Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
convince their private reasons the use of which we allow them but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them Now is it all one to say you must believe this because the Church which is infallible asserts it as you to us and you must do this because the Church hath enjoyned it and therefore not being unlawful ought for peace sake to be submitted to as we to them keep your weapons to your selves we can fight and conquer without them In the next place Sect. 8 when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason Mr. C. s 6. and the primitive Church this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Churches usurpations when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench they signifie no more there then do the Russian Emperours poor Senators at the solemn audience of forreign Ambassadours that sit only to make a shew The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scripture and Reason c. when they give them the name and title of judges and yet deny them the office of judges and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supream rule and guide for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees and not their decrees to Scripture and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit then their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule for that is the rule to which other things are reduced if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture which is Scripture it self then are they the supream standard and rule of faith and the sole judges of it As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws would be both judge and law too Thus when the Norman Conquerour promised the English that he would govern them by their own Laws yet if he did as some say he did take an absolute power of interpreting them and allow them to say only what he pleased could he be thought to satisfie his promise might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny and not the laws ruled them because he ruled them after the same manner as he would if there had been no such laws and so the laws were made useless as if they had never been laws Thus the Romanists may tell us that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it and put what sense upon it they please and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture it self they need no more to shut out Scripture and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith it s nothing for them to comply with Scripture when they have forced that to comply with them After the same manner Councils and Fathers and all their venerable Antiquity which they pretend so much to reverence must truckle to their present Church for they will allow us to receive them no further then they agree with their own Decrees seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees so that Scriptures Fathers Councils and all must bend to their wills and can give no other judgement then the Church of Rome will permit if we must as they contend that we ought receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome T is a pretty device first to rule the rule and then to be ruled by it When therefore they talke of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny their hypocrisie is so transparent through all its disguises that we cannot but discern it unless we were as blind as they would have us and lastly as for our private reasons Mr. C. will call them guides too strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious but to avoid the danger of that it must with humility follow the Church a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by another if the Church can command our reasons then must they necessarily cease to be guides and blindly follow her whithersoever she leads I wish they would make their Church but such a guide and then we should soon agree in this point If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter then what must all Romanists be for nothing is more plain then that what is wholly guided by another is not it self a guide otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church they cannot be your guides and then in your own opinions what difference between a Catholik and his Asse Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods Sect. 9 I may combate his great arguments so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions for his Churches infallibility and our meek submission to it but before I cope with them singly it s not impertinent to undermine an Hypothesis on which they seem partly to stand which stratagem might do me some service did I want it that is if his arguments were as strong as they are weak and that is this He through the whole Chapter slily supposes and sometimes asserts a necessity of an infallible judge as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain and controversies endless 1. But he should first prove that God hath appointed an infallible judge and therefore its necessary there should be one and not conclude that he hath appointed one because he conceives a necessity of it I could name an hundred priviledges that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly beneficial to the Church which yet God never granted to it and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conveniency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven and decide our controversies then why may we not conclude that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible Is it not more conducive to these ends that every Bishop should be infallible more still that every Preacher and more yet that every individual Christian would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven to expound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture might not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary might not God if he had pleased have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture that there should be no need of an infallible interpreter to make it plainer but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual existence the conclusion would confute the Premises 2. The plea for an infallible guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to heaven is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way which we cannot miss unless we will so that he
Church doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem but now you say t is poisoned and destroyed by Heresie If then this promise was made to no particular Church why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church Before you use this Argument to any purpose first prove yours to be the Universal Church but of this you presume it s a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted Ar. 5. He hath commanded that whoever shall not obey his Church Sect. 15 shall be cut off from his body as an Heathen and a Publican therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith Answ 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers it will be superfluous to Criticize in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by not applying it to any established Christian Government when it may be and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews by others to any multitude by agreement convened as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.20 and then what 's all this to the Churches Authority but let this go 2. What 's this to Infallibility will he infer that particular Churches are infallible because their Decisions must be submitted to if he will then he proves what himself will deny and constitutes us infallible Judges at home without recourse to Oecumenical Councils but if he doth not then how enormous is his deduction because the Decisions of particular Churches which are granted to be fallible must be obeyed therefore the Church of Rome is infallible 3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees are they infallible too children are commanded Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things are all Fathers too therefore infallible we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes cannot they err neither and is not the inference as concluding We are bound to obey Parents and Governours ergo they are infallible as because we are bound to obey the Church therefore that is infallible 4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren but doth it follow that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels that it may be Judge of our faith too if it do we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize without going to Rome its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man 5. The Greek Church saith she is the true Church and you are Hereticks but to your selves you are the true Church and she is Heretical How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you if they tell me as you do that unless I obey the Church that is their Church I cease to be a Christian how shall I answer them if you can teach me you will but teach me how to answer you Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity which is an unappealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to preserve unity without an infallible Authority as you have with it We believe the Churches unity yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith and an agreement in the essentials of Religion we are all but one in Christianity and so one Church But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions as you would perswade us we must believe against experience for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own which would be a most uncharitable presumption we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith And if there were no Church without it then your selves must be unchurched seeing you cannot deny but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves even about the very means to preserve unity Urge us not then with this Argument any more till you can prove that we believe any other unity in the Church beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith and that you are any more then so one among your selves Now let all that 's rational judge whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine when you can exhibite no better Credentials for it then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks and so your selves who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven to be most notorious cheats and impostors By these Answers Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more I hope t is clear that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Churches infallibility Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth viz. That all these promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church Governours I say disingenuously For 1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chillingworth only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown For 2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is that suppose God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture would it follow thence that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture not only sufficiently but irresistibly he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night and a pillar of cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance is he not free from his promise and yet you in an errour too do not call this a shift but shew that it is so 3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift read and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the
council may erre and whether the Pope bee the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ are questions which extreamly trouble the Church of God You affirm all this the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Now that it should here bee necessary for all the Eastern Churches all the Churches of the Protestants upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions and embrace what you obtrude upon them when you shall bee able to demonstrate and I see it done I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being professedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority Mr. C. p. 229. and consequently the preferring of their own conduct or the conduct of particular Churches before the Vniversal authority of the Church For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church both Pastors and flocks as Heathens and Publicans it is so impertinent as nothing can bee more is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason p. 230. as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots but such as discourse of matters of Religion and passe their judgements on them Now here do you not suppose that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church which wee are not very likely to acknowledge 2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements to the most or not If not why do you trouble us with this Argument If so then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour and under the Old Testament when Idolatry prevailed they were obliged unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason to become Idolaters and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ but rejected him as a Blasphemer the people were bound to do so too these and a thousand such like absurdities are the very natural consequences of your positions But you have Fathers to produce Sect. 7 And 1. Ad Eph. Hom. 11. That of St. Chrysostome we consent unto in this sense viz. that wilfully to divide the unity of Christs Church doth inevitably infer damnation as surely as the piercing of Christs body but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferiour moment out of humane frailty doth inevitably do so 2. Ad Sympr cp 2. As for that of St. Pacian who tells us that Novatian was nor Crowned because hee died out of the Communion of the Church Wee Answ That in St. Pacians phrase to dye out of the Communion of the Church was to dye without charity to the members of it as it immediately there follows hear the Apostle if I have all faith and have not charity I am nothing 3. De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10. In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us for whereas St. Austin saith it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church quod credidit that he believed in Christ or professed Christianity or did so much good without respect to the chiefest good Mr. C. will have him to asser t that it doth nothing profit such a one Mr. C.p. 226. that hee is Orthodox in belief whereas St. Austin speaks of Hereticks and presently cries out hear this O yee Hereticks and again quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona and a third time O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas Now separation from the Church by Heresie we acknowledge to incurre damnation The passage of St. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. Denis is very true viz. That all things should be endured rather then we should consent to the division of Gods Church but this he speaks not of the evil of sin but of pain and misery and what of this Lastly Irenaeus doth no where say there cannot possibly be made any reformation c. but only they viz. Propter modicat quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62. who for crisling causes divide the body of Christ who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels such as these can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division which is altogether impertinent to the design for which it is produced but of these two last places see the incomparable Chilling p. 256 257. From what hath been said we may see the weakness of this Argument which we finde p. 296. viz. Salvation may bee had in the Church of Rome and therefore it cannot be schismatical Albeit you cannot be ignorant that we distinguish the quality of persons considering your Church either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their Schisme and continuance in your church and of such we pass the heaviest sentence or in regard of those who owe their Schisme to want of capacity or default of instruction or such like involuntary defects and these wee say may have salvation albeit they continue members of your Church CHAP. XX. General Councils are not infallible whether considered with the Pope sect 1. Or without the Pope sect 2. Their infallibility not concluded 1 From Scripture sect 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16 sect 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect 6. Nor 2 from reason sect 7. Mr. C's Arguments answered sect 7 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it sect 9 10.11 Nor lastly is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity sect 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius Optatus Vincentius Lirinensis and St. Austin produced against it sect 12 13 14 15. 4 Proposition GEneral Councils are not infallible Now touching the infallibility of General Councils Sect. 1 1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope or one without or before his confirmation if the confirmation of the Pope bee requisite then without it is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible and if so then either the judgment of the Pope is so too or not if the first then the whole General Council is fallible in it's determinations for it can have no other members but the Pope and others and if both these be fallible 't is evident that the Council is so if infallible then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope and cannot sit as Judges of the cause it being very right and equitable that fallible persons who of themselves may dangerously erre should submit to the judgement of him who cannot do
and by a certain faction so that the major part of those that were capable of being Members of the Council bee of a contrary opinion to the persons actually elected Why should wee believe them then For if the contrary faction should prevail their determinations would bee contradictory to the others and so the Articles of our faith must bee formed by chance and faction Again what if all the persons called come not will the Council be generall Why may not the greater part of the Council erre and yet the Church be infallible as well as the greatest part of its Members diffused erre and yet the diffused Church be infallible Especially seeing Gods promises must bee acknowledged to concern them both Shall they bee infallible whether they fast pray study and use means or not If so then to what purpose have they generally done so and why are there such debatings If not how shall wee so far distant from them be able to know how they acquit themselves in these things and consequently whether they bee infallible in their particular determinations Yea seeing the packing and fore-resolution of votes doth null their Decrees or else your Answer to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is perfectly vain in such a corrupt age as wee live in p. 51. sect 8. wherein if ever all may be said to seek their own how shall wee know whether all the Bishops of the Church of Rome come not as they did to the Trent Council with resolutions to condemn the Protestants right or wrong Furthermore who must call this Council Pope or Princes when they are met how shall wee know that they are fit Members when wee cannot know the legality of their Baptisme and Ordinations because wee cannot know the intentions of all the particular persons who Baptized and Ordained them VVhat if there can bee no general Council VVhat if Princes will not suffer Bishops within their Dominions to repair to it Must wee call general Councils to suppresse every novelty How shall wee know true Councils Have you not large Catalogues of reprobate and doubtful Councils Upon what uncontroulable grounds do you reject this and own that whence have you any infallible evidence that your charactarismes of a true Council are true ones Must this general Council bee made out of the whole Christian world or not If not how is it a general Council How can the promises made to the whole World bee applyed to it How is it a representative of the whole Church If it must be from all parts 1. 'T is evident wee never had a general Council For what Bishop came in the primitive times from India Aethiopia Persia Parthia Armenia what Brittish or Scottish Bishops were there And 2. A general Council is then a thing impossible for some Bishops bee in America and others in the East-Indies some dispersed through most of the Turkes Dominions and how long would it be before all these could have tydings of a Council How long would they bee in journying to the place appointed for convention How many of the most aged will dye by the way How many will be hindred by Infidel Princes VVho will provide for such a multitude when convened How will it bee possible for them to conferre by reason of the difference of their language Or to provide Interpreters for them all what will become of their Flocks at home while they spend so many years journey to a Council These and an hundred questions more of the persons appointed to call them of the place and the like might bee insisted on to shew that general Councils were never instituted by God for the Rule of our Faith But I am weary and therefore send you to Mr. Baxters key for Cath. pt 2. and others Nor can this infallibility of general Councils bee concluded either from Scripture reason the suffrage of Antiquity Sect. 3 or the concessions of the Sons of the Church of England Though all these Topicks are made use of to this purpose And. 1. To return answer to his evidence from Scripture that of Deut. 17. from the 8. to the 13. is very unserviceable to his design For not to tell him with Episcopius Mr. C. p. 258. sect 12. how inconsequent this deduction is from the Old-Testament wherin if wee may believe our Author wee have an expresse evidence from God of such an infallible convention to the New which affords us no such thing Wee answer further 1. It is not evident from the place that any mention is made of Religious causes for albeit there bee mention of cause and cause yet in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a cause before brought to the inferiour Judges V. 8. before whom the causes of Religion were not brought 2. That their judgement was not infallible is evident For 1. The Scripture affirms of these Priests who are here appointed to Judge that they departed out of the way caused many to stumble at the Law yea corrupted the covenant of Levi. Mal. 2.8.9 They accepted persons in that Law that is in judging the law was wrested by them in favour of persons whom they particularly affected yea further these Judges condemned the Prophets of the Lord Jer. 26.8 The priests Prophets and all the people condemn Jeremy to death and that for accusing the people and Priests of defection from the Lord to Idolatry from the Precepts of the Law to the most enormous sins Matth. 23.17 Yea they approved of false Prophets as is every where extant in the Old-Testament for that this was done by these Judges appears in that a Prophet was not to be Judged but by the Senate whence Christ saith Luke 13.33 It cannot bee that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem because it was the place where this Sanhedrim was 2. Had it been so why was it that so many sects were found among them of Sadduces Pharisees Essens Gaulonites and Herodians How is it that this infallible Judge never went about to interpose his sentence How is it that they never resorted to him for satisfaction but indeed these Sects were made up of the persons that were to judge and so no equal decision was like to bee made by such interested persons 3. Wee know that this Synod was made up of Sadduces and Pharisees the one of which denied the Resurrection the other by their traditions annihillated the Command of God Now these as wee may read in Josephus mutually prevailed in the Nation Now then had this Synod been to judge of the Resurrection when the Sadduces prevailed would they have been infallible in their Judgements Surely no more then the Arrian Councils And when the Pharisees would they not yea did they not determine such things which made void the Commandments of God but what need wee flick upon these arguments when wee have such an illustrious instance in their rejection of our Saviour and refusing to beleive on him would the Synagogue have judged him
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible seeing therefore it is evident that most of the questions proposed by mee are variously maintained by men of learning and abilities and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them it seems apparent unto mee that he never intended a general Council as a Judge to whose decisions upon pain of damnation wee must assent and to which wee must necessarily submit our judgements if wee would avoid the ruine of the Church For sure it cannot bee that what is so necessary to the unity that is the being of the Church should bee left by an all-wise God at such infinite uncertainties And I appeal unto your self whether we who say the Scripture must bee Judge in fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation as that God is and that hee is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him that hee is holy just and good that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners dyed for us rose again will raise us up at the last day and bring us unto judgement that faith repentance and obedience or holinesse of life are necessary for our attainment unto happinesse are at such uncertainties Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity Are they not writ as with a Sun beam Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if shee doth not Now as for other things which may bee variously conceived and held without the destruction of faith or good manners a liberty of judgement may bee allowed onely with such restrictions as shall obviate all publick disturbances of the Church Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals seeing it cannot rationally bee denied that whatsoever is so is perspicuously laid down in Scripture albeit we cannot say è contra that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental 4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England he would have the infallibility of General Councils to bee asserted by Dr. White Dr. Field and the most Reverend Arch-Bishop Lawd but it is no where so affirmed by them Arch. Lawd confer sect 37. Num. 3. Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points fundamental and this he had reason to affirm but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council appears 1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages And 2. Those that have been assembled have not taught all fundamentals but some only at the most And therefore he understood it if he ever said so which we have Fide jesuiticâ of the visible Church diffused through the universe The other passage out of sect Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essentiall and diffusive Ibid. sect 21. N. 5. that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise one could not possibly beleive him For he tells him divers Protestants beleive the same with him Cites Keckerman thus speaking The question is whether the whole Church universally considered for all the Elect who are members of the Militant Church can erre in the whole faith or any weighty points thereof and answering 't is simply impossible And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus that 't is impossible that the Church should ever by Apostacy and mis-beleif wholly depart from God taking the Church for all the beleivers now living and in things necessary to be known expresly And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy he thence infers that she the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in fundamentals albeit she may erre in superstructures for if shee could shee would not bee Holy but Heretical it being most certain that no assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy He goes on and tells us that the Arch Bishop asserts Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is p. 254. when it's decisions are admited once and received Generally by Catholicks Now because he could not but know that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation instead of sect 38. he gives us sect 33. But to pass that the Arch Bishop saith only this That a General Council is a very probable but yet a fallible way of introducing truth but after it's determinations are admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also infallible that is saith he it deceives no man for so all truth is and is to us when it is once known to be truth So that he only saith this when the Church hath found it's determinations true they are infallible Hear his words 'T is true a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church which he supposes cannot erre in matters of faith is then infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath truly determined already without errour as that is supposed to bee which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith But that a General Council a parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be infallible in all it 's after determinations what ever they be I utterly deny P. 305. What hee further cites from Mr. Ridley Dr. Bilson Dr. Potter is evidently inconsequent nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely that the will of God is to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality as our Ceremonies are as you may see in his preface sect 6. Lastly As for the consent of universal Antiquity Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour bee alledged nay we have strong presumptions that they little dreamp't of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for and indeed had it been otherwise how is it that in so many Volumes writ by them against all kinde of Hereticks they never touch upon this Argument never press the infallibility of General Councils never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost or tell their adversaries that they must yeild the same obedience to them as Scripture had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church should have over look'd so facile and compendious a proof and yet they have not only done so Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem eâ—postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians Epist ad Epict. but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence Thus Athanasius 't is
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of
the plaguy Lutheran Heresie Lastly Mr. C. ibid. hee adds that the Doctrines of this Council are now actually embraced by all Catholick congregations i.e. all Papists wherefore by the Arch Bishops concessions viz. that when the decisions of a General Council are embraced by the universal Church spread throughout the world they are infallible they are to be esteemed infallibly true Which Argument is built upon this supposition that the Arch-Bishop even when defending the reformed Churches against the imputations of the Church of Rome should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God CHAP. XXII Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils sect 1. The Reason of it sect 2 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it Answered sect 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us sect 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men sect 6. The reasons of it sect 7 8. THe sixth Proposition shall be this Sect. 1 That we are not obliged to yeild obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils 6 Proposition but may reject them when ever they contradict the word of God For the eviction of this which is the main Pillar of our Authors Fabrick I will premise 1. That such Councils are not infallible this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superiour to the Pope that of Lateran the contrary the second Council of Nice decreed for Images the Council of Constantinople contradicted that from the evident errours determined by them thus the corporiety of Angels by that of Nice the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum Seleucia and elsewhere from the want of any promise of infallibility from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power and many other things 2. That such conventions of men thus fallible Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions and unlawful practises upon the Churches which are members of that Patriarchate seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others their decrees which by reason of their fallibility may bee Heretical and unjust Yea further the decrees of one Patriarchical Council may be contradictory to another and consequently if the National Churches of these Patriarchates bee bound to assent unto them they must bee bound to bee Schismaticks even in the judgement of the Church of Rome thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kinde celibacy of Priests the worship of God in an unknown tongue the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and other of the Eastern Church assemble such a Council would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these and then according to Mr. C's own rule must not all the National Churches under them be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council and consequently to be Schismaticks yea if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions must they not lye under a necessity of asserting any errour or practising what ever they define though never so contradictory to the law of God Once more it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia were at least Patriarchical or equivalent to such and will you add that therefore every Province from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations You will say no because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice Ans True but doth not your Rule assure us that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow and were not the Bishops at Ariminum more numerous then those at Nice 2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox VVas there any impossibility but it might have been so He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph might have done it if he pleased in the former Centuries Lastly Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should bee Orthodox and the greater Schismatical and erronious and sticklers for that which God hath contradicted in his Word In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will encline and must the Orthodox party then bee necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod and to assent to their determinations and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word Thus in the Trent Council matters stood and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresie as they called it of the Lutherans By these things wee may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 237. viz. That if any law custome or doctrine in any Diocesse bee discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province or any Provincial law what is in force in the Patriarchate such a law ought not to be made or being made ought to be repealed Now apply these former instances to the Rule and it will follow that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and decree Communion in one kind legitimate c. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome Thus again under the Old Testament when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God more yet to decree it to be so and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ and held him the Messias that was to come had they given him the veneration due unto him yea decreed it should be so all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim The onely Argument which hee useth to uphold this fundamental Rule as hee is pleased to call it Mr. C. p. 246. is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we professe in our Creed unam Catholicam Which Syllogistically runs thus if there bee one Catholick Church then must a National Synod bee subject to a Patriarchal But the first is true the sequel depends upon this assertion that without such subjection there could not be one Catholick Church Answ This is manifestly untrue For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful but such may be the submission of a National Church to the decrees of a Patriarchal as our instances sufficiently declare Again
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
who will keep his eyes open is in no more danger of losing his way then in the walks of his own garden for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to salvation are clear and easie unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles obscure and ambiguous and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental those being clearly revealed and so of a necessary belief to determine their sense there is no more need of a judge then for any other perspicious truth What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God that this God cannot lye that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world that he was crucified and rose again that without faith and obedience we cannot come to heaven these and such like are the truths we entitle Fundamental and if the sense of these need an infallible judge then le ts bring Euclids Elements to the barr and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four Then for points not fundamental their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation we may err about them and not err damnably and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other taken from its necessity to determine controversies for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines or any other evident truths our Church can censure him without pretending to be infallible what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresie that shall deny the resurrection of the dead which yet some of your own Popes have not believed if some of your own Historians may be believed Then for Doctrines not fundamental being not clearly revealed our Church doth not take upon her to determine these but if any disputes arise about such points it s her work to silence and suppress them and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion yet she expects they should be so modest as not to contradict her which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infallibility Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Churches infallibility and our submission to it Sect. 10 where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider upon what little arguings what pittiful sophisms what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fabrick of the Papal Infallibility and Authority but also their whole faith religion and eternal salvation seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations on which stands their Churches Infallibility so that when their weakness is discovered all must unavoidably fall To proceed then His argument why we must stand to the Churches decisions under pain of damnation is because in Deut. 17.8 9 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Appeal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously and would not hearken to the Priest should be put to death To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument only take notice 1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin only in civil and private quarrels as is evident by the eighth verse If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroke and stroke being matters of controversie within thy gates c. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits Mr. C. jumps from them and cites 2 Chron. 19.8 where this is not so plain though plain enough too Now what to his purpose can follow hence unless he will make out this consequence We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them together 2. What more can be deduced hence then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiours and this what Protestant denies do not we plead for it as well as you but what like an Inference can be drawn from this for an internal submission of judgement Nothing at all till he can make good that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges unless we believe them just and true An assertion ridiculously false But 3. You tell us that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of judgement but how Sir will you prove this I dare not take your bare word for it notwithstanding your solemn protestation at the begining of your book Sect. 8 And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence If so then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood for it was possible you say they should give wrong sentence and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right But 4. You tell us that this assent and submission of judgement must be given otherwise the obedience would be against conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisie unless we assent to its equity suppose they should mistake as you say they might the innocent for the injurious must the party think himself a knave because they think so like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lye with his wife yet did penance for saying so and was forced to say Tongue thou lyest This is such an assertion that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of When we appeal to judges our meaning is not we will think as they think but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine Again t is still more strange that when false judgement is given the contending party must either believe a lye or must confront his conscience in not believing it for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions he goes say you against his Conscience and if he doth he must believe against the truth when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not Arg. 1. Sect. 11 Next follow his arguments for his Churches infallibility The first runs thus Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles that he would be present with them always to the end of the world therefore fince not any of them outlived that age this infallible promise must be made good to their successours Answ 1. I might
perhaps tell you that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the end of the world refers to the end of the Jewish state and so signifies only the end of that age as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time Now if this sense be taken as no reason but it may then did this promise dye with the Apostles and so could not be entaild on their successours But because I will not be too rigid with him it shall be The end of the world 2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world ergo the Roman Church is infallible Well leapt Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation were you not first resolved to be infallible and then catch at any thing to prove it For here is not one syllable of infallibility and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that I will be with you to the end of the world that is say you I will secure you from all errour and why not as well I will exempt you from all sin or from all persecutions are not these as express in the promise as infallibility and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin and not lyable to any persecutions Again could not Christ be with them unless he endowed them with infallibility Is there no other way for him to be with his servants unless by inspiring them with that Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church and must all Christians be therefore infallible If in a word wherever Christ is present by his spirit there is no errour then is every individual Christian infallible and then what need of any other infallible guide but if where Christ is present by his spirit there may be errour then how gross is the inference that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit that therefore he exempts it from all errour 3. This argument fights alike for every cause and may be listed for the service of all pretenders What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility would it not serve our turns as much as yours What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves how would you answer them Is not this consequence Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world ergo The Greek Church is infallible as good as yours that because our Saviour hath made such a promise ergo the Roman Church is infallible What disparity can you give unless you first suppose what 's to be proved And then what answer you would give to them the same give to your selves Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus Christ hath promised that when two or three of them meet together in his name he will be in the midst of them surely to direct them therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only Ans This Argument is far more frivolous if that can be then the former Is Infallibility promised here or is it not if not then this Text is nothing to the purpose if it be then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible and then what need of General Councils seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies Mr. C. must own this inference if his own is good seeing therefore this is false his can not be true 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth as the Canons of the Trent Council Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines how would you Answer him fancy what Reply you please and that 's the very same we give you How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know Answ Now he seems to misgive and a little to mince the matter that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert what need of his running to that either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things or not if the latter then he either gives up the cause or beats beside the Question but if the former then let him speak out and let us see how sound his proof is Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible and therefore sets down no particular Text as he is wont to do in his other proofs Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles That he would send them his Spirit that should guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and shew them things to come which we find fulfilled Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles or if to any why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks the Abassines the Georgians c Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you that is as strong for your adversaries as for your selves Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they A. But the mischief of it is that this is the very thing to be proved Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future and though she did the event would soon confute her infallibility and therefore this promise belongs not to her It s a pretty inference that because the Apostles were infallible that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so But prettier still that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised that against his Church built upon St. Peter the gates of hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie Answ As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings he must now be impertinent too what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies which we grant his task if to the purpose is to prove That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
Christ be thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor his Sacred Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Nicene Council thus decreed and what else you could design I am not able to imagine And have you not a good stock of confidence Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope one bafled Sophisme and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour can challenge the consent of all antiquity whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule and guide whereby we are to judge of Doctrines as you may see evinced as elsewhere so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion from p. 299 to 372. but especially from p. 357 to the end Lastly How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reverend Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infallibility because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council seeing they also promise and so doth every regular son of the Church of England to submit to the determinatious of the Church of England and acquiesce in them without the least manner of opposition and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them Yea 2. The places cited speak only of a General Council which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused See Dr. H. Her s 13. nu 2. s 9. nu 1. 3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Roman Church whose infallibility the Doctor questioned and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done against her tyranny and superstitions To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie He tells us 1. Mr. C. p. 105. That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith unless you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled and then repented Answ Can this be affirmed with any truth when as that saying was almost Proverbial Athanasius opposed the world and the world Athanasius Theod. His l 2. when Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him Answered There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong Ep. 48 ad VincentiuÌ„ When the Professors of error as St. Austin confesseth surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven When the Author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world Iâ— vita Naz. Iâ— Orat. con Artan pâ—oâ—se ipso Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out Where are they that reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by her multitude and despise the little flock they have the people but we the faith Yea lastly When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents Her c. 6. Did you never read Vincentius Lirin complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis partim vi partim fraude dece tis calgio quaedam mentibus effunderetur Orâ—t in Athanas Nor that of Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a very few which either because of their vertue resisted or by reason of their obscurity were contemned all obâ—yed the times i. e. became Arrians differing only in this that some did it earlier some later some were ring-leaders in that impiety of Arianisme some were in the second place either by fear or gain flattery or ignorance circumvented and drawn in which ignorance will not saith he excuse them it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith Nor that of Basil We may now say that we have neither Princeps Basil ep 71. Propheta nor Praeses left us in so much that he cryes out Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches is it the last hour doth the defection now take place by which the son of perdition is to be revealed but if all these must be overlooked must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes telling you that tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est ingemuit tot us orbis c. doth St. Jerome here tell you that no Bishops changed the profession of the Nicene Faith or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field who informs us that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundness of the Faith only Athanasius excepted and some few Confessors that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians His second Answer is Ibid. That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth that presently after being at liberty themselves and all the rest renounced what they had subscribed to Answ We grant that when the Council was first called the major part were Orthodox Socrat. His Ec. l. 42. c. 29. as their Epistle to the Emperour Constantius shews but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East who tells them That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum Apud Soâ— l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpitius l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim imbecillitate ingenii partim taedio peregrinationis evicti dedere se adversariis sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus that is till 400 came to 20. see c. 5 6. Soz. His Ecc. l. 7. c. 2. and which either compelled by force or enticed by deceits à fide tum quidem desciverant yet now they were returned to a sound mind subscribed to the Nicene Faith and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema So then all these Bishops of the West as well as the whole East Jerusalem excepted did à fide deficere and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme yet confessedly for sometimes they yeilded to it And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council why did the
to bee the Messias when none of the Rulers thereof beleived on him when Nicodemus was so twited by them for offering to speak for him yea P. 259. did they not with their President condemn him Mat. 26.57 Oh! but say they Christ was now come and their infallibility was ceased and God now permited them to be deceived Answ But was it not necessary that they should bee acquainted with the will of God for how else could the Senate be accused or the people for following their determinations when the Senate by the vertue of this promise as they interpret it must needs suppose themselves to be infallible in their judgement and the people being bound also to esteem them so must necessarily assent to their determination and had just cause to help forward his condemnation insult over crucifie and blaspheme him 2. Christ accuseth them of committing the like errour long before in killing and condemning the Prophets sent to them Mat. 21.35 36. compared with verse 45. And Stephen which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted slaying them which shewed before the coming of the just one yea our Saviour tells them they were blinde guides such as would neither go into Heaven themselves nor permit others Mat. 5. 15 23. His next Argument from Scripture is very rediculous Sect. 4 if God hath promised Gen. 49. that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor the Law giver from betwixt his feet that is that they should alwaies have a civil Government as all interpreters that ever I met withall do agree then must the Church or Ecclesiastical Government be infallible But the former is so and therefore the consequence must be good But did this Paragraph speak of the Jewish Church as undoubtedly it doth not yet what hath it of infallibility or if it would infer infailibility in some portion of the Jewish Church must that necessarily bee the Sanhedrims When Mr. C. is able to make these things good I shall hee contented to let this passe for a demonstration 3. Sect. 5 Our Author in his chapter touching the infallibility of the Roman Church produced in a Parenthesis that passage of the first Ep. c. 3. v. 16. P. 100. Tim. where the Church of Ephesus is stiled the Pillar and Ground of truth which because it was altogether impertinent in that place I have referred hither And Answ 1. With Mr. Chillingworth That it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy and the sense of the place run thus that thou mayest know how to behave thy self as a Pillar and Ground of truth in the Church of God This exposition offereth no violence to the words at all but only supposeth an Ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek very ordinary neither wants it some likelihood that St Paul comparing the Church to an house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house according as he had given other principle men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church an house to name it presently a pillar which seemeth somewhat Heterogeneous 2. The Church which St. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and that not the Roman now such you will not have to be infallible That this is the very truth is manifest from an impartial consideration of the place for the Apostle writeth to Timothy and giveth him directions that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of Ephesus and not the universal in part of which St. Paul was when he wrote this to him and consequently in a particular Church Now the same Church in which he directeth him to behave himself the Apostle calls the Pillar and Ground of truth therefore he gives this title to a particular Church 3. Mr. Chill Should wee grant you this on courtesie yet must wee put you in remembrance that many attributes are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not of necessity what the thing or person is but what it should bee Yee are the fait of the earth faith our Saviour to the Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to bee so for if it could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of being cast upon the dunghil as unsavory so the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet it may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 4. We say that this part of the verse may bee connexed with the following after this manner The Pillar and Ground of truth and without controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And that 1. Because Irenaeus seems to have read it so for in the beginning of his third book hee tells us that the Apostles had delivered to them the will of God which they before had preached in the Scripture to be the pillar and foundation of our Faith 2. Otherwise the Apostle would begin a new sentence with a conjunction copulative which is somewhat harsh 3. The Jews were wont to introduce those doctrines of their Church which were of greatest moment and consequence with such a form as this is thus Moses Aegyptius in the beginning of that great work which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks thus the foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdome is the knowledge of the first and supreme being 5. We say that if this also were allowed yet must this sentence be understood of the Church diffused which will be alwaies the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truths that being essential to her very being not of a representative Church collected in a General Council What hee adds farther that our Saviour enjoyned obedience to all the commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair cannot bee serviceable to him to prove an infallibility in the Sanhedrim For 1. How will it appear that he speaks of them considered as members of the Sanhedrim and not rather as teachers in their Synagogues in which case sure they were not infallible 2. If he plead for the infallibility of the Sanhedrim seeing he the Shilo was already come the Sanhedrim must bee held infallible after his coming which as it is contrary to Mr. C's assertion in this very place so it laies a necessity on us to acknowledge that either their decree against our Saviour was to bee believed by the Jews or that to believe in the Messiah was no fundamental But 3. This clause of yeilding obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees is to bee limited to what they taught from and according unto Moses and the Prophets For elsewhere hee puts in a cave at against the doctrine of the Pharisees Mat. 16.6 12. calls them blind guides whom to follow
an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils which have been sufficiently refuted already and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition to shew that these Doctrines c. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory or esteemed matters of Faith For 1. Sect. 11 Wee have already evinced the contrary of the Popes supremacy and proved that in two Brittish Councils it was Synodically rejected and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism and his Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography beyond all possibility of contradiction 2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition which was made by the Brittish Picts and Irish against the Church of Rome touching the Celibration of Easter of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish Bishop Usher from p. 92. to p. 116. and their aversness from communion with those of the Roman party which he relateth p. 108 109 110. where among other things you have these verses made by one of the chief of their wise men Woe bee to him that doth not keep From Romish Wolves his sheep with staff and weapon strong 3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead let it bee observed that the Prayers and oblations mentioned are expresly noted to have been made for such whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss See Bishop Usher p. 27 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit p. 189. Bed l. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 2. hee gives these instances The Brothren of the Church of Hexham in the anniversary commemoration of the Oâ—its of Oswald King of Northumberland used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms to offer for him in the morning Id. l. 4. cap. 23. the sacrifice of the sacred oblation as Beda writeth who tells us yet withall that he râ—igned with God in Heaven and by his prayers hee procured many miracles to bee wrought on Earth So likewise doth the same Bede report Bed l. 4. Hist cap. 23. that when it was discovered by two several visions that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal or Whitby in York-shire was carried up by the Angels into Heaven they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan that being at Bath and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his Scholler at Glassenbury to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven hee straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety Divinae pietatis and intreated the Lords of the place where he was to do so likewise 4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the same was taught then which we teach now as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick approved by divers Bishops in their Synods and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day before the receiving of the Communion This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York Hom. in Dâ—e Sancti paschat p. 17. and thirteen other Bishops and the words of it are There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed Howsel The body truely that Christ suffered in was born of the fleâ—sh of Mary with blood with bones with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul-living And his Ghostly body which we call the Howsel is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limb without soul And therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood 5. From hence it follows undeniably that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass 6. And for communion in one kinde it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often lest they should want the food and drink of salvation Pagit Christianography part 3. Our Lord saying except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of Man you shall have no life in you From whence it is evident that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements 7. That the Layicks were permitted yea commanded to read the Scriptures appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan That all such as went in his company Lib. 3. c. 5. whither Clerks or Layicks were tyed to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures or learning of Psalms That they had their service in their own tongue I have but little evidence neither have you more to the contrary Bishop Jewels reply pag. 190. But the best I yet find given of it is this that Theodore the seventh Arch-Bishop after Austin brought the Latin service into England That they rejected Image Worship is evident from this that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images and when the acts of that Council were sent into Brittain by Charls King of France Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture which Epistle with the said Book with our Kings and Princes hands was brought to the King of France See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden aliis That they rejected invocation of Saints Holinshed's Hist ad An. 1100. p. 27. is proved from the History of King William the second who protested openly that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lords sight and therefore neither would hee nor any man See other evidences in Pagit pt 3. p. 83. that was wise as he affirmeth make intercession either to Peter or any other Saint for help Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry saith Henry of Huntington At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Popes Letters in execution but at last after the pressures tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance for it began in 970 and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it the Clergy were driven from their chast Wives and betook themselves to Concubines whom they changed or multiplyed without disturbance And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses not very good though very true O bone Calixte nuno omnis Clerus odit te Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate For heretofore each one might have his mate But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne They must keep Punks or learn to lig alone By which you may see that it was not Calixtus the First who lived Anno Dom. 221 that enjoyned Celibacy as our Authour
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
Council hath decreed against The millenary Raign which most of the Antient Fathers held you have exploded as ridiculous Lastly The sentence of the purging fire which was to try and purifie all men even the most holy you have deservedly rejected whereas upon these three opinions did almost all the prayers of the Antients depend and how then can you be said to have retained the prayers which the Antients used albeit you retain some of their words who have wholly rejected those opinions upon which they did depend I confesse there were some other ends which I have mentioned above of the Antients prayers as the obtaining an happy Resurrection the augmentation of their glory at the union of their souls and bodies the blotting out of their sins at the day of Refreshment that they might finde mercy in that day and would the Church of Rome pray for them to these ends and these alone wee would very heartily joyn with her But shee hath added new ends of her own devising as the satisfaction of Gods justice the procuring pardon of venial sins not formerly remitted and a release from a purgatorian fire which shee hath kindled and is it meet that we who have rejected together with them these prayers as grounded upon such opinions which had confess'd Antiquity to plead for them should embrace them again upon such grounds as are not onely manifestly false but also void of all shadow of Antiquity To p. 189. l. 34. adde nor is it ever said in Scripture that the body of Christ is received unworthily but onely that the bread and cup are so further were it said so yet will not your transubstantiation follow hence without begging the main dispute betwixt us viz. whether such a passage must be understood litterally and rigidly or according to the custome of sacramental phrases that is figuratively and spiritually Lastly if they that despised the Apostles were said to despise Christ because they were commissionated from him as we have it Mat. 18.5 and he that offends a weak brother is said to offend against Christ because he doth it against one of his members why might not hee that participates the Sacramental elements unworthily be said to receive Christs body so as receiving that which represents and signifies his body and offers to the Receivers faith all the benefits thereof 2. The confirmation of all that I have cited from Dr. Hoyle may be seen in the margin of the places cited After p. 211. l. 17. adde we have something alledged p. 304 305. In defence of this half Communion which here may properly be considered we are told 1. That the Protestants use sprinkling instead of dipping Answ This is Elâ—â—châ—s Parium For 1. Albeit the Apostles used dipping yet did not either they or our Saviour command it he never said dip all that you Baptize as he said drink ye all of this and therefore that he and his Disciples Baptized in Rivers and by dipping will no more infer that we should do so then that they say down at this Supper or used a clinical gesture will infer that we should use it 2. Dipping is no essential part of the Sacrament but a mode or circumstance and therefore variable but the cup is an essential or at least integral part of the Sacrament as is fully evidenced by Crocius in his Antibec p. 214 215. 3. This we do in case of danger otherwise the Church requires dipping Now in such case the Scripture gives warrant for such an alteration both by example and precept telling us God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now hence to argue for a change in the institution of Christ when no such necessity in the Church can be alledged is as if the Israelites should have urged a general permission for eating the Shew-bread because David and his Servants had it to supply their necessities 2. Saith hee do we not think our selves obliged to communicate fasting albeit Christ instituted the Sacrament after Supper Answ No We think it highly convenient but wee dare not charge him with sin that doth it otherwise 2. The time is evidently a circumstantial not commanded or instituted by Christ depending upon the Passeover and therefore very unfit to bee paralleled with this deprivation of the cup. 3. Hee addes do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non obstantâ— the Apostles gave commandment to the contrary Answ Some who think the precept not temporary scruple yea refuse the eating of them and to such this instance must bee impertinent others that eat them do it upon this account because they suppose they have good reason to conclude the precept temporary and made onely to avoid the scandal which it gave unto the Jews and seeing this cannot with any reason be supposed of Christs precept the instance must bee impertinent to them also Yea wee have many Texts of Scriptures which seems to give us this liberty of eating any such things but there is not any thing which in the least manner intimates the lawfulnesse of with-drawing the cup from Layicks To p. 453. l. 14. adde Onely whereas hee saith that surely prudence and a most necessary care of our own salvation by continuing in the unity of the Church would dictate to us that seeing the Church is infallible as to fundamentals and therefore cannot mis-lead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her decisions as if they were of necessary faith for onely by doing so wee can bee sure not to erre in necessary points and wee shall be certainly free from all danger of Schisme p. 266. And by this means say you the Church of Rome is continued in unity and by assenting to all decisions her members are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary whereas Protestants by taking a liberty of discerning betwixt fundamentals and non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may bee fallible are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals I Answer This whole discourse to omit divers other answers very obvious depends upon two suppositions unanimously exploded by us 1. That the Church which wee hold to bee infallible in fundamentals is the Roman Church or at least a General Council whereas when wee assert the Church to be infallible in fundamentals we do not intend to assert that any one society of men is so but onely thus that whilest the world lasts there shall bee some men in the world which erre not in fundamentals Chill p. 105. or that religion shall never be so far driven out of the World but that it shall alwaies have somewhere or other some that beleive and profess it in all things necessary to salvation Thus therefore you argue Protestants acknowledge that some Christians shall bee infallible in fundamentals albeit they be neither the Roman Church nor a General Council nor any other visible Society therefore they ought in prudence to submit to the decision of the Roman Church or a
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.
evidently known to be such or openly declared such obligeth no man that the Kings Oath is unjust is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoak and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron is less then straw Yea further cannot good Pope * Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy Suarez adv sect Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s 14 c. 6. s 22 24. Azorius Iâ—st Moral part 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Jansenians mysterie of iniquity Abbots Antilogia Clement the VIII suggest to You as he did to the King of France tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England that your Oath is made to an Heretick but you stand bound against her and her Succcessors in another Oath to God and to the Pope Fourthly What is his Majesty the better for your subscriptions to his due Supremacy whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him no obedience is due unto him yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant and may be dealt with as such an one and consequently be slain by a private man Suarez defens fid Cathol l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra Will you plead your fidelity Sect. 5 and zeal in serving and defending of our Princes See p. 7. and even the Religion of the Kingdom in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you when the whole Colledge of your Jesuits in London say Mr. Baxters Key for Cath. c. 45. That they will rather promote the cutting off of the Kings Majesty then hinder it least they the Puritans should make use of his extremities to any advantage nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoycing at that unsavage butchery 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so was it so in Ireland In two Letters to Arch B. Laud extant in Print introduc p. 102 112. Vide Bax. ibid. no Bishop Bedle will assure us his Majesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King but at the Popes discretion and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council which since is justified by themselves in Print constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congregation de propaganda fide lately erected at Rome 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesties dominions even this because you are not able to manage a war against him In Th. 22. qu. 13. art 2. non licet eis tolâ—rare talem Regem Bell. l. 5. de Paul c. 7. s 3. And again they are obliged not to suffer him s probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions Bull. Pauli 5. cont Hen. 8. yea t is meritorious of eternal life saith Card. Commens in his letter to Pareus thus Bannes The faithful Papists in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors nor make war against them because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars and great dangers hang over them were they then strong enough not to rebell would be unexcusable But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence Sect. 6 Pag. 4. is That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched not one could be found to testifie the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion In Answer to this I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third as Binius and others of your own record it where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholick Faith two Articles of which are 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ the appearances remaining And in the third Chapter they say We Excommunicate and Anathematise every Heresie extolling it self against this holy Orthodox Catholick Faith which we have before exponed condemning all Hereticks by what names soever they be called And being condemned let them be left to the present secular powers or their Bayliffs to be punished the Clergy being first degraded of their orders and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate if they be Lay-men but if they be Clergy-men let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends And those that are found notable only by suspition if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency according to the considerations of the suspition and the quality of the person let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema and avoided by all men till they have given sufficient satisfaction and if they remain a year excommunicate let them then be condemned as Hereticks And let the secular powers in what office soever be admonished and perswaded and if necessary compelled by Ecclesiastical censure that as they would be reputed and accounted believers so for the defence of the faith they take an Oath publikely that they will study in good earnest according to their power to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Hereticks from the Countries subject to their Jurisdiction So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual or Temporal power he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter But if the Temporal Lord being required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Countrey of Heretical defilement let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be tyed by the bond of Excommunication And if he refuse to satisfie within a year let it be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity and may expose his Countrey to be Seised on by Catholiques who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and may keep it in the purity of faith saving the right of the principal Lord so be it that he make no hinderance hereabout and oppose not any impediment and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords And the Catholikes that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Hereticks shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy priviledges which were granted to those that go to the relief of the Holy Land Moreover we decree that the Believers Receivers Defenders and favourers of Hereticks shall be excommunicate firmly decreeing that after any such is noted by excommunication if he refuse to satisfie within a year he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous and may not be admitted into publick offices or councils or to the choice of such nor to bear
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
sure they would not have done if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them Yea t is wonderful that when as our Adversaries say this contention came before Christ four several times he would never intimate to them that which was so necessary to prevent Schism that he intended St. Peter for the chief when those that contended for it so strongly and especially their Followers were not likely to afford it him without some express from Christ In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14 he tells us P. 71. s 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saith the same that Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power Thus he but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions for out of these I argue ad hominem 1. The same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles ergo The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter 2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him ergo The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church and consequently every member beside themselves Now then either Christ who gave them this power gave them a liberty to exercise it or forbad them the external administration of it If the first then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power to Peter unless the same person can be sub and equal too If the second then did he give them it perfectly in vain for Authority can be to no end but to exercise it on those over whom t is given Nay t is a contradiction to say a man hath power over another when he cannot exercise it de jure when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition Yea 3 how have they equal power not to speak of honour whereof one may exercise authority over the world the other may not by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop Well but saith our Author we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves then it follows Ibid. We grant therefore as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers that all the Apostles and all Bishops their successours enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either but for the external administration there may be and alwayes was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles Ibid. and Bishops Answ He did wisely to add let him not find fault with this distinction for t is as lyable to exception as any can be For 1. What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it that Christ gave him the name of a Rock surely no seeing we have it acknowledged that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church and consequently equally Rocks for Peter is therefore so because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him or because he was one upon which the Church was to be founded Yea further among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other and that is Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is appropriated to him Eph. 2.20 And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone or foundation which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also Yea lastly Peter is not called a Rock as the Romanists would have him for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built and Peter was a member of that Church it would follow hence that Peter and all the Popes his Successours must be built upon themselves Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini Austin Vpon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church that is upon my self upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And again in his Retractations L. 1. C. 21. 't is not said Thou art Petra but thou art Petrus Petra autem erat Christus Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference seeing in the Greek which is Authentick it is observed quem confessus est Simon 2. Is it because he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Alas 't is otherwise for we find Joh. 1.44 The City of Andrew and Peter Mark 16.7 The Disciples and Peter and what is it to the purpose that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles 1 Cor. 3.22 Chap. 9.5 Or in the midst as Gal. 2.9 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles is no argument of their different Authority is evident from this that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are they not placed next to Peter And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it cannot give him this supremacy for it is afterwards promised to him you say Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys c. It being then afterward promised cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. We know that all the time of Christs life John had the dignity of place next Christ for he was the Disciple whom he loved and who lay in his bosom and therefore Peter had not the superiority For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or priority of place yea it is sufficiently evident that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John as of St. Peter in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter against Peters 3. We say that notwithstanding his contradiction Peter is called first Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ or because he was the Apostle first called or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral Or if it intimate any priority 't is of order not of superiority as we have proved Nor 3 Was this power of Administration given him See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too and that they
St. Peter St. Ambrose saith he had primacy over the Gentiles parimodo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id in ch 1. ad Gal. in like manner as St. Peter over the Jews St. Chrysost That he showed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal honour with the best and chiefest of the Apostles and that he was equal to St. Peter and Oecumenius cryes out See how he makes himself equal to St. Peter to whom you may add St. Austin in c. 1. ep ad Gal. 3. Was it ever heard that a Prince should consent to the division of his Province betwixt himself and his inferior yea afford him the largest portion in this division as here St. Peter doth yea why was no special power exercised in this case by the Prince of the Apostles if he were such but the matter indifferently determined by all three 3. 'T is further argued that if St. Peter had been Prince of the Apostles St. Paul would not have had the confidence to resist him to the very face Bellarmine will tell us that an inferior may rebuke a superior Answ But let it be considered that this rebuke was publick and a resistance of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he charges him of not walking uprightly not agreeably to the truth of the Gospel but doing things for which he deserved to be rebuked by him and all this without the least shew of reverence and submission without any artificial preface begging the pardon or deprecating the anger and displeasure of his Superior which seems sufficiently to argue that he did not thus esteem him When St. Paul had rounded the High Priest and told him that God would smite him for judging and condemning him to be smitten contrary to the Law how presently doth he correct himself upon information given that he spake to the High Priest and when he takes up St. Peter in this manner might he not as truly have said I wist not that he was the High Priest the Prince of the Apostles Mr C. p. 75. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatum Now all the answer which is returned to this objection is that St. Austin saith The Superior was reproved of the Inferior Now here let it be considered 1. That this will do him little service unless he will be pleased to grant that the inter pretation of one single Father or two at the most is a sufficient evidence and ground of receiving such a sense of any Paragraph of the Word of God which I am confident he dareth not assert 2. I Answer that what he rendreth Inferiors is in St. Austin posteriores such as were made Apostles after him now the same Austin informeth us that ejus honorem implet clarificatio Domini Vbi supra c. 1. cp ad Gal. si quid habebat ordo temporis minus and as for his first citation That St. Peter being reprehended did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by a novice and one that was posterior I answer That he hath gelded the place and made it look otherwise then indeed it doth Ib. l. 2. de Bapt. for the words of St. Austin are Nec Petrus sevindicavit aut arroganter aliquid aut insolenter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere Peter did not arrogantly and insolently take upon himself to say that the Primacy belonged to him which shews that to have challenged such a Primacy would have been insolence and arrogance in St. Peter according to the judgement of St. Austin The Doctor goes on to argue thus Sect. 7 If the Pope be head of the Catholick Church Mr C. p. 78. s 15. then when there is no Pope at all which is very often the Catholick Church must have no head Now here having told us that never did old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority which is very true because they were elder brothers to it He further answers That for all this Papacy is immortal and in some sense it may be said Mr C. p. 78. that Popes dye not because their Jurisdiction remains in the body of Electors And secondly When an Ecclesiastical Superior dies there remains by Christs ordination a vis generativa in the Church to constitute another in his place I answer There may be a vacancy not only by death but Heresie Paganisme things incident to Popes as may be seen in Mr. Pag. 22 23 24. Baxters Key for Catholicks and yet the power doth not devolve it self upon the Electors and if it doth what if they also prove Hereticks as 't is sure they may and ten to one but they did in the time of Liberius when none were suffered to be in publick places but such as were Arrians then sure he must grant a vacarcy Again when antiently the people were Electors did the power devolve it self upon them in a word either the Pope is an essential head or an accidental if the last then may the Church subsist without him and the being of a Pope is not necessary to the being of a Church seeing accidents potest abesse sine subjecti interitu the contrary to which you above assert and thence conclude the necessity of a Pope If the first then 1. May the Church be unholy because an essential part of the Church may be so unless you will have the confidence to assert that all the Popes that have been or shall be must necessarily be holy Then 2. must the Pope be head when a general Council is convened and consequently be superiour to that seeing an essential head can never cease to be so And 3. He that doth not acknowledge the Pope can be no member of the Church as not being united to this visible essential head and so God must necessarily damn all those righteous souls that live not in communion with him both in all the reformed Churches and all the other parts of the world a thing so contrary to the goodness of God that none but Papists can believe it and a thousand such absurdities as you may see them reckoned up if you please in Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks Part the second The Doctors second inference was Sect. 8 That when there were many Popes there would be many Heads and so the Church would become a Monster To this he Answereth That as when after the death of the King Mr. C. p. 79. s 16. several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one Legitimate Successor and all the rest are Tyrants yea and their adherents rebels so likewise when such a Schism hapneth he that is Legitimately elected is the right head all the rest are Schismaticks Rep. And so must their Adherents also so then in the time of the Schism from Vrban the sixth to Martin the fifth which lasted forty years The Schism betwixt Alexander the third and four Schismaticks which lasted seventeen years the Schism betwixt Benedict the ninth and
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over Gods Heritage that this Edict was made St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself that it was extorted from a young Prince and ignorant of these things And lastly That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times for divers Councils a thing which contains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and which Leo for bad to Hilary were called without the authority of the Pope in divers parts and Cities of France to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline thus we find it in Synodis Agathensi prima Epaunensi Aureliensibus aliquot Turonensi Matisconensi Avernensi and many more all affirming that they came together Solo deo authore ac moderatore and by the permission or command of the Emperour whither he were Gothus Burgundus vel Francus and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum and so is mutable As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus Innocent and Siricius Mr. C. p. 56. so trivial and impertinent that he dares not transcribe them I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field Sutlivius Pag. 527. cont Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontif. Turon 11. Can. 20. and Chamier made to them long ago Nor will I trouble my self with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France or Spain and moreover this last saith only this That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop to contradict the determination of the Apostles See Can. 4. and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion tells us how that Leander Bishop of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed yet to avoid any symbolizing with Hereticks one simple immersion might be more convenient this now is called his Precept and this for the reason assigned by the Pope they agree to follow but yet that the Popes decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain neither do these citations prove nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us will do him little service Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57. for his words are only these It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to consider our affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give his advice or acquaint us with his mind and sentence not interpose the judgement of his decree as Mr. C. hath rendred it and because t is difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree that he using his own Authority which in the other case he could not have should chuse men fit to under go the trouble of the journey The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 534. and also able by their meekness and dexterity not by power delegated from the Pope to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us fitly tempering and dispensing their words and having all things with them that were done at Ariminum to the rescinding of what was there done or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded And had not Dr. Field cause to say That the alledging of this testimony sheweth they have very little conscience that alledge it for these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle whereof let the Reader judge Basil writing to Athanasius adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard and much reverence the credit of their multitude and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelyhood easily be obtained he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced to send some of good discretion and moderation who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the minds of men and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion that alledge it for he preferreth and rather wisheth a particular Council than this interposition of the Pope alone if there had been any hope of a Council besides those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the minds oâ— men and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Easteâ—n Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon Sect. 3 Mr C. p. 57 58. viz that no decrees should be established in the Church withouâ— not the assent as he would have it but the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice was argued of nutlâ—y which he confirms from Socrates Hist Eccles l. 2. caâ— 5. Athanas Apol. sec Sozom. Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 9. Valentinian c is fully answered by the Author of the review of the Trent Council Pag 155. who tells him that all that can be proved hence is That a General Council cannot be holden unless they viz. the Popes be called to it and this saith he appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it when he complains that he was not called to the Council of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned charging them for that with the breach of that Canon Lib. 2 â— 13. Julius saith Socrates in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church in that they called him not to the Council for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen saith Lib. 3. c. 9. that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch accusing them for seeking after novelties contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council and contrary to the Laws of the Church for not calling him to the Council forasmuch as by vertue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests all decrees viz. made in a General Council are invalid which are enacted without the opinion and advice of the Pope of Rome and of this Pope Julius had reason to complain considering that a Council cannot be termed General nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholick unless all those which ought to be present especially the Patriarchs be lawfully called
thereunto Ib s 5. Secondly He tells us this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils and this is the reason why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General because all the Patriarchs were not there however saith Balsamon In Com. ad Synod Constant 1. ad finem the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council because the other Patriarchs were not there yet it is greater than all other Synods and the Archbishop of that See was stiled Universal Patriarch For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered that he would so as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril who would not vouchsafe to stay for him that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril S. 7 and excommunicated him And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy who came somewhat tardy gave thanks to God at his coming because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council and made it most compleat Nay they were not only called to General Councils but the custom was for honours sake to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed So at the Council of Ephesus they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes Id. s 10. and seeing they came not took this ensuing resolution Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes and thus much for that Argument He comes now to add a few examples more viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople P 58. s 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s 69. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Marcellus Primate of Ancyra and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza the Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain restored to every one of them their own Church and he adds further that he commanded them who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give an account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunished if they would not cease from innovating all this he did saith Theodoret not by usurping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church Now to this we answer Lib. 4. c. 4. s 10. in the words of the same Author who replies to Bellarmin that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him For 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope for that was not then in use He saith indeed that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops which were in the East fled to Rome as to an Haven of refuge that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed received them into Communion restored them to their Churches and writ to the Eastern Bishops whom he rebuked for deposing them but we must alwaies remember that they were Arrians and Persecutors and that the Controversie was not between party and party If Bellarmine deny it or if he answer that he must look here only to the form of proceeding which was ordinary we will take him at his word and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author who saith that these Bishops so soon as they had received these letters fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats and confessed as he said that the Church of Rome was the principal as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there came first out of the East but they were displeased that he should think they were inferior to himself because his Church was of greater lustre though they excelled him in Virtue and Sanctity of life they objected also against him as a crime that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him as if it were by a Council so that what he did was by way of Usurpation and not by Right and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus That Athanasius foreseeing what designs were on foot against him fled to Rome to Pope Julius and those that were Eusebians sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard and put in his plea for himself bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations and shew that their proceedings were just and equal and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the deciding of the Case at which Athanasius was ready to appear but these lyars would not In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church that he required evidence of the fact before he renounc't his Communion but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances which we meet with in Sozomen much less say that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them and so much for that instance Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him for this was common to him not only with other Patriarchs but other Bishops as the Fathers everywhere speak I will cite Origen for them all who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah saith He that is call'd to a Bishoprick is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat which made him Prime in order of the Bishops Again Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed affirming that according to the ancient custome the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman whereupon the whole Council
cite Fathers against Fathers Sect. 18 but then this Pamphlet would swell too much I will therefore conclude with that of the worthy Dr. Crakanthorp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 22. 〈◊〉 56. Poteram integras patrum phalanges per singula saecula agglomerare vide â— 15 praestitum a celeberrimo Blondello qui omnes velut agmine facto suprematum tuum Spalatensem alloquitur appugnent sed quidopus dâ—â—rtho loxis ad unumomnthus â—â—ipso quâ—â— conciliis quinque primis consensisse eos non est duâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 ab omnibus suprematum istum tuum qui in eâ—s â—amnatur anathematizari in which one sentence he evinceth the concurrence of above 1000 Fathers besides some 1000s more cited by him when he produceth 26 Councils for the condemnation of this Supremacy of the Pope and we can be contented to be accounted Hereticks when we have six or seven thouâ—and Fathers at the least that must be thrust into the Catalogue yea the infallible Church of God stablishing by their reiterated decrees this new-found Heresie CHAP. VII The Argument from the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon largely vindicated Sect. 1. As also another from that of Nice Sect. 2. Four Councils of Carthage deny the Popes Supremacy Sect. 3. So also doth this second General Council Sect. 4. As also two Brittish Councils Sect. 5. I Pass now to the Vindication of what the worthy Doctor brought against the Usurpation of the Popes Supremacy over the World by Divine Right Sect. 1 And 1. The Canon of the Council of Chalcedon sticks very much in Mr. C.'s stomach and what Arts doth he not use to avoid its stroak and reason good for t is a most clear and perspicuous refutation of that dream For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. P. 76. s 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 1. The Fathers of the Council tell us that the priviledges of Rome above other Patriarchs were given her by the Fathers of the Church whence it is evidently inferred that the Primacy of the Pope of Rome albeit it were a Primacy of order only was not from any appointment of Christ but the constitutions of the Church 2. They tell us this Primacy was by the Fathers allowed unto him not because he was the Vicar of Christ or Successor of St. Peter but upon this account that the City he presided in was the Imperial City this * Mr. C. would have done by John of Constantinople that so he might avoid the evidence it carrieth in it 3. They decree that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges to the Pope the first seat excepted and be advanced to the like greatness in Ecclesiastical affairs indefinitely and Universally as appears 1. From the only exception mentioned that of place for exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis 2. From the ground of those equal priviledges the equal dignity of the City which evidently destroyes all the pretensions of the Pope to an universal jurisdiction seeing he could have no jurisdiction over the Bishop of Constantinople thus made equal to him 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. ib. That this Decree was made with the full concurrence of the Council consisting of six hundred and thirty Bishops the Legates of the Pope excepted only for after the canvasing of the business when the Judges had pronounced that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal priviledges with him the whole Council presently cryes out This is a just sentence this we all say let this be consigned or confirmed 5. The Fathers proceed to the making of this Decree and the confirming of it notwithstanding the dissent of the Roman Legates and that by the command of their Pope whence it is manifest that they did not esteem the approbation of the Pope necessary to the establishing of their Decrees or his contradiction sufficient to make them null as Mr. C. pretends from an old Canon the sense of which we have manifested above to be very alien from this business for otherwise these six hundred and thirty Fathers would never have proceeded to establish this Decree for an Ecclesiastical Law which was made invito reclamante Pontifice 6. Aetius Arch-deacon of Constantinople makes a relation how after matters of Faith agreed upon they proceeded according to the manner to some constitutions in these they desired the Legates to joyn with them but they refused saying they had received commands from Rome to do so which being remonstrated to the Judges and their leave asked that the present Council might determine the business they ordered that the Council should proceed and hereupon the Decree was unanimously made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 51. s 8 and it was appealed to them all whether it were not true nothing being done clancularly or by stealth but of course regularly and Canonically whence we may collect 1. What truth there is in that Parenthesis of our Author that the Canon was compiled by the Bishop of Constantinoples bargaining with some Bishops and violence to others Whereas not only the Council openly contradicts him but further when by the appointment of the judges and in the presence of the Legates they that were most concerned the Bishops of Asia Pontus and Thracia who were now brought under the Patriarchate of Constantinople being supposed formerly to be free were called out severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and asked whether they had acted under any force they severally answered I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God 2. How ingenuously doth our Author deal in telling us that it was an infamous Canon surreptiously made after the departure of the Judges the Senate and of the Legate of the See Apostolick When from the Acts of the Council it is evident 1. That the Legates were desired to be present and resused and that upon their appearance the day following all their objections against the Canon were taken of and their pretences clearly answered in the Council 2. Concil To. 3 p. 460. It is likewise evident that albeit the Judges were then absent yet did they give order that the Council should proceed and that when on the morrow they were present and canvased the whole matter they conclude thus that they had weighed all and found that none had injury the priviledges of the Bishop of Rome were preserved intire according to the Canons and that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal priviledges with him and this being their sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they desire the whole Council to deliver theirs and they all cryed out This is a just sentence this we are all well pleased with and so the Judges pronounce the Synod hath confirmed all Well Mr. C p. 51 but he answers further that this was a despised Canon not inserted among the other Canons and his reason is because according to the most antient Greek and Latine Copies of that Council as appears from Dionysius Exiguus and the testimony of Theodoret
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene Sect. 3 Ephesine Milevitan Council and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon An. Dom. 258. but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian which thus Decrees That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying seeing each Bishop hath his liberty and no one may judge another nor be judged of another but they must all be judged of God in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen who had stiled himself Bishop of Bishops and threatned excommunication to those that thought otherwise as even Baronius doth acknowledge Aâ— 258. Na. 42. An. â—41 in Câ—â—â—â— Afric c. 15. 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils Acts apud Biâ— p. 781. To. 1. Joct â—am cleriâ—atus accipiant c. 72. An. 416 in their letters to Pope Celastine yea the Council of Antioch decrees That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province shall by no means be juaged by others but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall remain firm unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more plâ—nary or General Council The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa if they go to communicate beyâ—nd the Seas they chiefly aim at the Roman Church shall lâ—se their Priesthood now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing is evidently to destroy his Supremacy Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present it was determined That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him and that for this reason because this was never derogated from the Africk Church by any definition of their forefathers and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans for they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the Grace of the Holy Ghost â—â—y they will not be wanting to each Province Let this equity therefore be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council of his Province or to a General Council unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Tryal into any one person or Pope and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs they Answered That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759. moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they determined That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first See Sect. 4 Again the second General Council determines That the Bishops that are without any Diocess Extra dioecesia shall not intermeddle with the Churches beyond their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but according to the Rules constituted viz. by the Nicene Synod the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern those only that are in Egypt the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again The Bishops uncalled shall not go beyond their Diocess to ordain Bishops or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes but shall observe the Rule above written de unaquaque dioecesi saith the Latine for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome is this nothing to the Church of Rome hath the Bishop of Rome no Province did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation Sect. 5 and it is this That when Austin proposed three things to the Brittish Clergy 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop whose very Name they were ignorant of at that time Bish Bra. Just vind p. 103 104. as appears from their language The man whom thou callest the Pope 2. That they should conform to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptism And lastly That they should joyn with him in preaching to the Saxons all the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon Spel. con an 601. Galt Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed his l. 2. c. 2. and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms these things being considered must not our Author well deserve the whetstone Pag. 53. when he so confidently affirms That there was never any received Council in Gods Church that excluded the Pope from an Vniversal jurisdiction when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation Def. Eccles CHAP. VIII St. Gregory against the Popes Supremacy Sect. 1. An objection answered Sect. 2. T is not safe to admit this Supremacy Sect. 3. The instance of the Kings of France considered Sect 4. An Answer to his Questions Sect 5. The Power we assign to Bishops is not contrary to any Acts of Parliament or the Oath of Supremacy Sect. 6. THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory who flyes out excessively against the very name of Universal Bishop calling it a wicked prophane and blasphemous title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand yea an imitation of the very Devil who despising the Legions of Angels socially created with him endeavoured to mount the top of singularity Ep ex Reg. l. 4. cp 38. It wasdone by Theodorus and Ischiron two distressed Deacons Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant sub Menna Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same General Council Act. 4. p. 437 438 440. and by Justinian Novel 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant in the sixth General Council Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council Act. 3. and that even by
because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
to what these testimonies seem to speak nor doth he there say as our Author cites him Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants indeed one of the places tels us that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme and consequently if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio he will not be obnoxious to any thing agreeable to which is the place cited from venerable Bede but hence we can only infer that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with through the mercy of God but yet 't is evident he held they had a right to the Sacrament and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. he cites cap. 22. From an Antient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme and the body and blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them Now if this opinion which St. Austine saith was so deeply setled in the See Austin ep 95. De usu Patrum p. 263 264. Church of God and which was held by Innocent the first by St. Cyprian and others as Dally may inform you be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils Anathema upon those who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem let any reasonable man judge CHAP. X. The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquitie Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered Sect. 6. Of Tertullian Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian Sect. 8. St. Chrysostome Sect. 9. Eusebius Sect. 10. Epiphanius Sect. 11. An evasion confuted Sect. 12. St. Ambrose Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory Sect. 16 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered S. 18 19. IN this Chapter our Author tells us Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further Sect. 4. 5. 111 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord and also another which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin Now saith he if it can be demonstrated That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead it unavoydably follows that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hell and if so where are they Dr. Pierce speak like an honest man Sect. 1 Answer This is a shrewd Argument which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty or his Cause But sure the Case is not so desperate For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which yet is an evident untruth and were these Prayers used from the beginning and that through the Universal Church of God which cannot be proved yet would I defie his Conclusion and his Argument to infer it For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven then is there not one Saint one Martyr nay not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ Sess 9. De invocatione Sanctorum and then farewel the Council of Trent which talks of Saints reigning with Christ aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not from righteous Abel to that very day that they might rest in the Region of the living in the Kingdome of God in the delights of Paradise in the bosome of Abraham Isaac and Jacob And yet will our Authour say That there is not one of these souls in Heaven And so for the absolving of their sins which is his second instance The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that had gone before them for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Mansions worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance and prayes God to pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God in the hope of the Resurrection and Eternal Life Dall de Satisfact page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins Confes l. 9 c. 13 I know O Lord saith he That she was merciful and from her heart forgave her Debtors Do thou therefore forgive her debts if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme for so many years Forgive her Lord forgive her I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her And so on and yet the same Austin tells us what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome there his Mother is ibi vivit nam quis alius tali animae locus for what other place was fitting for her Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall ubi supra pag. 520. Now then is Abrahams bosome Purgatory Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory or if not is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory Sect. 4 2. We shall tell him in the sequel of the Chapter That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself partly upon other things which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers why then may it not be Heaven for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers as the Fathers generally affirm 2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers and the holy Councils hath taught us that there is a Purgatory and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed held and every where preached Now
I ask whether the Scriptures Thus Bellarmine lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory appears from these words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3. He shall c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire and this he puts among the thing in which all agree upon which especially they build their Purgatory be not such as these They shall be saved yet so as by fire some sins are forgiven in this world some in the world to come And as for the Tradition of the Fathers is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins Well then if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented or something analogous thereunto 2. It must needs follow that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins 3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit that Purgatory is a place under the Earth in the lower regions of it wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings and in their Sermons ad populum And being so I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of If it be not then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught And if so either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge and so they live continually in a wilful sin or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church and then must our Author say that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops If it be then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Again are these things tending to Edification or not if not then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught contrary to the Council If they be then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of Again De Puigatorio Their Bellarmine will tell us l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned and prove it from the second of the Acts solutis doloribus inferni the pains of Hell being loosed which Saint Augustine saith he understands of Purgatory and that hence it is that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell and the deep Lake Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni de profundo lacu Yea secondly He will tell you from the venerable Beda That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell And thirdly that omnes fere Theologi almost all their Divines assert that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place and tormented with the same fire as the damned are Well then first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal de profundo lacu then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held Sess ult doc de Purg. Again I suppose your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it That if true penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission by fruits of repentance their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ or his Saints to the dead So then out of these things so deduced we have all that usually we charge you with First That there are some sins venial such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment Secondly That you hold that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it This is clear from the Council of Florence and these two Bellarmine joyns together De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins which are the hay and stubble mentioned 1 Cor. 3. and again for those that depart with the guilt of punishment the fault being formerly remitted Thirdly That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory to satisfie for these venial sins or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned Fourthly That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer however they may differ for Degree and Space Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead Sect. 5 And first whereas you say De Satisfac page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them here Dally telling you That of the custome of praying for the Dead Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age do make no mention so that it is credible it came in after that Age for Causes we shall hereafter mention Sect. 6 But to pass on to your proofs p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite by Confession of Protestants lived within the second Century after the Apostles when as even Bishop Forbs upon the Question tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century and it is clear that he speaks of Monks which had no being till the third Century of Temples and Altars which Origen and Arnobius who flourished in the third Century have told us the Christians never had And therefore whereas he sayes that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles his Divine Teachers this lye can sure avail you nothing but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand But as he is
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
be multitudes little sensible of Religion and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body albeit some of them may haply vomit him som spit him out again some throw him to the Dogs c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground then devoured by wicked men Secondly Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church Mr. C. p. 142. Ans But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth and here our Authour leaves Divining though some of his brethren adde that should the Laity have the Cup then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards some might be ejected with their spittle and if I may be permitted to adde my Symbol some of them may be poisoned by the cup the Romanist knows how to play such pranks Oh Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had seeing the Trent conventicle or the General Council of fifty Bishops hath referred this matter to the Pope Ans Very good but with these provisoes 1. That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith doctrine and manners of the Roman Church and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod Secondly That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law unless the Church decree the contrary and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks that is she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless Thirdly That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing with other the like stuff and after all these things 't is but videtur posse concedi it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation But were it as he would have it seeing we openly declare this as one ground of our separation that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion but also to profess that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God is it possible that the Schisme should be on our part who proclaim our selves willing to close with her if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us CHAP. XIII The state of the Question Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice Sect. 2. Preaching call'd a Sacrifice and the Testimony of Saint Austine considered Ibid. Almes call'd a Sacrifice and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered Sect. 4. In some sence propitiatory Sacrifice and the testimony of Saint Chrysostome considered Mr. C. saith no more then our Church doth Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice Sect. 7. THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice Sect. 1 and that propitiatory This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist and we are now to consider whether Scripture Reason or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it 1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. Collor in Lovit l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2◠De Civ Dei c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice Rom. 15.16 where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice the Gospel of God Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel and Cyril of Alexandria that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome and others and hither we refer that of Saint Austine cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps They shall be Priests with God and Christ and shall reign with him 1000. years he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church but is to be extended to all Christians so stiled as being members of their high Priest So that he saith they are Priests properly so called not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them of which no mention at all was made but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders Seipsum obtulit ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice is extremely evident in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments they could not be so Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves even as saith he after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body Secundùm quendam modum and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood which therefore according to Saint Austine are such only by way of similitude or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signified and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account And hence it is that elsewhere he saith L. 10. Cont. Faust c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione perticipatione corporis sanguit is Christi That which by all is called a true sacrifice is the sign of a true sacrifice and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance or the remembrance of a sacrifice § 3. Secondly Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God Philip. 4.14 and Victims Heb. 13.16 * l.
succeed theirs and must it be therefore carnal as well as this service of the Jewes If this Argument be good our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice and therefore it is so must not this also be esteemed so Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts and therefore it is such Our second Consideration is that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbollically as representing applying and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christs real sacrifice on the Cross For seeing the signes are often put for the things signified Chrysost H. 27. in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb dem Evan l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide For. Cons mod p. 451. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquire the names of what they represent and bring to our remembrance Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians that Christ was crucified amongst them because his sufferings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice as being that in which Christs sufferings are far more lively and accurately set forth Yea a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it yea secondly we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sence as exhibi ting to us all the benefits of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross for we all allow that what ever Christ dying and shedding his blood for us procured is not only represented there but applyed to the faithful and exhibited to his faith And here come in the residue of his citations and 1. That of Ignatius is Spurious Epist ad Smyrn S. 2 p. 144. you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends written in Red Letters in the Edition of Bishop Vsher Secondly As to that of S. Cyprian In his Epis to Caecil not Cyril as Mr. C. who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same that Melchisedec offered that is bread and wine to wit his own body and blood which it could not be otherwise then figuratively or significatively and commanded the same viz. bread and wine to be afterward done in memory of him that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer as he sees Christ himself offered viz. bread and wine as the Ancient Church was wont to do and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did when at the Institution of this holy Rite Mr. Mede ib. he took the Bread and Cup into his hands and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature and then received them from him again in a banquet as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son now the pertinent to your purpose nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christs body much less to prove a true and proper sacrifice which that S. Cyprian never dream'd of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius whose words are these because saith he we make mention of Christs passion in all our sacrifices for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer how is the Eucharist properly so seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once and his glorious body is now impatible how doth he really suffer and if not then is there only a remembrance of his passion made and therefore his passion that is the Commemoration of it must sure be call'd the sacrifice offered by the Church Ubi supra and especially in his first Chap. of the same 2. part where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly refuted Mr. C. p. 145. And as Bochartus hath it how impertient is it to alledge a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered which was undoubtedly true bread and wine without any transubstantiation to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine Lastly The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custome hath delivered that those who have no power of offering viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christs sacrifice made upon the Cross should give the Body of Christ that is these Symbols of his body to those who offer Ans What of all this Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christs body and blood Secondly Eusebius who was present at this Council can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For thus he speaks Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice And towards the end of that chapter we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ Secondly Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Premire partie Chapitre 10. tells us moreover that the Nicene Fathers said the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest without a sacrifice that is Representatively so for so the Grecians call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy things not offered as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe where the interpretation of Cardinal Perron is abundantly refuted and it is made good that the words were not intended to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Cardinal contends but only sans estre Sacrifie which is the proper and natural signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly and lastly we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfie Gods justice but because hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Cross And this affords us an Answer to that of S. Chrysostome Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145. that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for remission of sins for the Priest that offers for the multitude for the procuring plenty which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many petitions were put up to God at the solemnity for this oblation of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine and it was the custome of the Antients upon the consecration of the dona Mede ib. to be the Body and Blood of Christ to offer to the Divine
are they not Earth and taken out of the Earth But as for me I have learned to tread upon the Earth not worship it So Saint Augustin saith they are worse then bruit beasts Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum and if you are asham'd to worship the one you may be asham'd to worship the other So Origen we do not venerate Images with many other like places In Consul lit de Imag. which made Cassander cry out How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione from all veneration of Images one Origen declares Cruces saith Mintius Felix nec Colimus nec optamus and there we find it objected to them cur nulla nota simulachra habetis Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these Images appear not not as if they had any kept secretly but as * Dallie puts it beyond dispute because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images and terrene figments God hath made thee straight and when other animals are made prona ad terram depressa thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven thither look thither direct thy eyes not to Images seek God above The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was there should be no Images in the Church * De Imag. Ep. ad Demetr Lib. 2. cap. 19. Lactantius tells us there can be no Religion where there is an Image Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Idea's and divers Figures of Images Yea Ambr. de sugâ secul c. 5. this was so notorious to the very Heathens that when Adrian commanded that Temples should be made in all places without Images they presently conceived they were for Christians Lamprid. in vit Alexandri Severi What should I say Orig. in Cels l. 2. p. 373. there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you Nay you can scarce find out any excuse which they have not prevented with their contradiction 1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your memories the Objects they represent Orig. tells us If we be not out of our wits we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Images and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby In Ps 113. Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is borrowed from the Heathens who use to say I neither worship the very Image nor the Devil but by corporcal representation I look upon the sign of that which I ought to worship Dissert 38. And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent That in procuring them you do like lovers who willingly behold the Images of those they love that so their memory may be stir'd up in them 2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tels us we help our selves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Common people In Ps 113. But Saint Augustine saith they are very dangerous especially to them for who is it that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps Have this in your memories beloved Children not to bring Images into the Church nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints no not into any ordinary House but alwayes carry about the rememberance of God in your hearts Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros Tom. 1. oper Hier. Ep. 60. for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried about in suspence by his Eyes and the wandering of his mind He will tell you that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture Give charge against it He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant An. Dom. 754. Eus Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra and tear such a one though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour Amphilochius will adde we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables because we have no need of such things but by virtue to imitate their conversations Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custome from the Heathens And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence who tells you that the use of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoniam tenuitatis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was the cause of it You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it Sect. 11. They say that God and Religion forbid it And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder and the Jews abhorred it had they razed out their natural principles You say that we call this Honour given to him worship sect 9 to make you odious Ans 2. Council of Nice by them General Sâ—e the places in Dally de Imag. Cat. Rom. par 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Colantur licet illis cultum adhibere In 3. par Th. quaest 24. Art 3. Orthodox Consul par 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest 25. Art 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr ib. p. 796. Hath not a General Council call'd it so an hundred times do not almost all your writers call it so Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped and that it is lawful to worship them and that it hath still been done to the great good of the faithfull Doth not Cajetan tell us that they are painted that they may be worshipped ut adorentur as the frequent use of the Church doth testifie And Boverius that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church imagines piâ religione colendas esse will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you that albeit you speak warily in this matter yet the very truth is that the faithful in the Church do adore not only coram imagine sed imaginem Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better that you must downright and absolutely say that images are to be worshipped in Churches and out of Churches and that the contrary is heretical And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so Yea and Arriaga for a close will tell you Haeretici negant non Exemplarium venerationem and what you plead for he does not think any Heretick so simple as to deny I might here adde half an hundred of your Authors who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar but I let that pass for haply I may have another opportunity to acquaint you with them I shall conclude with the Roman
the most publick service should be in the most publick tongue but Latine is the most publick tongue in Europe But 1. This Sophisme will turn our Sermons into Latine which yet the Romanists notwithstanding their other impudent oppositions to the word of God have not asserted Secondly What reason can any mortall man imagine why the service of God should be celebrated in that Language which is most publick in Europe rather then in Asia Thirdly How blind were the primitive Churches which could not see so great a fitnes in this way of worship Cont. Cels l. 8. singuli precentur propria lingua Just novel 123 Ed. Haloandri for amongst them as Origen tells us every one prayed in his own tongue and Justinian commanded all Bishops and Presbyters to celebrate holy prayers and mysteries clara vernaculâ voce so that the vulgar might understand telling them out of the Apostle to what little putpose it was to do it otherwise and that they should not only be accountable for it at the day of judgement but punished by him also upon transgression of this command Fourthly We deny that the Latine tongue is the most publick in Europe or that there is any fitness that the Service of God should be celebrated in all Europe in that Language which is most publick And what if the Latine tongue be understood which yet is not always true by those that frequently recite the prayers Sect. 18 even as the unknown tongue which S. Paul so vehemently cryed down was understood by him that spake it what if that were a truth which you so crudely suggest p. 175. that a great part of the service was composed for the Clergies proper use when as the thing you are blamed for is that in the publick service which concerns the common people and according to the Apostles Doctrine ought to be done so as that they may understand it and be edified thereby is lock'd up by you in a tongue unknown Again why do you marry in the Latine tongue is that proper to your Clergy Your last evasion is Sect. 19. Ib. 6. that by this means viz. the keeping of your service in the Latine tongue your Doctrine is kept from being innovated whereas by the change of other Languages the Doctrine would lie under a danger of being changed Liturgyes preserved the same in the Latine tongue must ever and anon be altered and infinite expences be laid out in Printing them Ans Is not this a shrew'd sign of a sinking cause to lay hold upon such bul-rushes as these to catch at such vain and empty shadows what is it better that the poor people should want the bread of life the comfort and edification of the Churches service then buy a Common Prayer Book once in 20 or perhaps an 100 years Is there any danger of being undone by such a contribution of the parish that in an age will rob each family of a single peny should these infallible keepers of the truth of God fear the loss of their Religion upon the change of a word or 2. In the Chruches Liturgy what new Doctrine hath been broached by having our Liturgy in the vulgar tongue what great need have we had of new translations or what danger have we found by turning Paul the knave of Jesus Christ into the servant of Jesus Christ how did the Syriack Greek c. corrupt in the time of the Antient Fathers who yet did never complain of these inconveniences or think them sufficient to make use of the Latine tongue in their publick service these objections are so absurd as that nothing can make them more ridiculous For a close he tells us that Popes have granted p. 177. that the service of God should be celebrated in that maner which we contend for one of them having been induced to it by a miracle Sect. 20 A. And is it not wonderful that they should dare to contradict a miracle and when upon their consultation touching this matter God answered from heaven let every tongue confess unto me should say not so only the Latine tongue shall do it Farther he saith Sect. 21 that haply an indulgence may be granted Ans Very good but till then let them not blame us for not communicating with them seeing we continually proclaim that we are ready to communicate with them when ever we can procure a dispensation from these and the like enormities yea let them acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath erred by introducing this service into the Church hath contradicted the verdict of the infallible word of God which that it is the very truth we come now to demonstrate from that place of 1 Cor. 14. mistaken if we may believe him by the Doctor Now to pass over those arguments which with sufficient evidence may be drawn from the 11 first verses of this Chapter in the 12 vers Sect. 22 the Apostle thus exhorts these emulators of the gift of tongues that seeing they so importunately desired to abound in gifts they would do it to the edification of the Church endeavouring to excel in that which tends unto this noble end Now what was that the Apostle Ans The interpreting of tongues that the people may know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the import of the voice wherefore seeing we ought with greatest vigor to pursue those things that make most for the edification of the Church he that speaketh with an unknown tongue let him pray that he may interpret where two things may be inquired 1. To what part of service that verse refers Ans Prayer As is evident from the reason given vers 14. Let him pray that he may interpret for if I pray in an unknown tongue c. Secondly Why must he pray that he may interpret Ans That the Church may receive edification vers 5. Yea this is farther evident from the series of the words vers 12. seek that you may excell to the edification of the Church wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret as also from the Apostles precept that all things should be done to edification and consequently prayer Now hence I argue That which is requisite that we may excell to the edification of the Church we ought to practise in our publick prayers for as much as the Apostle bids us seek to excell in this matter to the edification of the Church but praying in a tongue known to the people which joyn in service with us is requisite to this and this being the end of our praying that we may interpret therefore we ought to practise it Our Authour here tells us that the Trent Council observes the mind of the Apostle in that she hath commanded all Pastors during the Celebration of the Mass to expound some part of what is read An Answer worthy such a cause For 1. Was it ever heard before that expounding perhaps an Epistle or Gospel or something else which to be sure is not a
and justice here from his Domestick Servants 'T is pitie that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint that Abraham was ignorant of her It would have taught her better divinity 2. 'T is no Demonstration sure God would not hide from Abraham the thing he was to do which concern'd so much his Brother Lot albeit he never revealed afterwards to any of his dearest servants that we read of unless his Prophets any such thing therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the praiers that are made to them by any person whatsoever By what hath been said I may be bold to infer that the invocation of Saints is very foolish and if so that the Church of Rome is not infallible But our Authour claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all Sect. 10 to prove I know not what and albeit they have been answered an 150. times he shall not bate me a single unite Yet doth he bolt them forth without any notice of the answers given We read saith he not only an Angel but every one of the four and twentie Elders to have in their hands golden Censers and Vials full of Odours Rev. 8.3.5.8 which are the prayers of the Saints that is of their Brethren upon Earth Now to take these two places in their Order 1. Revel 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood before the Altar having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints upon the Golden Altar which was before the Throne and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand Now 1. Let it be granted that to one Angel was this given to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints How doth it follow that they are to be invocated or that he knows when any particular person praies to him or any other Saint May not he offer up his incense continually as knowing onely this that praiers are made continually 2. If one Angel do this How will it follow that all do it or that all Saints 3. If this be a created Angel is there not a fine round of Praiers 1. They are carried by an Angel or revealed by God to the Saints then he pteseuts them to the Angel the Angel to Christ and Christ to the Father 2. This Angel is said to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints which surely is to do somwhat which may make them more acceptable to God and will they say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint or that any Created Angel offers somwhat to God which makes her praier more acceptable Well but we denie it to have been a created Angel but say it was the Angel of the Covenant who by the incense of his merits and intercessions offers the praiers of all Saints to God and makes them more acceptable unto him For 't is manifest that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Golden Altar whilest the people in the Court put up their praiers to God Luk. 1.10 Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the prayers of the Saints Now the Levitical Priest who offered incense was a type of Christ not of the Angels and this is that which the Apostle intimates that Christ the Angel of the Covenant Typified by the Levitical Priest offers up the praiers and sighes of his members groaning under the Tyrannie of wicked men and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8 where we are told That twenty foure Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands which are the prayers of the Saints Answ 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ and gathered from the Nations also he sheweth in what Heaven they are saying they shall reign upon the Earth And so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps and Haimo 2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical praiers not petitory and the four and twenty Elders onely intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven did render continuall Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on and that is taken from the miraculous effects not onely of prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints but also directed to the Saints themselves Now to this I answer First By denyal that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to shall be answered anon Secondly I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions and that upon several accounts First From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders in the three first ages albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions seems incredible and that which cannot easily be admitted by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil Secondly from the nature of them which rendreth them very ridiculous Basilius Selutensis l. 2. c. 10. Thus of Saint Thecla we are told that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her driving a fiery Chariot in the aire and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the scituation that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian C. 24. forsaken by the Physitians what he ailed and he had replied upon her in that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou knowest why should I tell it thee that knowest all things the Martyr being delighted partly with the man and partly with the verse for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory C. 21. 24. and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth with the touch whereof he was presently healed Yea the same Basil tells us how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extream pain in his ear C. 27. that the Auditory was like to be quite disappointed But that the Martyr the same night
Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving thanks or praying to God the Father by him he thus Paraphraseth do all things to God bring not in Angels doest thou eat give thanks to God or pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See 1 Cor. 14.16 17. before and after meat doest thou sleep give thanks to God before and after and so in other things And that prayer is one of these things that must be done to God and not to Angels appears from that which follows Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. orantem vel quidvis facientem whatever you do in word or deed that is saith he either praying or doing any other thing then presently after he tels us that it was the Devil that brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Invocating and worshipping of Angels for he is speaking still of Prayer and this he did envying us that honour of going immediately to the Trinitie or Christ but saith he be he Angel or Archangel yea or Cherubin do not suffer it much less if he be a Saint only for they will not endure it but shake you off when they see this contumely done unto their Lord. I have honoured thee saith God and said call upon me à nd thou dishonourest him Viz. by invocating Angels or others besides him Sect. 23 Thirdly the Fathers argue that Christ is God blessed for ever because he is invocated by us and accepteth of our prayer and therefore could not invocate the Saints whom they esteemed not to be gods Thus Origen Saint Paul when in the beginning of the Epistle to the Corinthians L. 8. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 10. he speaks thus with all that call upon the name of Christ Jesus pronounceth Jesus Christ whose name is called upon to be God De Trin. c. 14. and Novatian If Christ be only Man why is a Man invocated in our prayers as Mediator seeing the invocation of a Man is judged of no force to yield salvations why is there Hope reposed in him seeing hope in man is said to be accursed so likewise Athanasius C. 16.23 in the place forecited Cyril of Alexandria upon that of Saint John If you ask any thing in my Name I will do it crieth out He clearly manifests himself to be God in that he promiseth to receive our prayers Theophilus Alexand. Paschae Sec. How will they call upon him in whom they have not believed We must therefore first believe that He is the Son of God that our invocation of Him may be right And as he is not to be worshipped who is not God So on the contrary He is to be worshipped who is manifestly so Yea the Council of Laodicea decreed that we ought not to forsake the Church of God Can. 35. S. 24. and depart aside and invocate Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privie Idolatry let him be accursed because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and betaken himself to Idolatry Some very wisely would read angulos corners and make the Councel forbid the invocating corners Brev. Can. S. 90 Cod. Con. num 138. Brev. Can. S. 184. Henric. Canis Tom. 6. p. 424. but the Greek expresly readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in that Tongue hath no affinitie at all with corners Cresconius Dionysius Exiguus Fulgentius Ferrandus and pope Adrian in the Epitome of the Canons which he delivered to Charles the Great at Rome readeth Angelos and Theodoret gives us the mind of the Synod thus The Synod of Laodicea following this rule viz. of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the 3d. chap. of the Col. v. 17 On the 2d chap. Col. 3.17 of coming to the Father by Christ and not by Angels and desiring to heal that old Disease made a Law that they should not pray unto Angels nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ And again The Synod forbad them by Law to pray unto Angels And Oecumenius saith The Synod of Laodicea did by Law forbid to come unto Angels and pray unto them Yea in that great Council of three hundred thirty eight Bishops at Constantinople l. 1. de Con. c. 6. which Binius and Bellarmine stile general these two Canons were fraâ—dulently inserted 1. Defin. 15. Conc. Const citat in Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pag. 380. Ib. Defin. 17. Crakanth Def. Ec. An. pag. 420. Ab omnibus rejectum est For which the cites Paul Dial. l. 22. and again Omnes uno ore rejicerunt sanctorum invocationem Cannonem illum Notis in Con. Const sub Steph. 30. If any with a sincere Faith implores not the Intercessions of the Virgin Mary let him he Anathema 2. If any one shall not confess all the Saints to be Honourable before God and shall not entreat their prayers let him be Anathema But when the definition came to be read in the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they rejected them and caused them to be blotted out and this saith the Conluter Act the 6th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all men know yea further they bound their Members or themselves by an Oath Juramentum Sacro Sanctum solenne à suis exegerunt That they would never invocate the Saints Apostles Martyrs or the blessed Virgin as Binius relates Yea Lastly the greater part of the Fathers viz. Irenaeus l. 5. in fine Justine Martyr qu. 76. Tertull. ad Mar. l. 4. Clem. Rom. l. 2. Hypotepos Origen Hom. 7. in Lev. Lactantius l. 7. Institut c. 21. Victorinus Com. in Apoc. c. 6. Prudentius Hym. pro exequio defunct Ambrosius l. 2. de Cain Abel c. 2. Chrysostome Hom. 39. in 1. ad Cor. Austin in Ps 36. Euthymius in c. 23. luc Theodoret in cap. 11. ad Heb. Arethus in Apoc. Oecumenius in cap. 11. ad Heb. Cont. Whit. 1. c. 2. In part 2. direc inquis Com. 21. denied the souls of the Saints to have nay enjoyment of the beatifical Vision and this is acknowledged by their Stapleton and Franciscus Pegna and therefore these Fathers according to their own doctrine and practice of invocating only the Saints in Glory and the fruition of the beatifical Vision can not be reasonably supposed to have held the Invocation of Saints To Conclude I know what Distinctions they use of Prayer direct and indirect of prayer relative or terminative c. but First They are onely shifts to cover a desâ—erate cause the Fathers never used any one of them on this Occasion but reject this worship invocation without such distinctions even in those places where it seemed necessary to have used them had they been acquainted with this Sophistry yea Celsus and others intended no more Secondly These distinctions are equally serviceable for the evacuating the Fathers Argument hence for the Divinity Christ And Lastly are contradicted by the Fathers Let one Athanasius speak for all who not content to tell the
Arrians they must acknowledge that Saints i. e. Christians do not pray to any created being to be their helper elsewhere adds Or. 2. Cont. Ar. sub finem De incar verbi p. 528. that if they worship the Lord Christ because the Word of God inhabited in him they might as well worship the Saints because God dwells in them CHAP. XVII The Question stated by Mr. C. sect 1. A short Paraphrase upon 1 Cor. 7. ver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. sect 2. Arguments evincing this gift not to bee attainable by all sect 3. Mr. C's Evasions confuted sect 4. His own Argument not answered by himself sect 5. His Arguments against our Thesis Answered sect 6. His Question touching the late Marriage of some Ministers Answered sect 7. His Evasions further confuted sect 8. The Vow of Celibacy unlawfull sect 9. The Drs. Argument defended sect 10. 1 Tim. 5.11 12. explained sect 11. The Councel of Eliberis concludes nothing against us sect 12. Nor that of Carthage sect 13. Nor the African Councel sect 14. The Nicene Councel stands for us sect 15. Why after Ordination the Antients required abstinence from Marriage sect 16. The Synod of Gangra for us sect 17. As also that convened in Trullo sect 18. The Eastern Church permitted Marriage to her Priests and that after Ordination sect 19. The Testimonies of St. Jerome to the contrary considered sect 20. And of Epiphanius sect 21. Of Ambrose and St. Austin sect 22. The Testimony of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth St. Clemens Athanagoras and Justin Martyr Origen and Tertullian against the Romanists sect 23. Marryed Priests in the Primitive Church sect 24. Scripture interpreted by the Fathers in favour of us sect 25. Particularly 1 Tim. 3.2 sect 26. Heb. 13.4 sect 27. And Mat. 19.12 sect 28. IN the seventeenth chapter Sect. 1 touching the Celibacy of Priests hee states the matter thus The question must bee Sect. 4. p. 204. whether a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all Carnal lusts may lawfully by Priests be made the matter of a vow and tells us that we condemn the practise at least consider'd as extending it self generally to any whole order or state of men and especially any obligation imposed on them to this practise On the contrary he tells us that the Church of Rome enjoins Celibacy to Priests and holds that 't is such a gift that is denied to none that rightly seek it and therefore may bee made the matter of a vow Agreeably to their Trent Council which tells us Deus id recte petentibus non deneget Now here to omit his stating the question of Carnal lusts are two differences betwixt us 1 They say all may have this gift of Continence who rightly seek it 2 That it is lawful to impose such an obligation of perpetual Celibacy upon their Priests both which we deny And first Sect. 2 that this is not a gift to bee attained by every man appears abundantly from the 7. chap. of the 1 Ep. Cor. In which the first Question moved is Whether a Christian should embrace a Conjugal estate To this 't is Answered V. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman That as the case stood then 't was very commendable for a man so to moderate his affections and get such a noble victory over the flesh as not to need this remedy 't is good for a man not to touch a Wife Nevertheless seeing the condition by reason of the rareness of the gift of Continency will lay you open to the danger of Fornication V. 2. To avoid Fornication let every one have his own wife V. 3. Let the Husband render to the wife due benevolence V. 4 The wife hath not power over her own body V. 5. Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer come together again lest Satantempt you for your incontinency V. 6. I speak this by permission and not of command V. 7. I would that all men were even as I but every one hath his proper gift V. 8. I say therfore to the unmarryed and widdows it is good for them if they abide even as I. V. 9. But if they cannot contain let them marry for the avoiding of the same let every man to whom this special gift is not vouchsafed either procure himself a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or retain her if he hath procured her and every woman her proper Husband or if she be a Virgin submit to the bond of Matrimony and when the Conjugal knot shall once be tyed and they be under this relation of Man and Wife since avoiding Fornication was the cheif motive to this condition let due benevolence be mutually given for the woman not having any longer power over her own body cannot without open fraud deny it when moderately desired And in prosecution of the ends of Marriage which reason equally concerns the Husbands body unless it be by the interceding of some such Cautions as these 1 That it be with the mutual consent of both 2 That it bee in some rare and extraordinary case viz. in time of Fasting or being importunate with God in Prayer 3 Thatsuchseparation be not long And these cautions are necessary to be observed least Satan who will neglect no opportunity do ensnare you and by reason of your deficiency in this gift of Continence prevail upon you and kindle the flames of unclean desires Yet would I not here seem to enjoyn all married state or a continual use of the marriage bed neither do I speak this as a precept to all but advice to the incontinent For verily I could be glad that the Divine bounty if it were his pleasure would afford this gift of Continence he hath given me to every Christian but seeing his infinite wisdome hath thought meet that it should be otherwise and that this gift as others which according to his pleasure are distributed should be peculiar to some my decision is that 't were more commodious for Widdows and Virgins if they could contain to live in Celibacy as I do But if they finde it otherwise then doth a necessity lye upon them either to enter into the state of Matrimony or to burn and therefore to extinguish these flames they must use this means to prevent it which God hath appointed for this end This Paraphrase is clear and evident yet will I further evince what ever can be denied in it by the obstinate Do they tell us in answer to the 2 verse that the Apostle speaks of persons already married I assent do they tell us it is a counsel I say so also only minding them that thence according to their doctrine unavoidably it will follow that it is of greater virtue and merit for every one to have his own wife then not Will Bellarm. add that the Apostle speaks of Fornication not ustions I must minde him that the Apostle determines very
of the Church gadding abroad c. yea and being such could scarce hope to procure a Husband among them and therefore that they might not fail of them and that they might live more free from these taunts and disgraces they rejected their office and faith together Now that they did so as it is probable from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies excutere habenas Christi so is it more then so from the 15 v. which tells us that they had turned aside to Satan a phrase in Scripture used to denote Apostacy from Christ and God For as turning from the power of Satan to God is a description of turning Christian so Apostates are said to be transfer'd again into Satans Kingdome Luke 11.13 And to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 6.66 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12.13 1 Tim. 1.6.4.4 as here also it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly That it cannot be understood of a solemn vow of Continency joyned with an abnegation of the married state beside what I have said before is proved 1. In that the Apostle denies that he would cast a snare upon any that is lay a necessity on them to contain unmarried but on the contrary gives this general axiom that it is better to marry than to burn And therefore it is altogether unlikely that he would now tell them that they must continue though he found they had not the gift of Continence under pain of damnation No rather he would have admonished them to repent of their rash vow and told them with Epiphanius Epiph. de tradit who is clearly ours as to this that it is better to have the guilt of one sin viz. a rash vow then of many viz. Continual burnings Calling the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a fault to which he enjoyns pennance the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which will bring damnation 2. If the vow of Continence be the first faith here spoken of then may not any woman or widdow make this vow by the Apostles charge till she be sixty years old Sess 25. C. 15. which how is it this day practized in the Romish Church since the Trent Councel admits them at sixteen Let them then confess that this Text speaks not of votaries or else that they sin against the Apostles precept by warrant of their infallible general Council For it is evident the Apostle bids them not admit a Widdow under sixty for fear of her incontinency and for that reason requires them to refuse those that are younger then so I confesse besides Bellarm who is very frivolous and every where confuted Estius tells us 1. That there is not the same reason for Widdows as for Virgins For these having not felt the pleasure of due benevolence are not so much tempted as Widdows But to this 1. It is evident you admit even Widdows long before this time yea at any time 2. Seeing marriage was ordained for the abating of this fire of lust sure it will somewhat do so not more inflame it and it is unconceivable that women though thirty or forty once marryed should bee more prone to lust then those of sixteen or eighteen never Marryed 3. Be it that there were some difference yet surely not such as will put Virgins out of danger especially when the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 7. that there may bee need and therefore he will not put a snare upon them 2. Hee tells us that they had no Cloisters to bee immured in then as there be now and therefore they were more obnoxious to this failing Answ By no means when it must be granted that Church Discipline was more strict then Christianity more lively and better practized then now 2. Solitariness doth not help this disease but increase it rather 3. That their Cloisters do not abridge them of occasions of lust appears by their frequent pregnancy and the above cited Authors neither ought they to change the Apostles precept upon such sleight and frivolous grounds In a word to conclude why may not this sense of the words pass for currant you admit younger Widdows into this Office upon their promise of continuing in that estate when alas they are in danger to wax wanton against Christ by this means and when they have done so to marry which course of yours will bring condemnation upon them This waxing wanton being an evident breach of the promise of obedience to the Commands of Christ which they made at their entrance into Christianity And whereas he tells us that his Exposition which makes it plead for their vow of Continency is not contradicted by any of the Antient Doctors Bishop Hall will tell him p. 725. I had thought I had read in Holy Athanasius wo to you that make void the first faith of Baptism I thought that St. Jerom had said in the preface to the Ep. to Titus They are not worthy of belief qui primam fidem Baptismi irritam fecerunt who have made void their first faith in Baptism Now if a contrary Interpretation be not a contradiction to the sense contended for I may say as well that the Interpretation of these two Fathers was never contradicted by any of the rest But it is the consent of antiquity in which our Adversary vaunts himself Sect. 12 And 1. M. C. p. 216. As for the councel of Eliberis which if we may believe him Can. 33. absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children let it be considered Melchior Canus l 5. de locis c. 4. Binius p. 239. Bellar. l. 2. de Imag. c 9. Baron ad An. 56. Hum. 119. 1. That when the decree of this councel is urged by us against Images they presently deride us as producing a Councel of nineteen Bishops met in a corner of the world telling us that it was an erronious Councel bordering upon Novatianism and manifestly void and null in many things viz. In those in which it thwarts their superstitions Now if these things be true what advantage can they have from these nineteen Bishops may not we as lawfully reject them as the Romanist 2. The Canon doth not command this abstinence to Bishops and to other sacred Persons absolutely but onely in the time of their ministration or whilst it is their turn to assist at the Altar which thing is determined in many councels and is not in the least manner contrary to us 3. The words of the Councel run exactly contrary to what you have given us even thus this Councel hath thought good not to command but wholly to forbid Bishops Priests c. to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children And so it will be parallel to the Canon of the Nicene Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made in opposition to the condemners of due benevolence in Priests Another Councel produced by him is the seventh of
Carthage Sect. 13 for that which he calls the second was indeed the seventh which thus he gives us Can. 2. it was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons As you may see in Calixtus de con Cler. p. 286. Mr. C. p. 215. and such who dispense Sacraments should be observers of chastity and abstain even from their own Wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep Answ Now here again Est quidem alia lectio secundum quam quod unus Faustiâ—us dixit universis Episcopis tribuitur sed eam mendosam esse cum resipsa tum Graecus codex evincit Quomodo enim ab universis dictum est quod mox Universi mutarunt alitur extulerunt Calix ibid. he is somewhat dis-ingenuous and takes some part of the sentence of Aurelius and joyns it to the proposal of Faustinus And 2. Taking advantage of a spurious lection makes that to be agreed upon by all the Bishops which was onely the proposal of one Faustinus a legate of the Roman Church to which the Synod doth not assent I will faithfully transcribe the whole matter that you may see the truth of what I say Aurelius then speaks thus It pleased the Bishops Priests and Deacons to be continent in all things which sure they may be in marriage as it behoveth Bishops Priests and Levites or those who serve at the Holy Sacraments that so they may obtain what they aske of God and that what the Apostle taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time 1 Tim. 3. 1 Cor. 7.5 that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer and Antiquity observed in abstaining from those lawful pleasures at such times of fasting and prayer and ingagement in Divine Service Vide Can. 3. 4. We also may keep Thus Aurelius Next comes Faustinus and proposeth that Bishops Priests and Deacons and all who handle the Holy Sacraments should abstain even from their own Wives to which the Synod answereth onely thus It pleaseth us that those who wait at the Altar should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve chastity And therefore it doth not at all appear that they consented to his proposal seeing chastity may bee preserved in lawful Wedlock as the Carthaginian Bishops in the third Synod do acknowledge The like prevarication we meet with Sect. 14 in your citation of the 28. Can. of the Afric Coun. which in brief runs thus Aurelius the Bishop said Uxores nisi eustodita pudicitia duxerint lectores legere non sinantur Can. 19 Vide Calix edit Helm p. 397. See Mr. C. p. 215. I add Reverend Brethren that which hath been confirmed in divers Synods in their relations or consultations about the temperance not intemperance as Mr. C. of Clerks with their own Wives and chiefly Readers That Bishops Priests Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the Holy Mysteries in their proper turns of service words which our Author thought good to change should be Continent even from their Wives and be as if they had them not which if they do not c. Indeed the Canon as it is in latine agrees with his interpretation as far as it extends but that wee should rather follow the Greek version appears from this that the Canon in its full extent is no where extant in latin and now for the sense of it that it intends the prohibition only in propriis viois suae temporibus appears 1. From the very words which determine and prescribe this Continence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according not to former decrees but to the proper terms of their attendance 2. Balsamon upon the Canon tells us that this was the very mind of the Councel nec prohibuit eis Synodus cum ipsis consuetudinem nisi in propriis terminis i. e. in prestitutis uniuscujusque vicis dieâ—us Yea the general Councel at Trullo Can. 13. doth evidently declare for this interpretation their words are these Wee know that those who met at Carthage being carefull of the holiness of Priests decreed that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the holy Mysterys should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of the Greek Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words do not only evidence this sense and tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are proper turns of administration or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also evidently explain the meaning of that clause in the former Canon that so what the Apostle taught and Antiquity observed to be the very same which I have imitated from what hath been said I thus argue they which limited this abstinence to a certain time did not intend that it should be perpetual seeing regula firmat in non exceptis but thus did these Synods Ergo. Thus have we returned answer to his Synods Sect. 15 it follows now that we produce our Synods against him And 1. I will begin with the Nicene Councel the History of which wee have related by Gelasius Cyzicenus and in that this passage It seemed good to some Bishops in the City to introduce a new law or custome into the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to define that Bishops Presbyters Deacons Sub-Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other sacred Persons ought not to use those Wives as Companions of their Bed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being Laicks they had married these things being thus determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paphnutius rose up and cryed with a loud voice Oh do not make grievous the yoke of Priests for Marriage is honourable amongst all and the bed undefiled least by too much exactness or severity you rather bring detriment to the Church then good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither are all sufficient to exercise this Apathy thus to restrain their sensual appetite nor will any I suppose be kept in chastity if women should be thus deprived of their husbands Moreover I affirm that the affording due benevolence by any man to his lawful wife is honest chastity wherefore her whom God hath joyned or whom any being yet a Lectorer or Singer or Laick hath married do not you separate Soz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which the whole Synod assented and left every man to his freedome to abstain or not This history we have in Suidas Verb. Paphn in Gratian C. Nicaena dist 31. In M. Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 1. c. 14. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. Now there is scarce any thing asserted in this chapter which is not contradicted by the decree of this Nicene Councel doth he tell us that a matrimonial use of Wives to the formerly married Mr. C. p. 215. Cujusque arbitrio abstinentiam ab uxoris consuetudine permittentes Soc. Mr. C. Ib. Mr. C. p. 206. was forbidden the Story tells us that it was left free by the Synod to abstain or not Will he cite some
passages to perswade us 't is an Apostolical decree the Story will inform us 't was an innovation will he say that all may contain Paphnutius tells him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all cannot Fourthly The reasons which Paphnutius useth are these 1. That this would be a burthen too heavy for the Priests to bear sect 9 2. That scarce any Wives thus separated would be kept Chaste 3. That all Priests are not sufficient for such Continence 4. That it would tend to the detriment of the Church 5. That Marriage was honourable even in Priests 6. That this separation would bee a divorcing of them whom God had joyned So that the Romanists by the practise and allowance of such divorces must bee guilty of all this Fifthly The Synod assented to all this saith Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Synod was perswaded by his words yea they applauded his advice Synodus laudavit sententiam ejus saith Gratian and Sozom. and that upon these accounts thus mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Gelasius all which being put together will yeeld us sufficient advantage against the Romanists innovation in this matter Well Sect. 16 but he returns upon us that Socrates and Sozomen relate Mr. C. p. 214. that it was consonant to the antient Tradition of the Church that those who had entred into Holy Orders before they had Married Wives should afterwards forbear from Marrying Answ The Romanist will get but little advantage hence if it bee considered 1. That Gratian and Gelasius who tells us that he compiled his relation from the very acts of the Nicene Synod then extant as in his Proem you may see have no such thing and that Sozom. and Socrates from whom this is cited See Cham. de coel l. 16. c. 10. Bell. l. 1. de Cler. c. 20. Baron an 325. are generally excepted against by our Adversaries in this very matter 2. That albeit it were an Antient custome yet can it not be proved to have been derived from the Apostles as is fully evinced by Calixtus de conjugio clericorum 3. That they admitted antiently no Presbyter under 30 Can. 11. Novel 123. c. 13. P. 206. as the Synod at Neocaesarea decreed or 35 as Justinian nor a Deacon under 25. now even according to Mr. C. if a man can contain so long he may very well be supposed able to contain the residue of his life 4. The Antients thought it somewhat unfit for a Minister to be imployed in wooing and courting Mistresses this they esteemed a thing below the gravity of a Priest Synod Agath c. 39. as likewise to interfair with the Marriage Festival whence they were forbidden to be present there Novel 3. this is intimated by Leo the Emperour in his Novels when he saith Whereas the Ecclesiastical Orders had constituted Per omnē vitam caelibatum voveant that they who were ordained Priests should promise perpetual Celibacy if they trusted they should not falsifie their promise or if they thought themselves unable to contain should first Contract lawful Matrimony and then take upon them the Ministry The custome which at present obtaineth is that they may first bee made Priests and after two years Marry which because it seems undecent indecorum we require that the antient prescript bee observed for 't is an unworthy thing that they who have ascended unto spiritual things should again slide down to carnal but contrariwise they should go from carnal to spiritual 5. To add no more they had their choise when they came to be Ordained whether they would Marry or not they had their liberty to Marry before they came to Ordination Now here is nothing which can well be quarreld with seeing men may well be supposed sufficiently acquainted with their abilities at thirty and consequently as they finde themselves may either then Marry or promise to abstain To this purpose is that of the excellent Bishop Taylor Duc. dub l. 3. c. The Primitive Church commonly chose her Priests and Bishops of great age of known virtue and holiness they were designed to a publick and dangerous employment for some whole ages they were under persecution and the way of the cross was a great delatory to flesh and blood and therefore they might the rather require it of them whom in those dispositions they found fit to bee taken into an employment which would require a whole man all his time and all his affections now if wee consider that the married Priests were commanded to retain their wives and the unmarried had been tried to be of a known and experienced Continence they might with much reason and great advantage require that they should remain so that is they might ask their consent and trust their promise for here was liberty and but little danger the Priests were few and the unmarried much fewer and their age commonly such as was past danger and the publick affairs of the Church required it and the men were willing and then all was right and then as for the practise of the Church hee shews that it was the custome of the whole Greek Clergy to marry after holy Orders yea gives examples of it in the Latine Church But now the Canons of the Church of Rome afford no such liberty but make all vow perpetual Abstinence or else refuse to admit them to the sacred Ministry and so reject many thousand persons for that which is honourable in all and which is permitted by the Apostle Can. 10. even to a Bishop and as for Deacons the Counsel of Ancyra permits them Marriage after Ordination if at the time of their Ordination they declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they must Marry being not able to contain because the Bishop say they hath granted them a Licence or dispensation what other exceptions are made against this Counsel you may see largely refuted in Chamier and especially Calixtus if you do but consult their Indexes Our next Synod shall be that of Gangra Sect. 17 a City of Paphlagonia Ann. 339. which though it was but a particular Councel yet hath it the authority of a general for as much as the Canons of it were unanimously approved by the whole Eastern and Western Churches yea alwaies received amongst her rules insomuch that Baronius pronounceth from the words of Pope An. 361 Nu. 44. Symmachus Canones Gangrenses Apostolica authoritate conditos esse This Synod was convened against Eustathius and his disciples who as Sozomen informs us Lib. 3. c. 13. were reputed as men accusing Marriage refusing to pray in the houses of married persons and despising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 married Presbyters And Socrates saith that they did decline tanquam scelus the benediction and Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Presbyter having a wife which whilst a Laick he had Married as the custome was or according to the law viz. that those among the Clergy who
would have wives should procure them before their Ordination yea the Synod tells us in the preface that they despised the married Presbyters and would not touch the Sacraments administred by them Now against these Eustathians the fourth Canon thus decrees If any one separate himself from a conjugated Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though hee ought not to participate of the offering administred by him let him be Anathema From whence we gather that according to the sentence of these Bishops in this Synod yea and the whole world embracing their decrees that a Presbyter ought not to be deposed for being married or reserving of his wife Here First They quarrel at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were to be rendred who hath had a wife not who hath at present but 1. Balsamon tells us that the Canon Anathematizeth those who would not indifferently communicate in the holy things of married persons that have wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with him Gratian consents Distinc 28. and whereas the Synod and Sozomen have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea when 't is said they refused to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it credible that they would not pray in the houses of such as had once been married though afterwards they rejected that estate 2. 'T is evident that the word bears this sense ordinarily 1 Cor. 7.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To those that are married speak not I but the Lord let not the woman be separated from her Husband See Chamier l. 16. de cael c. 8. Calixtus p. 208. Secondly They tell us that Eustathius and his Disciples thought marriage absolutely evil Answ What is that to the purpose seeing it is also evident that the Synod thought the marryed state consistent with the Priest-hood 2. Wee grant they did so and this is condemned Canon the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man condemn Marriage or detest it and criminate a faithful and religious Woman giving due benevolence to her Husband as if she could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be accursed Lastly Perhaps they will say the Synod determines that it is lawful for a Presbyter to have a Wife and not to use her Answ 1. Can any imagine that the Eustathians could think a Presbyter so defiled by having once marryed a Wife when a Lay-man though he now rejected her from his bed 2. The Synod and Socrates inform us that many women upon their perswasions left their Husbands and being not able to contain they polluted themselves with Adultery and this grievance they came to redress which they do by requiring due benevolence and surely this being the onely case according to the antient Law Paph speaks of in which Priests marriage was permitted that they professed their inability to contain or else entered upon that state before they came to Ordination as finding in themselves a defect of Continence the Councel could not think it unlawful for them to enjoy this remedy of their incontinence A third Synod is that convened in Trullo Sect. 18 and called Quinisexta Can. 13. seeing we have heard say the Fathers that in the Roman Church it is delivered as a Canon that whosoever are to be ordained Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters should profess that they would not henceforward use their Wives we following the Antient Canon of the exact Apostolick constitution declare our pleasure that the cohabitation of Sacred Persons according to the Laws be from henceforward firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. copulam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lat Mutua consuetudine and established no way dissolving their conjunction with their Wives or depriving them of giving due benevolence to each other at times convenient and therefore who ever is found worthy of the order of a Sub-Deacon Deacon or Priest let him not bee prohibited from this degree because he cohabits with his lawful Wife least by so doing we should be compelled to bring an ignominy upon that Wedlock which God hath instituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 19.6 the Gospel in the mean time crying out What God hath joyned let no man separate and the Apostle Marriage is honourable and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 and further art thou bound to a Wife seek not to bee loosed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any therefore rising up against the Apostles Canons dares to deprive any Consecrated Presbyter or Deacon of the commerce of his lawful Wife let him be deposed Now here let it be observed I That in this Synod or rather supplement of the two former Synods Paul of Constant Peter of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Praefat. 6. Syn. Totius Synodi Romanae Ecclesiae vicem gerentes Anastasius of Jerusalem George of Antioch all Patriarches were present and the rest of the Bishops out of every Province and Region as the sub-scription hath it and as Balsamon tells us hee found in the subscriptions Basilius a Metropolitan of Gortina in Creet and a certain Bishop of Ravenna were there to represent the Roman Church and besides as legates of the Pope were present the Bishops of Thessaly Sardis Heraclea and Corinth 2. Act. 2. quod in sâ—xtae Synodi divine legaliter predicatis Canon c. Act. 4. 7. That albeit Sergius did not acquiesce in his subscription to this Synod yet did Hadrian the first receive the Synod and its Canons and that as rightly and divinely decreed as you may see in an Epistle of his extant in this second Nicene Councel Yea farther in this second Nicene Councel the Roman Legates not at all contradicting it they are cited under the names of the Canons of the Holy Oecumenical sixth Synod 3. That this is done in perfect opposition to the Roman Church and therefore they little dream'd of its infalibility or any submission due unto it 4. That they affirm that this depriving Presbyters c. of the use of their Wives or the Marriage Bed is a flat contradiction to two aphorismes of the Apostles a separating what God hath joyned and a casting ignominy upon the Gospel and consequently that in the judgement of this Synod the Roman Church her practise then and judgement at this present are justly charged with all this 5. That all this is done in compliance with the Apostles Canon which allows and approves according to their judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure is a little more then providing for their Wives or cohabitation without the use of the Marriage bed and the words of the Apostolick Canon do infer it For they do not onely say that it is unlawful for a Bishop to put away his wife but that hee must not do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under a pretence of piety now how could they under a pretence of piety refuse to provide for their own flesh Apud Grat. causae 3. q. 2. c.
did not beget children though others did if throughout all Aegypt it had been unlawful for a Bishop to have had a wife or beget children in that condition For that he is so to be understood is evident because he tells him how he might live in the condition of a Bishop nor did it concern Dracontius at all what lives the Bishops lead before their instalments but what they used to bee when they ascended the Episcopal Chair 3. Why doth St. Jerom though dealing with one by Nation a Spaniard and inhabiting in France fly to Aegypt and the East but that he knew there was no such matter observed in Spain France and other places of the Western Church St. Jerom is so far from shewing that this severity obtained in the East that he rather evidenceth by this that it obtained not generally in the West but onely in the Roman Diocesses or the Suburbicarian Churches The second place produced from St. Jerom runs thus Epist ad Pammachium All Bishops Priests and Deacons and the whole Sacerdotal and Levitical Chore know they cannot offer sacrifice if they use the Act of Marriage Answ True if they use it at the time of Sacrificing or when their turn of attendance upon the Altar comes or 2. This must be understood onely of the Clergy of the Church of Rome of which he was a member as also Pammachius to whom he writeth in this Apology or else there can be nothing of truth in it Mr. C. p. 214. it being so evident that our Author is even forced to grant it that the Eastern Bishops did generally allow themselves a liberty in this Next you produce the empty name of Origen to whom you have a sufficient answer in Calixtus and tell us M. C. P. 159. 160. that Eusebius saith somewhat which you durst not produce P. 227. 228 229. To. 3. l. 17. c. 9. sect 11.12 13 14 15. Haer. 59. because haply you knew that it was evidently impertinent as you might have seen in Calixtus and Chamier Epiphanius you introduce to inform us that a Bishop Priest Deacon Sub-Deacon that is the husband of one Wife and begets children is not admitted in the Church Sect. 21 especially where the Canons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very exact and severe which was not in many places then he objects that in some places the Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons beget children To which he answers Ibid. that this is against the Canon viz. the exact Canon he before spake of and to be imputed to the minds of men so quickly languishing 2. Haply he speaks onely of the Church of Cyprus and Salamis where he was Bishop or some parts adjacent For what shall we think of the Canons of the Nicene Councel and of Gangra were they not sufficiently exact From the Western Church he produceth onely the testimony of two Fathers Sect. 22 The first is l. 1. de officiis c. ult St. Ambrose whose testimony makes the Marriage of Priests impure corrupt a stain and violation of marriage which Mr. C. dares not approve of 2. He tells us that not in certain as Mr. C. but in most places more obscure then Mediolanum the Priests did beget children Ep. 82. Non quo excludat ex sortem conjâ—gii sed ut conjugali eastimonia servet ablationis suae gratiam Lib. de adult conjug c. 20. Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 3. c. 4. p. 348. 3. The same Ambross elsewhere tells us that the Apostle when he commands viz. the Bishop to be the Husband of one wife doth it not to exclude the unmarried but that hee viz. who had not the gift of Continence but lay under the danger of fornication should keep the grace of his Baptism by using this remedy of Wedlock The second Father is St. Austin who saith onely this that the continence of those Clerks who were snatched as it were into the ministery and violently compelled against their will as it was with Austin himself with Pinianus ordained against his will and the tears of his Wife with Panlinianus whose mouth was stopped that he might not deny it was proposed by him as an example to others and they are said to bee taken ad eam sarcinam subeundam because they were hastned to the Ministery before ordination and after that time the Church permitted them not the use of marriage But yet here is nothing of an Ecclesiastical Law much less a Divine but onely an irregular action which as matters then stood laid a necessity upon persons thus abused to be single Nor can it be imagined that such men ever made a vow of single life as the Popish Priests do or that these were fiting circumstances for a vow Thus have we gone over the Fathers produced by him Sect. 23 as clearly as the matter will well bear I shall be very sparing in confronting Fathers to him referring you for the triumphant evidence of Antiquity to Calixtus Chamier and Bishop Hall 1. Then Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing to Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus who as it seems would have brought his Clergy into this snare exhorts him Euseb l. 4. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee would not put this heavy Yoke of Continence this burthensome purity upon his Brethren but would have respect to the infirmity of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Const Apost l. 6. c. 17. Si male intelligatur non solum libidinem sacerdotum Graecorum defendat sed Latinis quoque ad petendam quod concedi non potest aditum praeparet muniat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athenug apol ad Anton. Philos Had there been any Apostolical sanction or Ecclesiastical constitution in this case how durst Dionysius have disswaded the exercise of it or called it a grievous Yoke not to bee imposed on the Brethren why doth hee speak particularly to Pinytus yea why doth not Pinytus in his Answer minde him of it and defend himself with it but only tell him that they should not perpetually be fed with milk but at last come to more solid meat 2. The Author of the Apostolick constitutions vulgarly attributed to St. Clemens tells us that Bishops Priests and Deacons if at Ordination they bee married must not bee joyned to others but content themselves with her whom at their Ordination they enjoyed words very pregnant and emphatical which Turrianus himself acknowledgeth and therefore contends for another Lection viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which hee is sufficiently confuted by Chamier to 3. l. 16. c. 7. sect 11 12 13 14 15. 3. When Athenagoras and Justin Martyr to whom you may add Irenaeus Tatianus Theophilus Antiochenus come to answer what was objected against the Christians concerning Promiscuous Mixtures they tell them among other things that they are so far from such uncleanness that there might be found amongst them many Ante medium both Men and Women that were unmarried even to old age the like hath
I could sufficiently evince from many other topicks but that I am unwilling to be burthensome to the Readers patience whom therefore I refer to the reverend Bishop Bramhal Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon c. 8. and proceed to the consideration of those Arguments which hee useth to defend their Church from so great a guilt 1. Therefore saith he if our Church was Schismatical Sect. 9 either it was so before the reformation Mr. C. p. 395. or it began afterwards so to be Answ It was so before and afterwards it began to aggravate it's Schisme it was so before causally as doing that which gave sufficient cause for her members to separate it was so afterwards both causally and formally but he proceeds Ibid. ' If it was so before where was the Church from which we separated Answ 1. The Greek and other Churches of the East 2. Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 342. You have departed from the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome by introducing errours corruptions and abuses into it and this is a moral departure from a Church and truely schism 3. You have departed from the Catholick Church and this you have done by separating from you by your Censures three of four parts of the Christian World as Catholick yea more Catholick then your selves Lastly you separated from the purer part of your own Church which then as to the main was Orthodox Again might not the Arrians have argued thus See Dr. Fields Appen to his third part where is that Church from which we separate Are not all the famous Churches of the world of our communion will you say Gods Church hath failed or will you call a few inconsiderable people in Dens Caves Woods and Desarts the Church of God might not the Idolatrous Priests of Judah have argued after this very manner might they not have asked Elijah with greater confidence where was the Church from which they separated Again Ibid. saith he If wee become Schismatical after their separation then because the Professors in this nothing vary from the former Age may the Church remaining the same without any alteration at all be the true Church of Christ to day and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow Answ 1. It is not every Schism that turns the Church of Christ into a Synagogue of Satan but onely a Schism in fundamentals as we shall presently evince 2. Your Church was Schismatical before though not in such an high degree as after the Trent Council she hath been for before that time she required unlawful conditions of her Communion denounced Anathemaes against those that refused to obey them and the like but after the session of the Trent Council her unlawful conditions of communion have been more augmented Again saith hee no particular Church which is a member of the Catholick Church but hath a power to Excommunicate those that desert her Communion transgress her Laws Answ What whether her Laws be just or unjust Had the Eastern Church a power to excommunicate the Western because transgressing her Laws and deserting her Communion about the celebration of the Easter Festival Had the Churches of Asia a power to Excommunicate Pope Stephanus and others of the Western Church who deserted their Communion by reason of a difference touching the Re-Baptization of persons Baptized by Hereticks Hath not this been continually the custome of the Church of God yea even of Rome it self when any persons excommunicated by other Churches were found Orthodox to receive them into their Communion of which examples have been given above and hundreds more might be produced Well then in a word the Church of Rome hath a power to excommunicate those who desert her and transgresse her Laws even as the Magistrate hath a power to inflict a mulct or penalty upon such as transgress his laws and sanctions but then as the exertion of this power upon persons innocent or in prosecution of Laws which are manifestly unjust is a transgression of the bounds and limits of this power and criminal in the person that thus exerts it even so the excommunication used by the Church of Rome upon other Churches who are necessitated by the law of God to forsake her communion and only transgress her laws when inconsistent with the observance of the laws of Christ is a transgression of the bounds and limits of her power and criminal not in him that separates but in them that make this separation he being bound to obey God rather then man so that 't is impossible for you to justifie your Excommunications unless you can justifie your laws and tyrannical exactions upon the consciences of men The second sect of his twenty fourth chap. Sect. 10 is spent in telling us that once we were Papists and now are Protestants with the addition of some untruths to make the discourse more plausible The visible communion saith hee betwixt the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken Answ This is as true as that the Church of Italy hath no visible communion with Spain and France do not we communicate with them in their services when we have occasion and do not they mutually communicate with us do we not proclaim our selves their Brethren did we ever renounce their communion or were wee ever rejected by them do they differ in some opinions from us so do the Italian and French Catholick Churches But hee goes on The same publick service which our first reformers found in Gods Churches all the world over they refuse saith he to joyn in for fear of sin Answ As if the whole world at the time of our reformation had used the same Liturgy the publick service of the Graecians and other Eastern Churches had fully accorded with the service of the Western or could be different from it and yet the same and yet had this been so must we be necessarily Schismaticks in so doing would King Josiah or Hezekiah have joyned in the services of those Idoll Priests which at the time of their reformation were observed could they have sacrificed in the high places without sin or were they Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with their corruptions when Arrianisme prevailed in the Church of God when their Creeds and Doxologies were received and practised were the reformers that cast them out Schismatical and when that Prophesie that even all Nations shall worship and do homage to the beast shall be fulfil'd will a reformation afterwards be no better then a Schisme will it bee unlawful to alter what then shall be observed Again saith he most of the Ecclesiastical laws which were formerly inforce Ibid. wee have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches made new Answ We have abrogated none but such as were abrogated by Gods Law such as could never oblige us but by our consent and consequently can oblige no longer then we do consent such as were contrary to the doctrine of the Primitive Church
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
this observance without respect to the truth of them Should I tell a Layick that hee must not trust to his private interpretation of any Paragraph of Scripture without the concurrence of some learned Commentator could I bee reasonably thought to tell him that he might embrace any thing as the sense of any paragraph of Scripture which any learned Commentator lays down as such Well then all that wee assert is that this conflict in the judgements of learned men is ground for him to advise and consult and look into the truth but will not free a man from guilt who upon that sole account refuseth to observe the decrees fore-mentioned 3. Sect. 4 Whereas he adds that upon our grounds a Presbyterian if hee think himself certain that our Doctrines are errours Mr. C. p. 268. may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and Gods Church too This is another misadventure for neither do we allow any private mans Authority openly to question or contradict much lesse make parties to reverse the decrees of the particular Church of which he is a Member but constantly assert that such a one when ever hee happeneth to think contrary to the determinations of that Church must keep his judgement to himself and not trouble the Church with it only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed that he may perform it without disobedience against God And the same is said by many of a particular Church in reference to the decrees of the universal represented in a General Council 2. Sect. 5 Hee proceeds thus Let any Christian mans conscience judge Mr. C. p. 267. whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church or as wee have it p. 257. that the supreme guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the onely guardians of the Scripture it self and the onely unappealable Judges of the sence of it should conspire to make decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which expresse Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced Answ 1. To let pass these precarious suppositions that a General Council is of Divine right that the promises considered above belong to such conventions and that they are the only guardians of Ssripture which can never be proved by him who sees not that this Argument proceeds upon two gross mistakes 1. That a General Council is the whole Church when as they cannot be the hundreth part even of the Ministers of Gods Church 2. That if such persons thus convened define any matter of Doctrine contrary to scripture they must conspire to do so as if they could not define it out of weakness rashness prejudice c. 2. I Answ With Dr. Taylor In his liberty of Prophesying that either these Councils are tyed to the rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no farther then they adhere to this unerring Rule and consequently we must be allowed a liberty of judgement to discern whether they keep close to this word or not If they are not tyed to the guidance of this Rule then may they transgress it cancel the laws of Christ and enact things contrary thereunto which even the Romanists disclaim 3. Unless we are bound to shut our eyes unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice as to make us do violence to our understanding so as not to dis-beleive it's decrees though they seem clearly to be contrary to Scripture but to beleeve they agree with the Rule of Scripture though wee know not how unless I say we be bound in duty to bee so obediently blinde and sottish wee are sure some Councils which by our Adversaries are reputed General have notoriously receded from the words and sense of Scripture For what wit of man can reconcile the decree of the thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance with Christs institution delivered to us by way of precept seeing in the preface of that decree Christs institution and the practise of the Primitive Church is expressed and then with a non obstante communion in one kind is established Again is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the decree of the Council of Trent friends with the fourteenth chapter of the Corinthians how do the Hyperaspistes of that Council sweat to reconcile it to St. Paul and the wisest of them do it so poorly as to proclaim to all the world it is not feasible What vice in Scripture is prohibited with greater evidence then this practise and therefore on the same score that we are reconciled to such decrees we may be reconciled to the most gross enormities What ever is brought to prove the infallibility of Councils cannot make it so certain that they are infallible as these two instances do prove infallibly that they were deceived and if these were others might have been 4. What shall we say to all the Arrian Councils celebrated with so great and numerous Assemblies called by the authority of the Emperour which at that time did convocate all Synods and to which as many or more did come then to the Nicene Council Is it necessary to suppose that these have erred in matter of doctrine and must it be unpossible to think the same of the less numerous assemblies at the first and second Nicene Council or of the fifty Bishops met at Trent 5. I hope men may be permitted to know a contradiction now it is evident that your General Councils have contradicted each the other Sess 25. the Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father the second Council of Nice denies it Act. 5. 7. Lastly The Sanhedrim was as much representative of the Jewish Church as a General Council is of the Christian and yet I hope the people might judge of their decrees and were not bound to think that they did well in establishing those traditions which made void the commands of God in condemning the Prophets and that Messias whom they foretold And whereas he adds Sect. 6 that as for universal Tradition there can be no judge of it Mr. C. p. 257. but the whole Church i.e. a general Council need we any other instances to confute that assertion the veneration of Images is delivered by the second Nicene and Trent Council as an universal tradition Now let a man consult the Fathers of the first 600 years who every where denied them this Veneration and must he not be convinced the vanity of this pretence let any man read what one single Dally hath produced against the decrees of the second Nicene and Trent Councils and hee cannot chuse but acknowledge that the judgement of the Church of God in this matter was contrary unto them What he discourses p. 255. sect 8. and again p. 266.
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
that not one of them should say it plainly so much as once but leave it to bee collected from uncertain principles by many more uncertain consequences 5. Sect. 6 Wee say that it cannot bee proved that the English Church separated from the external Communion of the Church Catholick let Mr. C. produce any one thing which wee alledge as a reason of our separation and shew that it was held as a matter of faith or practised in the publick Worship of all other Churches and then wee shall acknowledge it 2. We have not separated from the external Communion of the reformed Churches much lesse from the Communion of our selves and therefore not from the universal of which both they and we are parts And thus Mr. Chil. explains himself and tells you that his meaning was onely this P. 295. that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part Luther and his followers might bee said to forsake this external Communion of the visible Church But that properly speaking hee forsook the whole visible Church viz. As to external Communion you must excuse mee if I grant not and my reason is this because hee and his followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to bee so by their reformation now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church and what other plea could have been made by the Church of Jury in the dayes of Elijah or the Church of Christ under the prevalency of Arrianisme I understand not And what hath Mr. C. to evidence the contrary 1. Saith he p. 262. a separation from any one true member of the Catholick Church for doctrines that are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that member is indeed a separation from all Churches Ans But the Church of Rome hath separated from the Church of England a true Member of the catholick Church for doctrines commonly held by other churches in communion with her Ergo shee hath separated from all Churches 2. The Argument evidently supposeth some of these untruths 1. That a true member of a Church or a particular true Church cannot require unjust conditions of communion or at least cannot have any other to consent with her in these conditions or that if she do it is unlawful for others to separate when such conditions are required Yea lastly it supposeth the very thing in question that all true Members in the Church Catholick must necessarily communicate externally with each other 2. Ibid. Reply p. 47 48. He tells us that Calvin confesseth this separation which confession is considered by Bishop Bramhal 3. Saith he no Church can be found antecedent to our separation p. 263. with which we are joyned in external communion Answ What inference do you make hence seeing wee are joyned in internal communion with all the Churches of God and are willing externally to do so if no unjust conditions be required 2. What think you of the Churches which reformed before us Ibid. Again he adds no Church hath Laws or Governours in common with us Answ What of all this is it necessary to our external communion that all the Laws or Governours of other Churches should be the same with ours 2. Have not the Eastern Churches the same Governours with us Ibid. Repl. they are manifestly Heretical Answ This wee constantly deny as you may see in Bishop Bramhal Reply p. 349. Bishop Mortons Apol. Dr. Field Mr. Pagits Christianography and others He proceeds not one Church can be found Ibid. which will joyn with us in publick offices or wee with them Answ Who told you so Bishop Bramhal informs you that albeit the Eastern Churches use many rites that we forbear yet this difference in rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to bee for any thing he knoweth if distance of place and difference of language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion seeing wee agree in the acknowledgement of the same Creeds and no other nor do we require agreement in lesser matters as a condition of communion in which the Church of Rome is extreamly Schismatical Obj. But their Patriarch Jeremiah refused communion with us To this Bishop Bramhel Replies in two full pages that the thing is not true and 2. that since his time Cyril the Patriarch hath professed communion with us Lastly Saith he surely they could not become ipso facto in communion with the Graecian Church by separating from the Roman Answ Surely wee may so as having since left off to require those unjust conditions or practise those unlawful things which before wee did require and practice 6. The reason of our separation from the Church of Rome Sect. 7 is not so much because they maintain errours and corruptions as because they impose them Chill p. 267. sect 40. and will allow their communion to none but to those that will hold them and have so ordered that either wee must communicate with them in these things or nothing Now this I hope is not a reason common to you with other Churches for what they hold they hold to themselves Id. ibid. p. 306. sect 106. and refuse not to communicate with them that hold the contrary so that we may continue in their communion without professing to beleive their opinions but in yours we cannot Lastly Sect. 8 were wee Schismaticks for separating from the Church of Rome for doctrines which were common to her See Pagits Christianography with other Churches yet can it not be hence infer'd that we must close with the Church of Rome in all her unjust demands but only in those doctrines if there were any in which she hath the consent of the Eastern Church and all others which we esteem the Church of God Again p. 287. sect 12. Sect. 9 wee are told that the Articles mentioned by the Dr. most of them had been expresly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England whence he infers that the English separation made from the Roman Church should have been made on the same grounds from the universal Church above a thousand years since seeing it is evident that in St. Gregories time both Eastern and Western Churches were in perfect unity Where not to take notice either 1. Of his false supposition that Christianity in England was no older than St. Gregory or Austin the Monk when it was above two hundred years older than the very being of a Monk Nor 2. Of his rediculous assertion that these Articles which we contend against are not new because most of them declared in former Councils when as I am confident he must sink down as low as a thousand years to make this good let him cite any Council expresly declaring for any of these Articles excepting the Celibacy of Priests and the worship of Images which is as evident an innovation as any possibly can be Nor 3. To minde
intimates and would have the learned Dr. guilty of the same blunder Mr. Cr. p. 309 albeit he hath not one syllable whence he can infer it But Calixtus the second who lived An. Dom. 1119. Sim. Dunelm in Chron. lib. 20. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. pag. 67 who in a Synod held at Rome An. Dom. 1120. Made this decree that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons should bee altogether interdicted the cohibitation of Concubines and Wives CHAP. XXIV Particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from their corruptions sect 1. Mr. C's limitations considered ib. The example of the Emperour Justinian for it sect 2. Of Carolus Magnus sect 3. Mr. C ' s. evasion obviated sect 4. The testimonies of Balsamon sect 5. The example of the Kings of Judah vindicated sect 6. Mr. C ' s. Objections answered sect 7 8. The History of the reformation sect 9. Wee might reform without Synodal concurrence sect 10. IN the consideration of this twenty fourth Chapter Sect. 1 I will use as few words as possible And First Whereas the Dr. had said that by the concessions of the most learned Popish VVriters particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church Mr. C. p. 285. as in the state without leave had from the See of Rome This saith he is willingly granted But then 1. He will not have them grant such a power of purgation against the consent of the See of Rome Answ As if they who have power to do this without the leave of the See of Rome might not do it with a non obstante to the contradiction of that See 2. Were all the decrees and statutes of the Germain Spanish Gallican Churches against the encroachments of the Pope his indulgences his bulls c. so largely insisted upon by Bishop Bramhal made by the consent of the Roman See did she not with greatest violence oppose them Secondly saith hee did they allow this liberty against the consent of the whole Church Catholick Ibid. Answ Wee have shewed that wee did not separate from the whole Church Catholick but being constrained by your obstinacy in imposing on us unjust conditions of communion refused to communicate with you the most ulcerated part of the Church Catholick upon these terms 2. When the Church in Athanasius his daies was over-run with Arrianism the Church of Israel in the daies of the Prophet Elias with Idolatry was it not lawful for particular Churches and particular Tribes to purge themselves from those corruptions 3. What promise have wee what evidence to assure us that there never was can nor will be any superstitions in all the Liturgies of the Church of God if you tell us that there be such promises we must call upon you to produce them if not then might there have been cause of our altering some things which were universally practised in the visible Church at the time of our reformation when we returned to that Primitive purity that was more or less deserted by it Thirdly Ibid. Not a Purgation quoth hee from the whole faith and discipline in any thing they thought fit to be rectified that by the authority of Councils and laws of Princes had been received and inforce ever since this Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves members of the Catholick Church Answ Every word is a misadventure for neither were the chief things reformed by us as the tyranny of the Pope the Idolatry of Images the Sacriledge in with-holding the Cup c. decreed by any Councils established by any laws of Princes or received by us at the first conversion of the Nation as wee have sufficiently evinced much less did the asserting of them declare us members of that Catholick Church which never owned them but detested them Fourthly Ibid. He tells us that we cannot produce one example either of States or Princes that ever made any laws to repeal any doctrines declared or disciplines established in the Church Answ If he speaks of a particular Church 't is so palpable an untruth that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think he needs an instance to the contrary if of the whole Catholick Church it concerns not us for never will hee bee able to evince that we have done so or if wee had done so in sleighter matters where they have swerved from Scripture and Primitive antiquity how are we blame-worthy in so doing hath not your Trent Council decreed against the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants which yet was the Doctrine of the universal Church in the fourth century have you not laid aside some Ceremonies which in the Primitive Church were practised universally Lastly Ibid. You say that the Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholick were to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of discipline that swerved from the decrees and ordinations of the Church and no other Answ The Purgations executed by our Princes were truly so and this wee constantly assert let Queen Elizabeth speak in her own behalf England saith she hath embraced no new religion Cambdens Annals of Eliz. p. 35 36. nor any other then that which Jesus Christ hath commanded that the Primitive and Catholick church hath exercised and the Antient Fathers have alwaies with one voice and one minde approved And 1. Sect. 2 touching the Emperour Justinian the first instance produced by the Dr. let it be only considered that it was he who banished Pope Silverius who created Justiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his imperial power who made so many laws contrary to the decrees of former Synods and for the correction limitation or right ordering thereof who made so many laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons and Benefices and holy Orders and appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie excommunicating all Hereticks and that of Nestorius and Eutyches in particular ordaining that if the followers of them did not return after warning given by vertue of his Edict they should have no favour L. cum recta C. de summa Tâ—â—â— or pardon but be condemned and punished as convicted and denounced Hereticks who made so many Laws touching Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all other matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance yea who expressely saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novel 133. that nothing comes amiss to the Prince every thing is under his Royal cognizance I say if this bee considered Justinian alone if all other Presidents were lost were sufficient to evince this Political supremacy of soveraign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions and consequently to justifie the Oath of Supremacy which Mr. C. tells us wee cannot hence justifie there being nothing ascribed to his Majesty thereby See Mr. C. p. 290. but onely Political Supremacy as is excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 290. Yea 2. To justifie our reformation it being onely to the casting out of
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
deny it with Grotius De sum Pot. c. 7. how miserable is our Authors proof who tells us that if there bee not spiritual laws and a spiritual director to them all what will become of unity Answ Why may they not have such laws and yet be independent is it necessary they should disagree 2. They may have diverse laws in circumstantials and yet preserve their unity seeing the unity of the Church is that of Communion not of apprehension and may stand with any difference of opinions in all matters that destroy not the foundation and Ruine not the being of a Church 3. They have spiritual laws and a spiritual director common to them all the Word of God Oh but they must have a General Council Rep. Why so good Sir Ans Because otherwise they will not obey the Rules of Scripture Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Oecumenical Council Ans They should obey them Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of Gods Word So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council what preservatives of unity will there bee and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one the remedy against Schism would bee as soveraign and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries God hath provided say they no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches but his Word yes say you a general Council or patriarchical no necessity of them say they to unity let men believe the foundations of Christianity and be charitable to their brethren bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters it is enough Now to this you learnedly aske how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity even say they by holding the foundations of Christianity so plain that they need no determination and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity And here comes in another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks and our reformation â—o bee illegal which runs thus That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority by Queen Elizabeth must bee illegal and Schismatical but such was the Reformation of the Church of England Now to make this good hee gives us an History of it and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen Mr. Cr. p. 274. unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion or more truely the superstitions restored by Queen Mary and then hee gives us what was done in this convocation viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendered to the Bishops who in the name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper Ans The businesse is onely this the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered or else Banished and persecuted out of the land when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown shee found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas yet did she not presently dispossesse the one and restore the other being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden but by degrees now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the blood-thirsty Bonner who had warmed himself at so many Bone-fires of our Bishops and learned Clergy without any other remorse then this that hee did not cut off root and branch Dr. Heylin Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 113. But such was their fear modesty or despair of doing any good to themselves and their cause that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all and not much more by the lower Clergy then a declaration of their judgement in some certain points mentioned here by Mr. C. which at that time were thought fit to bee commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy is his own addition it being onely a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy and whether it were so or no is not much material hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on and learned men of each party were elected to bee disputants of each side wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions that it was generally thought they were not able to defend their Doctrine Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104. in the points to be disputed But to proceed in the History of the Reformation after the Religion established by Queen Mary had continued un-interrupted for a month and somewhat more afterward it was tollerated withal required to have the Epistles Gospels the ten Commandments the Symbole the Lettany and the Lords-Prayer in the vulgar tongue Cambden p. 10 11. and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers who impatient of delay by the length of time which ranne and pass'd away in other matters desiring rather to run before good laws then to expect them in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christs true Doctrine Id. p. 33 34. first privately in houses and then openly in Churches On the 22th of March the Parliament being assembled the Order of Edward the sixth was re-established and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of publick prayers and administration of the Sacraments the Sacrifice of the Masse was abolished and the Liturgie in the English tongue more and more established In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops of which anon and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637. Now if it bee considered with Dr. Crakanthorp that what was here done by this most Religious Queen was not introductory of what was new that so it should bee necessary to discusse it in a Synod but onely restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters that Queen Elizabeth did onely justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated 2. â—ul Ch. Hist l. 9. p. 52. That this alteration of Religion was also enacted by the Parliament which repealed the laws of Queen Mary made against the Protestants and revived those of King Henry the 8 and King Edward the 6. in favour of them And 3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had desiring and advising her to these things yea and old Bishops also for whereas our Author tells us in effect that she had none to advise with p. 274. but such as were now ordained the rest being generally averse from her proceedings 'T is void of truth For what doth he think of William Barlow John Scory Miles Coverdale and John
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
Lateran Council where there were Eastern Bishops manifestly Schismatical according to your Principles 2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox or if she did is it not rediculous to suppose that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained 3. Were we Schismaticks in this what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome 4. 'T is very impertinent to trouble us with an Objection which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers beyond the Seas in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England when what is said by them hath been refuted then may this question be seasonable As impertinent is that which you object to us ch 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal Rep. paulo post init and Dr. Crakanthorp in several chapters of the same Defence as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question do it if not why do you trouble us with it afresh Lastly Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholick Church the opinions of particular writers which wee have observed albeit your reason that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council is a very poor one for who knows not that as too many of the points in controversie your Church hath not declared her self but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed her self thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images what are wee the nearer seeing shee hath not declared what veneration is due when she declares for a proper Sacrifice shee hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice when she defines for merits whether shee means meritum de condigno or in that large sense in which the Fathers used the word shee hath not told us The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies c. and is this sufficiently to declare her self Again is it the doctrine of your Church that the Pope is above a General Council then doth not the Church of France hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine or if neither bee how hath she sufficiently declared her self who in that which is most material hath been silent And thus wee have considered your conditions Sect. 9 wee come next to propound what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply And 1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given to any of your Arguments for as long as any single Answer remains firm your Argument must be invalid 2. In the doctrine of the Popes supremacy you must prove these three things 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles and over all the world 2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors 3. That it was to bee conferred by Divine Right upon his successors at Rome and not elsewhere because all this is necessary to prove the Popes supremacy by Divine Right 3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers or if you will not dispute that then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture otherwise that kinde of disputation must be impertinent 2. If you accept of this then secondly I require 1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture for otherwise your discourse will bee rediculous as bottomed upon that which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it 2. That you answer the Questions proposed touching this matter above 3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original seeing translations do very much vary from them 4. That you cite none which Rivet Cocus and other Protestants stile spurious unless you answer their Arguments for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary 5. That you be so ingenuous as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you for citing old Editions which no body can meet with partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered And 1. Mr. C. p. 227. Wee are told that few who have any liberal education in that great light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual superiours pennances and retirements from the world c. can bee excusably ignorant of the one holy Catholick Apostolick Church that is that the Roman Church is this Church Where 1. As to continued succession when they are told by men as pious and as learned as any of the Papists 1. That the Papists have no such succession but that it hath been interrupted many times when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie When they are told 2. That it is not succession of persons but of Doctrines which is a mark of the true Church nor the want of it of a false for if hee bee a true Platonist that holds the Doctrines of Plato Chil. p. 356. sect 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section albeit hee cannot assign any one that held it before him for many Ages together why should not he be a true Christian who believes all the Doctrine of Christ though hee cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him When 3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Hereticks viz. the Eastern Church have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have can this bee such a demonstrative evidence that you are onely the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable Again can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them when 1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned for speaking the language of the Protestants And 2. They find it evident that it is not impossible that errours may be held with as great an unity as you can shew Seeing they find the Grecians yea the professors of Mahometism at greater unity