesus Christ and his Church which Union he illustrates by that of Marriage between the Husband and the Wife His intent was not to exalt the Mystery of Marriage but the Union of the Church with Jesus Christ This Mystery then whereof he speaketh is the
Mystical Union between Jesus Christ and his Church and not the Union between the Husband and the Wife For having said This is a great Mystery that we might not think that he spake of the Mystery of Marriage he addeth But I speak concerning Jesus Christ and his Church But the Vulgar Translation of this Text calls it a Sacrament we grant it but doth this prove Marriage to be a Sacrament Will the Vindicator own all those things which in the Vulgar Translation are called Sacraments to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome Then the great Whore mentioned in the Revelations must be one of their Sacraments for so the Vulgar Translation calls her Rev. xvij 7. And the seven Stars mentioned Rev. i. 20. must be another for so they are there called And Dreams and Visions must be a third for so they are three times called Dan. ij 18 30 47. And Piety is called a great Sacrament 1 Tim. iij. 16. I suppose he will not own these to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome and yet in their Authentick Translation they are called Sacraments as well as Marriage But that Marriage is no Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ among many others we have these reasons to satisfy our selves I. Because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ for it was in the World before his time If after his coming the blessed Jesus did change the nature of it and make it a Sacrament then let them shew us when and where he did it II. Because as it hath no word of Institution so neither hath it any visible Sign or outward Element for neither the words nor the actions are Elements and unless there be an Element to which the word of Institution is joined it can be no Sacrament III. Because there is no promise of Grace annexed to any outward Element for though the state of Matrimony be a sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some Analogy with it ye we do not know that the entrance into this state hath the promise of any Grace to join or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church And for these reasons we exclude it from the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ with all the requisites of a Sacrament properly so called And for our so doing we do not want Authorities among the eminent Doctors of the Roman Church I shall only give you two instances Their own Durandus delivers his opinion in plain terms telling us Durand in sentent l. 4. Dist 26. q. 3. Cajetan Annot. in loc That strictly and properly speaking Marriage is not a Sacrament And Cardinal Cajetan upon this place of Scripture cited by the Vindicator hath these words Prudent Reader thou learnest not here of St. Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament for he saith not This Sacrament but this Mystery is great and in truth the Mystery of those words is great Thus it appears that neither from Antiquity nor the written Word of God any of these five Additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome viz. Confirmation Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony can with any justice plead the same title to be Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind as it is confessed on all hands Baptism and the Lord's Supper may I do also receive and admit of all the received and approved Ceremonies of the Catholick Church used in the Administration of the above-mentioned Sacraments 1 Cor. xiv 40. THAT all things are to be done decently and in order we own to be an Apostolical precept and that in point of duty we stand obliged to yield Obedience thereunto We also acknowledge that the Superiors in every Society are the proper Judges of that Decency and Order And that it always hath been and still is the practice of all well-ordered Societies to submit to the Determination of their Superiors therein And that to invert this Order or for private persons to take upon them to dictate to their Governours in this case is the only way to introduce Anarchy and Confusion Which is all or at least the substance of all that the Vindicator here offers in behalf of this Article But after this Concession there are some things still stick with us which will not suffer us to subscribe thereunto viz. I. Because we are required to receive it not only as an Article of Communion but as an Article of Faith under the penalty of an Anathema though it only concern Ceremonies which are things mutable at the pleasure of the Church II. Because the Ceremonies here spoken of or some of them neither are nor ever were received nor approved by the Catholick Church III. Because the Roman Catholick Church as they call it is but a particular Church and hath no more power to impose Ceremonies or Usages upon any other Church than that other hath to impose upon Her. For Par in parem non habet imperium IV. If any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of Rome or any other Church be such as that the Members of that Church cannot comply with them without sin and danger the general rule of the Apostle doth not in that case bind to blind Obedience For then there is an Apostolical pattern which must take place Whether it be better to obey God or man judge ye Acts iv 19. I embrace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Council of Trent hath been defin'd concerning Original Sin and Justification IN defence of this Article and to perswade us to a compliance therewith the Vindicator proceeds in this method I. He undertakes to give us an account of what the Council hath defin'd in these two points And II. To vindicate those their Definitions Now whether he hath been faithful in his account or whether the Definitions of the Council or his Vindication of them be such as may oblige us to comply with him and the Council therein are the things we are now to enquire into I. As touching Original Sin it must be acknowledged that the Vindicator hath faithfully set down the Doctrine thereof as it is defin'd by the Council of Trent But notwithstanding the Authority of this Council or the strength of the Proofs which indeed are weak enough whereby he endeavours to defend its Definition of this point yet there are some things we cannot comply with and till we are convinc'd by better Arguments than are here offered we cannot embrace all and every thing which in the Council of Trent hath been defin'd in this point But because the difference here is not very great and no new matter offered but only such as hath been over and over again considered and refuted and because there are matters of greater moment still behind Concil Trident. Sess 5. Decret de peccat Origin Can. 5. I shall only desire the Vindicator once more to read over that very Decree upon which this part of
the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified
that I was sometimes a Monk a mad Papist so drunk so drown'd in Popery that I was ready to kill every one or assist and consent to their death if in any things they differed therefrom c. I hold That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detain'd are help'd by the Prayers of the Faithful THE Vindicator here tells us that he doth verily believe and is fully satisfied that there is a Purgatory but where it is or whether there be a true and proper Fire there or how long that punishment lasts these are no Articles of his Faith. He might have added Or what it is For the Council of Trent upon which he builds his Faith doth not tell him that So that to subscribe to this Article is in effect to subscribe to he knows not What nor Where nor Whether nor How long nor indeed Why. It may not be amiss therefore to acquaint you what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning Purgatory which I shall do out of their most Authentick Record viz. The Council of Trent Sess 25. Decret de Purgator Wherein it is declared That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detain'd there do receive assistance from the suffrages of the Faithful but especially from the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar And all who do not believe the same are by that Council anathematized which makes it a necessary Article of Faith. For thus the Council determineth If any one shall say that after a Man hath received the Grace of Justification the guilt of his Sin Sess 6. Can. 30. and the eternal punishment due thereto is so remitted that there remains no temporary pain to be satisfied for by him either in this World or in Purgatory before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be Anathema And in another place the same Council tells us Sess 22. cap. 2. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is a truly propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and for the Dead who are not yet throughly purged And to confirm this there is a Canon of that Council in the same Session in these words Can. 3. If any one shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving or a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice Or that it is profitable only to him that receives it and ought not to be offered up for the sins pains satisfactions and other necessities both of the quick and the dead let him be Anathema And the Catechism ad Parochos which always speaks the sence of that Council teacheth the same Doctrine telling us Part. 1. Art. 2. n. 5. That there is a Purgatory Fire wherein the Souls of the Godly being tormented for a certain time are expiated that so the Gates of the eternal Country may be opened unto them into which nothing defiled can enter This is the Doctrine of the Romish Church touching Purgatory which we are required to subscribe unto in this Article wherein we are taught and it is expected that we should steadfastly believe 1. That there is a middle state for the reception of Souls departed which is neither Heaven nor Hell. 2. That this state is a state of pain and punishment 3. That in this state they are to satisfie for some temporary punishments which were not accomplished nor accounted for in this life 4. That those tormented Souls may be assisted and relieved by the Prayers and Alms-deeds of their Friends here but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar Now this Doctrine we cannot subscribe to having as we think great reason to reject it For 1. We do not find in holy Scripture any mention made of any other place for the reception of Souls departed besides Heaven and Hell and therefore we look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented 2. Nor do we find any the least footsteps of a Popish Purgatory among the Primitive Fathers nor for many hundred years after Christ In lib. advers Luther There own Martyr Roffensis deals plainly with us telling us That so long as there was no care of Purgatory which fairly implies that there was a time when Purgatory was either not known or not much cared for no Man sought after Indulgences for upon that depends all the opinion of Pardons If you take away Purgatory wherefore should we need Pardons Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received of the whole Church viz. not till the time of Boniface VIII about the Year 1300. who can wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church But though there was not then there is great use made of them now and would you know for what reason Erasmus in a witty Expression of his will give you a true account They do wonderfully affect the Fire of Purgatory because it is so profitable for their Kitchins But the Vindicator will tell us That both Roffensis and we are mightily out in our Calculation for he hath found very plain Footsteps of this Purgatory both in Scripture and Antiquity Which whether he hath or no is the thing now to be examined He produceth only one Scripture viz. Matth. xij 32. where it is said Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the World to come Whence he thinks it follows by a necessary consequence That there are some Sins which shall be forgiven in the next World though not in this To this I answer 1. That if we should allow him this Exposition yet will it not thence follow that there must of necessity be a Purgatory Fire in which the Souls departed must be purged and have their sins pardoned For 1st Whether there be any true and proper Fire there this Gentleman knows not it is no Article of his Faith. 2. The Purgatory they speak of is not a place of pardon but of pain and punishment For according to their Doctrine Sin is already pardoned before the Souls enter into Purgatory only they are to remain there for some time to make up some satisfaction which was not completed in this Life But 2dly We cannot allow him this Exposition for it is so far from being a necessary consequence from these words that a contrary one seems to be plainly designed therein It shall not be forgiven neither in this World nor in the World to come i. e. It shall never be forgiven but shall certainly be punished both in this Life and in that to come So that whether we allow or disallow of this his Exposition this Scripture will not serve his purpose His Argument from Antiquity makes indeed a greater shew which is built upon these Foundations 1. That the ancient Fathers did frequently speak of an Intermediate State between Death and Judgment 2. That they did often make mention of a Purgatory and a Purgatory Fire which was to be
endured before an actual entrance into Heaven 3. That they did use Prayers for the Dead and did think those Prayers might be advantageous to Souls departed All which we can readily grant him and yet reject this Article of a Popish Purgatory For the two first of these he quotes St. Austin St. Greg. Nyssen and Theodoret and he might have cited a great many more who speak of an Intermediate State and a Purgatory Fire But if he had attended to what they say he might have found that the middle State they speak of is not a State of pain and torment but of rest and ease and the Fire they mention is only that at the day of Judgment when their Purgatory Fire must be extinguished As for St. Austin it must be acknowledged that he speaks of a purgatory Fire and that he sometimes seems to speak of a Purgation between Death and Judgment But he might have observed also with what doubting and uncertainty he speaks of it For thus he writeth Aug. in 8. Qu. ad Dulcitium Qu. 1. That there may be some such thing as the Fire of Purgatory after this Life is not incredible And whether it be so or no it may be a Question And again Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 26. That the Spirits of the Dead may find a Fire of Transitory Tribulation I deny not for perhaps it is true And again Aug. de Fide Operibus cap. 16. Whether Men suffer such things only in this Life or else some such Judgments follow even after this Life as much as I think the understanding of this Sentence disagreeth not from the order of the Truth Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 27. And again What Mean that is and what Sins those are which so hinder a Man from coming unto the Kingdom of God that they may notwithstanding obtain Pardon by the Merits of Holy Friends it is very hard to find and very dangerous to determine Certainly I my self notwithstanding all my search and Study could never attain to the knowledge of it And as St. Austin here doubteth so in other places and at other times he might have found him fully resolved Aug. Hypognost l. 5. Aug. de verb. Apost Serm. 18. Aug. advers Ebrietat Serm. 232. and positively declaring himself against it For thus he delivers himself Any other third Place after this Life besides Heaven and Hell we know none neither can we find in the Holy Scriptures that there is any such And again There are two Habitations the one in the eternal Kingdom of Heaven the other in the eternal Fire of Hell. And again Let no man deceive himself my Brethren for there are two places and no third Place He that shall not merit to reign with Christ in Heaven without doubt shall perish with the Devil in Hell. As for Greg. Nyssen if his Works were not corrupted by the Origenists as some suspect we confess that he speaks of a Purgatory Fire but the Fire that he speaks of is the Fire of the last Judgment for that there is no place of pain and torment for the purgation of Souls between Death and Judgment seems to be his settled Opinion for saith he Greg. Nyssen lib. de dormient The war that is in us being ended by Death our Souls rest having left the Field wherein the Battle was fought i. e. The Body As for that of Theodoret in his Scholia's upon 1 Cor. cap. 3. it is a gloss directly contrary to the words of the Text. For 1. The Apostle there speaketh of a Fire which trieth the work and not of a Fire which punisheth the person 2. He speaks of every Man's work not excepting the Apostles and Martyrs and yet the Church of Rome exempts them from Purgatory By the Fire therefore here spoken of some understand the Fire of Tribulation or the fiery Trial which is to be undergone in this Life others understand it of the fiery Trial at the last Judgment which must pass upon all neither of which will favour a Popish Purgatory and therefore if Theodoret understood it of that he was besides his Text. For his other Foundation upon which he pretends to build his Purgatory viz. The practice of praying for the Dead he quotes Tertullian St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius Chrysostom and St. Austin but without any direction where to find his Quotations But that is not much material for we willingly grant that this was an ancient practice in the Church but that they intended thereby to deliver Souls out of Purgatory we deny for it is certain their Prayers were made for the best Men for the Holy Apostles the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church and for the blessed Virgin her self all which they thought were then in complete happiness and who the Papists themselves say never touch'd at Purgatory by the way And though it was frequently practised yet was there no determination of the Church in that point but it was wholly left to the Piety and Opinion of particular Men. But if the Vindicator have a mind to be better informed in this matter I would commend unto him a little but learned Treatise printed at London this last Year intituled A short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome In which he will find these two Points fully cleared 1. P. 45. That a middle State between Death and Judgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell does not prove a Popish Purgatory And 2. P. 61. That the ancient practice of praying for Souls departed does not prove that thereis a Popish Purgatory or that those ancient Christians did believe that there was Which are the two Foundations upon which he here builds I hold that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Honour'd and Invocated that they offer Prayers to God for us and that their Relicks are to be had in Veneration I most firmly hold That the Images or Pictures of Christ of the Blessed Mother of God always a Virgin and of other Saints ought to be kept and reserved and that due Honour and Veneration ought to be given them IN the former of these Articles we are required firmly to believe and stedfastly to hold 1. That the Saints reigning with Christ are to be honour'd 2. That they are not only to be honour'd but invocated and prayed unto 3. That those Saints do offer Prayers to God for us And 4. That their Relicks are to be had in Veneration In the other it is required that we firmly hold 1. That the Images or Pictures of Christ c. ought to be kept and reserved And 2. That due honour and veneration ought to be given them That the Saints reigning with Christ are to be honoured we willingly grant we hold their Memories to be very precious and we think we ought to follow those pious Patterns and imitate those holy Examples which they have left us which is the greatest
honour that we can do them But that they are to be invocated call'd upon or pray'd unto we cannot consent because we have no warrant for it either in the Word of God or any good Antiquity Whether they do offer Prayers to God for us as it is not very certain so is it not any part of the question between us nor if it be granted will it warrant our praying to them As for their Relicks those that are truly such viz. their Sepulchres their Memories their Writings and their good Examples we have a great Veneration for them and do think that they ought not only not to be exposed to any contempt or disgrace but that a very great respect and regard ought to be paid them But that all those things which the Church of Rome tells us are the Relicks of Saints are really such we cannot agree nor can we go along with them in paying them that Veneration which they do we cannot repose any confidence in them nor expect any help or assistance from them nor hope to have our Prayers heard in this place rather than in another upon the account of some Relicks being there As for their Images and the honour and veneration due to them it had been well if either Pope Pius or his Vindicator had thought fit to explain themselves and told us what kind of honour and veneration they mean. The Vindicator indeed saith That they being things relating to God it must be another kind of Regard Honour and Veneration than is usually given to prophane things But whether this is or ought to be called a Religious Honour is matter of dispute but no matter of his Faith. And that as for the manner or external profession of it it ought to be measured from the intention of the Church so that we are still as far to seek for the meaning of it as before Now where can we hope to find what the intention of the Church is unless it be in the Council of Trent and its Catechism out of which Pope Pius extracted these New Articles It may not be amiss therefore before we proceed any further to see what that Council hath determined in these two points viz. The Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images which are the two things promoted in these two Articles and which this Gentleman hath here undertaken to vindicate from Novelty I. Touching the Invocation of Saints The Council hath defin'd That the Saints reigning with Christ do offer their Prayers unto God for us But is this all No it farther declares Concil Trident. Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. That it is a good and profitable thing for us in an humble manner to pray unto them But is this all yet No We must have recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Nor is this all for the Bodies of Holy Martyrs and others now living with Christ which have been the living Members of Christ and Temples of the Holy Ghost veneranda sunt are to be worshipped or had in veneration And it expresly damns all those who teach That Veneration and Honour are not due to the Relicks of the Saints or that it is not profitable to honour these Relicks and other sacred Monuments of the Saints or that it is in vain to frequent the Memories of the Saints and that eorum opis impetrandae causâ to obtain their help and assistance Thus far the Council which is seconded by the Catechism which saith We pray to God either to give us good things Catech. ad Parochos Part 4. Tit. Quis sit Orandus or to deliver us from evil but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are we beg of them to undertake our cause and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of From whence it comes to pass that we use two very different Forms of Prayer for to God the proper manner of speaking is Have pity on us Hear our Prayer whereas we only desire the Saints to pray for us But then it follows Though it be lawful on another account to pray to the Saints that they would have pity on us for they are mighty merciful And in another place it saith Invocandi sunt c. They are to be prayed unto because they are continually in God's presence and most willingly take upon them patrocinium salutis nostrae the patronage of our Health and Safety which is committed to their care II. Concerning the Worship of Images that Council hath also defin'd That the Images of Christ of the Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. are to be had and retained in Churches But is this all No All due honour and veneration is to be given to them And how is this to be given By kissing those Images uncovering the Head and prostrating our selves before them And is all this for no other end but only to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Certainly the Council intended something more for it builds this Definition upon the second Council of Nice Concil Nicaen 2. Action 3 4 6. Catech. ad Parochos part 3. de cultu Invocat Sanct. in which it was ordained That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped And so the Catechism explains it for we are there told That to make and honour the Images of Christ the Lord of his most holy and immaculate Mother and of other Saints is an holy and most certain argument of a grateful mind But is this all No. It is not only lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them provided that Honour which is given to them be referred to their Prototypes but also it is for the greatest good and benefit of the Faithful so to do But is this all yet No. The Images of Saints are placed in Temples ut colantur that they may be worshipped This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in these two Articles as it is delivered by the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which these and the other new Articles were collected by Pope Pius IV. Which Doctrine we can by no means comply with nor subscribe to For I. As for the Invocation of Saints 1. We look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God. 2. We think it to be highly derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ 3. We look upon Prayer as an eminent Act of Religious Worship which we think to be due to God alone and ought not to be given to any Creature And II. As for the Worship of Images We think that it is an absolute breach of the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and that in words so large
what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we