yet is it a more cogent Argument they being men so notorious for the abuse of the Scripture as never were the like What brought up their Phylacteries but an abuse of the place fore-cited What caused their obstinacy against the Gospel but the mis-interpretation of the Law And a supposition falsely deduced from Texts that it was eternal How much of this may any body see in Buxtorf Selden Lightfoot and others that concern themselves in these matters Our Saviour pardon the expression was either not so wise as to know this was the way to make them worse or else so malicious as to set them in that way which would be so pernicious to them Origen as great a Scholar as he was Hom. 2. in Esai knew not the danger we are now acquainted with when he so vehemently cries out De Baptismo l. 2. cap. 4. In cap. tertium ad Colos I would to God we could all do what is written viz. search the Scriptures Nor Saint Basil when he requires the same duty from us Nor did Saint Chrysostome consider this when he so passionately called upon the people O all ye secular men get you Bibles the physick of the Souls else sure he would have bid them throw them away as the poyson of the Soul but the good Father had not learn'd to blaspheme the Scripture Yea even Saint Paul himself was ignorant of this Divinity so necessary to prevent the murther of Kings the dissolution of Governments the Schismes and Ruptures of the Church the swarmes of Heresies that fly about if we may believe this Advocate of the Church of Rome For this is the Encomium that he gives to Timoth 2.3 That from a youth he had learned the Scriptures and makes it a part of nobility in the Beâ—eans that they compared his Doctrine with the Word of God brought it to this touch stone to see if it could abide the proof And lastly writing to the Corinthians assures them 2 Ep. 1.13 that the matter of his Epistle was no other then what they read and did acknowledge But let our Confuter proceed p. 167. he tells us Sect. 9 That Catholicks knowing how impossible it is for ignorant persons to understand it and for passionate minds to make good use of it think it more conducing to Edification that such easily misled Souls should be taught their duties rather by plain Catechismes and inst ructions prudently and with all clearness gathered out of Scripture Answ Be it so but let them not perswade us to think that the one must exclude the other when we protest against them still for doing so let them not be angry if we with our blessed Saviour and his Apostles think both expedient and very much conducing to Edification if we adhere in this to the Primitive Church and among other instructions exhort them diligently to read the Scripture Nor do we think any person so ignorant that can read as not to know the Essentials of his Christianity and to find things plain and easie which will suffice for his Salvation Nor is it therefore fit to be restrain'd because we have some of passionate minds which whilest such are not like to make good use of the Word of God no more then they are to be hindred from a good Sermon Catechisme or other means of instruction because whilst such they are not like to make good use of them or to be deprived of their goods because they are apt to abuse the creature But rather they are to read the Scripture that they may learn thereby to lay aside their passion 'T is true Sect. 10 what he tells us Sect. 6. That the abuse of Scripture by ignorant and passionate Laicks is not so certain and probable to follow in the Catholick Church where men are bred up in a belief of that most necessary duty of submission even of their minds to her authority for the delivery of the onely true sence of Scripture whereas in our Church no person can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by us can challenge an internal assent or that it may not with sin be contradicted But then we say First If this be so how can you plead the danger of your peoples erring as a pretence to restrain Scripture when as this would more confirm them they being bred up in a belief that what sence you put upon Scripture is the mind of God What an evident contradiction therefore is there in these two pretences Secondly We dare not thus Lord it over the Consciences of men as not thinking we have any such assistance of the Scripture as will guide us infallibly into the true sence of Scripture and therefore supposing our selves fallible we do not bind our people to an internal assent unto our interpretations upon our sole authority lest we should bind them to believe an Errour Glad would we be to find the Roman Church indued with this infallibility how fast would we nestle into her bosome were it so But we know that challenge is vain and idle Yet seeing they pretend thus much is it not a wonder that this Church which hath authority given her to deliver the true sence of the Scripture should never do it To what end I pray you hath God given it but that your people should have the benefit thereof Why then are parties at so great a variance among you about the true sence of Scripture and your Church still neglects the exercise of its authority in putting an end to those strifes by her declaration of it But speak your Conscience do you not know or fear that this would be a most convincing Argument against that infallibility you so much boast of When we should make it appear as no doubt we could that some of your interpretations were false and contrray to the infallible Rule of Scripture Thirdly Therefore albeit we do not require of our people that they should assent to such an interpretation of Scripture because that we who interpret it are guided by an infallible Spirit yet do we say that the people ought to receive the interpretation of doubtful places from the Pastors God hath placed over them not contradicting them without evident reason but submiting to them that when they are by some passage of Scripture induced to think otherwise they ought not presently to condemn the Church of Errours but reflect upon their own weakness and seek for better information from men of Learning and Judgement and acquiesce in it unlesse they can evidently shew that they err in their interpretation And indeed I could never perswade my self that the vulgar Jews were bound to accept all those false and corrupt interpretations which the Scribes and Pharisees put upon Scripture And indeed had they been so obliged then might they have refused to give maintenance either to Father or Mother by telling them that it was Corban by which they should be relieved yea then they were bound to believe that our Saviour Christ was not
the Messias that he was not from God but an Impostor Well then either these were Judges infallible or not if so then the absurdity foremention'd is not avoidable if not then let him tell us what other infallible Judge they had or acknowledge they had none and if so then I ask leave to inquire what necessity have we to think the people should have such a one under the Gospel when they were far more ignorant under the Law nor had such guidance of the Spirit to lead them into all truth and yet God did not then think it meet to constitute such a one Well Sect. 11 but our Adversary seems to triumph in an Argument from Scripture against the reading of this Sacred book Mr. C. 168. and it may thus be formed Certainly none of them whom we know to be apt to pervert the Scriptures should be permitted to read them 2 Pet. 3.16 But the unlearned and unstable are apt to do so therefore c. And for Confirmation of this we are told that the unlearned and unstable of England are 99 of each hundred therefore if they are not to be permitted to read the Scripture 99 of each hundred in England should not be permitted To this Argument we reply 1. That the major is false as is evident For tell me were not the Jews apt to pervert the Scripture who were yet commanded to be daily conversant in the same were not the Scribes and Pharisees apt to pervert Scripture And yet our Saviour bids the one search the Scripture tells the other that they erre not knowing the Scripture 2. Doth not Saint Peter 1 Epist chap. 1. prescribe attending to the word as a remedy to keep us from the deceptions of false prophets And if you will say with Stapleton we are bid indeed to attend to Scripture but as preach'd by the Pastours of the Church not read the contrary is evident for 't is a word of prophecy which holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and sure that is the Scripture 3. If this were true then were the fathers much to blame who call'd the Heretiques to Scripture bid them look to Scripture and see their Errours when it is notorious that they were made Hereticks by perverting Scripture Again to the minor I say that the Apostle doth not say that such are apt to pervert all Scripture but something hard and difficult in Saint Pauls Epistle and other Scripture and now the benefit we receive by the other places not so hard may recompence the danger 2. I say the unlearned are so if they proceed to judge of the scripture and will take things in their own sence without going to God for direction begging his Spirit and using the help of the guides set over them whence 't is well infer'd they should not read scripture without a sense of weakness and aptness to pervert it when they permit themselves to draw conclusions and decide controversies by it and therefore should not read it after such a manner but pray to God more for his Assistance in reading and have closer dependance on the guides that are given them and not dote upon questions which administer strife rather then edifying The second part of this Chapter is taken up in a miserable defence of their Churches prayers in an unknown tongue which cannot more effectually be confuted Sect. 12 then by an impartial consideration of those pitiful sophisms that uphold it And 1. he tells the Doctor Mr. C. p. 172. that he mistakes the Churches meaning as if one of it's positions were that Gods publick worship ought to be in an unknown tongue or as if it forbad the people to understand it And truly saith he if it were so we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 14.13 thus he Answ But where I pray you hath the Doctor one Iota from whence you can be able to make good this charge why did you not direct us to his words from whence this consequence could be infer'd but confidently tell him he mistakes when as 't is only your prevarication makes him do so did you peruse that paragraph or not if you did not then what unparallel'd boldness was it at all adventures to charge him with mistakes if you did what wilfull insincerity was it to charge him with that which you knew to be a palpable untruth Secondly Had he affirmed what you unjustly charge him with yet might he very easily be freed from a mistake for seeing your Trent Conventicle hath determined that 't is not expedient that the publick service should be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue it must have consequently determined that it ought not to be so seeing the Apostles rule requires that in things lawful in themselves we should be guided 1 Cor. 6.12 See Bishop Sanderson his Sermon In locum as to practise by expedience and consequently that if the vulgar tongue be not expedient in Gods publick service it ought not to be used and if so then sure a tongue not vulgar or unknown must necessarily take place Thirdly I affirm that if you could not reconcile her command to celebrate Gods publick service in an unknown tongue with that passage of S. Paul neither can you reconcile her practice it being notoriously evident that what S. Paul there speaks respects the practice not the commands of the Church of Corinth but only as the prohibition of the practice infers a prohibition of the commanding such a practice so that our Authors mouth sufficiently condemns him but to proceed He tells us Sect. 13 Sect. 9. That they generally acknowledge the service of God in the primitive times to have been performed in a tongue better understood then now it is but yet not for many places or countrys in their vulgar native or best known tongue for saith he 't is evident by Saint Augustine that in Africa it was in the Latine not in the Punick which yet was the only tongue the vulgar understood Ans If this be not related Punica fide let any indifferent man judge for do we not know that his Sermons ad populum were in Latine when as yet you generally acknowledge they ought to be in the vulgar tongue doth not he tell us in his retractions l. 1. c. 10. psalmum qui iis cantaretur per latinas literas feci De verbis Apost Ser. 16. In psal 50. ps 138. that being willing to have the cause of the Donatists known to the meanest of the vulgar that it might stick upon their memories he made a psalm which should be sung to them in Latine Letters Yea doth he not give them a Punick proverb in the Latine tongue and annex this reason quia Punice non omnes nostis did he not condescend to the use of barbarous words ossum for os sanguines and sanguina upon this account because it was better Gramarians should reprehend him
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
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
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.
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
therefore to the prevention of Schism t is meet they should have an Authority to bound them But now for a Metropolitan he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing out of his own Diocess in which he is a Bishop without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province though he be in order and honour the first so in like sort the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction but only a Primacy of Order and Honour there needs none over them especially with a power of Jurisdiction to prevent their Schisms so then saith Cham. De Oecum Pontis l 9. c. 14. s 12. here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike as if one should say T is convenient that there should be one Primate over Bishops but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates endued with full power of jurisdiction 3. The Fathers which are for one Bishop over Presbyters upon the account that Schism might be prevented yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end but redressed all Schism by calling Synods neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church or Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors conspiring and consenting together as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastour Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes Answ Nor is it needful for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn But if the Schism be very dangerous and betwixt Province and Province Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us not that we must run to him but that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod quam quidem donec consequamur expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei ac Christi ejus Domini nostri who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man till it can be proved and not Begged that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled will his Verdict put an end to their Schism that think him as fallible as themselves And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse till they had evidence of his infallibility or the Delegacy of his power from Christ and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope we come now to consider what he hath to return upon the Doctor And first Sect. 4 the Doctor saith he accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ Mark 10.42 43 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but so shall it not be among you Now 1. he will tell us Pag. 34. that not the affecting but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept that it is established by the Text for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief To this stale argument it hath been Answered that to argue from this Mark 10.44 Whosoever will be chief that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles is as ridiculous as from Luk. 9.48 He that is least among you the same shall be greatest to argue that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest or from Luk. 22.26 He that is Chief as he that doth serve that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest 2. He tells us that this is so evident in the next verse Ibid. that had the Doctor but rehearsed it he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture It seems the Doctor is very much to blame but let us hear the Objection which Bellarmine will lend him which is this that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation who surely had Authority yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church How then are they to imitate Christ in renouncing their Superiority did he himself do so No. Well then they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction Answ This Argument hath been answered several times by telling Bellarmine that t is true in Christ there was supream Authority as well as humility but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation thence therefore to infer that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his is as vain a Fancy as because he that Commanded them his humility thought it no roberry to be equal with God thence to infer that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer 2 Christ though he had this power yet never exercised it upon Earth but was in the form of a servant and this he propounds to their imitation 3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us The Apostles were Church rulers what inference can he make For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept If so he is more impudent then this opposition if not then is that spoken besides the purpose and without any Contradiction to the Doctor Well then What is it that is forbidden viz. Pag. 35. quoth he The exercising it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do Ambitious seeking of Authority and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage Now here he jumps with the Doctor whose words are For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Saviours precepts Now that the Pope affects this may be aâ—gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers and invading the rights of others he bandies for it and albeit he knows t is one great occasion of Schism and of the breach of the Churches peace yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it and excommunicates all who do not then which greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this Abalens in Math. quaest 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest which
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
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
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
of the like implicities Was it not the awe of Scripture they continually pretended Was it not because they had no instruments of sedition in their Pulpits to allarm them to war but had wholsome Texts of Scripture pressed upon them and may not we hope that the like practice of our Ministers may produce such Loyaltie Again may not we as well argue that the restraining of Scripture is thus pernicious What made the Irish Rebels destroy so many thousands in cold blood Was it not the restraining of that Scripture from them which saith Thou shalt not kill What made so many illiterate Papists be instrumental in the Gun-powder Treason Was it not the restraint of that Scripture which cries out touch not mine anointed which made the insurrection thereupon Was it not the restraint of the Scripture telling us that to resist is the ready way to procure Damnation to our selves Thirdly Sect. 5 To whom do we owe all these monsters of Heresie he so complains of Are they not all hatch'd by the Jesuit Have not some of them been Butchers some Smiths some Captains in the Army See the Jesuits Letter in Rushworth coll ct and done all that they could to invent and broach new Doctrines Was it not a Jesuit who tells us How some of their own Coat have re-incountred themselves how admirably in speech and gesture they could act the Puritan These these are they who have industriously led others to Hell industriously instructed them in damnable Doctrines studying how they might by damning so many Souls make way for their Idolatry and Tyranny Now seeing it is evident that it was not the common people that wrested these Scriptures of their own accord but Jesuits and others that taught them so to do what follows Not surely that Scripture should be hid from them but that all Jesuits Popish Priests men that can teach them what they know will infallibly lead them into Hell should be removed And as for the rebellions of the people if the Scripture had any hand in them it was onely thus as it was wrested by the Preachers These were the Trumpets of sedition who cried out so loudly Curse ye Meroz And had not these men wrested the Scripture the people would have been at quiet Now surely this Argument proves nothing against the permission of the publick use of Scripture but onely the wrested interpretations of it made by seditious Ministers and infers this onely that seditious Preachers ought most carefully to be prevented and most severely punished as Incendiaries of the State Again that you may see how instrumental the Holy Scriptures were in the promoting these Rebellions were not the forwardest in them viz. the Quaker Anabaptist c. to quit themselves of these enforcements of Obedience from Scripture forced either to throw off Scripture and run to the light within them or to present Impulses of the Spirit or thirdly to say they might comply with providence against precept Was there any thing more cogent to keep many thousands from such rebellion then that place of Saint Paul to the Romans c. Cap. 13. And how were the ringleaders of the people forced to winde and turn and squeeze it that they might perswade the multitude of the legality of their actions And yet at last could not by any means effect it but by telling them that the Parliament was equal to the King and so robbing him of his higher Power Yea Thirdly Sect. 6 Had the Scripture been kept from the common people and they had none of these Texts to go to how far more easily might their seditious Preachers have led them into rebellion What could they have had to return to their urgent sollicitations And do not these men well to pretend friendship to his Majesty who would have Scripture hid from his Subjects eyes that so they might have nothing to restrain them from the like enormities Fourthly Sect. 7 To argue from this accidental abuse of Scripture to the with-holding it is as ridiculous as may be For First How hard a thing is it to make a right use of the grace of God Do not the generality of men abuse it and turn it into wantonnesse And yet I hope this doth not hinder but the people may be made acquainted with it as revealed in the Gospel Yea Secondly Did not our Saviour know how likely the Jews were to reject and crucifie him to blaspheme his miracles and continue obstinate against all the evidences of his being the Messias And will our Author add that therefore he should not have been revealed unto them Thirdly who knows not how hard a thing it is for persons to have parts and not be proud of them to be in high places and not be partiall tyrannical or addicted to some vices which commonly attend such greatnesse Shall we therefore have no Magistrates Shall we have no endeavouring to procure the greatest talents Fourthly Yea on the same ground seeing the Common-Prayer and the Ceremonies were accidentally the cause of the War and we see by experience how unlike weak and unstable men are to make good use of them they must down too Lastly Seeing the power of Parliaments was so abused it would be necessary to dissolve them seeing preaching and instructing of the people was abused most of all It would be requisite a thing which the Papists heartily desire to hinder that Yea seeing that among the old Heresies scarce one was broach'd but by the Learned and our late swarms of monstrous opinions were evidently the products of Learned Men whether Jesuits or others If this Argument were good it would rather prove that Scripture should be with-held from the Learned then from the vulgar sort of people Fifthly Sect. 8 Were not the Jews as stupid and ignorant a people as any under the cope of Heaven and yet God requires of them that they should declare his precepts his word unto their Children that they should meditate on them sitting in their house and walking on their journey when they lay down and when they rose up that they should bind them for a sign upon their hands and as frontlets between their eyes that they should write them upon the posts of their houses and upon their gates Deut. 6.7 8 9. So earnest was God with them to be acquainted with his Word albeit it seemed not then so full of moral precepts so plain and intelligible as the greatest part of the New Testament Yea and the sweet singer of Israel commends it as that which will make wise not pervert the simple as that which is more to be desired then glod not rejected as poyson And our Saviour calls upon the Jews to search the Scriptures which if it were spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Cyrill has it and the word Jews not limited by the Context fairly pleads then have we our Saviours command to the vulgar to read the Scripture But if it be spoken to the Pharisees as Stapleton restrains it
to your precept And in the Feast of Saint Peter and Paul to Saint Peter they pray much after the same manner and yet the Scripture puts the question Who can forgive sins but God Mar. 2.7 Secondly They pray to them for Grace and Glory * Ps 56. Lady in thy name let me be safe and free me from my unrighteousness have mercy upon me and cleanse me from all mine iniquities and again * Ps 27. 50. Dissolve the Bonds of mine iniquities Take away the bundles of our sins purge my soul from its filth * Ps 3. 87. By thy Holiness are my sins purged * Ps 44. Thou art the beginning and end of my whole salvation totius salutis meae c. * Ps 41. * Ps 136. By her are sins purged by her is made true satisfaction for sins c. whereas 't is Gods propriety to be the God of all Grace Thirdly they pray for these things upon the account of the merits of the Saints Thus the Roman Breviary By the merits of Saint Franciscus April 2. Let us enjoy our promised rewards and grant that by the merits of Saint Peter and Saint Paul we may attain to eternal Glory July 6. That by the merits of Saint Nicholaus the Church may enjoy perpetual peace by the intercession of the merits of Saint Basil Sept. 10. Let us be absolved from allour sins and to the blessed Virgin Mary Jan. 14. By thee let the wrath of God be averted from me appease him by thy merits and again By the blood which Saint Thomas shed for thee Ps 72. make us to ascend that Heaven whither Thomas is ascended and this is consonant to that of Bellarmine Prec ad usum Sacrum in fest Th. Becket who tells us that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints even for salvatian and other spiritual blessings if so be we understand it thus that they should impetrate them by their merits Now if this be not derogatory to the Merits of Christ to have veram satisfactionem de'peccatis to have Grace and Glory purchased by the blood and merits of others let any unreasonable Man judge Section 4th and 5th Sect. 3 Our Authour affords us some considerations from which I suppose he would infer the lawfulness of this practise and first saith he we may beg prayers from one another as Saint Paul himself did from the Ephesians and others c. 6.19 c. 2. Thes 3.1.4 Col. 3. where he bids the Brethren pray for him Answer Very good but yet we dare not beg from these our Brethren Grace Glory pardon of sins nor say with the Roman Breviary to the Virgin Mary We flye unto thee O Virgin Mary for thy defence and for as much as being conscious of our great offences we fear the wrath of a severe Judge whom we dare not see We flye unto thee his Mother that thou wouldst intercede for us unto God excuse our sins and obtaining for its the Grace of thy Omnipotent Son procure us the pardon of what ever we have committed Secondly He tells us such begging of prayers is far from Idolatry or diminution to Christ since holy persons living or dead are not invocated as donors but fellow beggars with God for us Answer Why then doth your Breviary talk so often of procuring Grace and Glory and the pardon of sins by the merits of the Saints Why do you tell us that by the Holiness of the Virgin Mary are your sins purged That she is the beginning and end of your salvation that she hath made true satisfaction for us are these things no diminution to Christs merits and satisfaction to procure mercy for us upon these scores is this to procure it as fellow bâ—eggars Thirdly say you the refusing of the assistance of those whose prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect of using all means helpful to us Answer True but if the neglect of this Invocation of Saints be the neglect of any means thus helpful then were the Apostles negligent in giving us no intimation of our duty in this particular Yea the Saints of God for some thousand of yeares under the Old Testament and the Primitive Church for 300 years must be accused of this negligence for of their practise in this case nullibi vola nec vestigium Scripture and Histories afford us no one Tittle but pregnant Evidence to the contrary But you proceed Mr. C. S. 5. If the praiers to Sts. departed be prejudicial to the merits intercessions of our Lord Sect. 4 so is the beging of the prayers of those alive if one be unlawful so is the other and if both be lawful the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual and therefore will better deserve to be made use of then the other Answer Is it not then a wonder that Saint Paul if he may be permitted to have known as much as Mr. C. should thrice call upon his Brethren alive for their supplications and yet not put up one Petition to a Saint or Angel Secondly We know it is the duty of living Saints to pray for one another but whether the Saints departed pray at all whether for any in particular and how far we know not We know a certain way to excite the Saints on earth to the performance of that Duty in reference to us but we are ignorant of any way of conveighing our desires to the Saints in Heaven We have Rule President and Command in Scripture for the first not one jot of all these in reference to the second the Requests we make to the living are no elicite Acts of Religion the requests made by the Romanist to the Saints departed are We pray to the living neither directly nor indirectly but desire them only by vertue of our Communion with them to assist us in their prayers as we might ask an Alms or any other good turn at their hands the Saints departed are by you directly invocated and in your devotions you immediately step from God and Christ unto a Saint We do not plead the merits of our Brethren nor bid them do so in our behalf you do both in reference to the Saints departed we do not kneel to our Brethren or ly prostrate before them on these accounts we do not invoke them in our Churches insert them into our Liturgies believe them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any way or that we are committed to their care or custody all this you do believe in inreference to the Saints departed Is not this therefore a very good Argument if the prayers made to Saints departed by the Romanists wherein they beg of them Grace and Glory and all spiritual good things trust in their Patronage plead for audience on the account of their merits be prejudicial to the merits of satisfaction and intercession of our Saviour or otherwise unlawful then must the asking of my brothers prayers in spight of all these differences be
the Saints in Heaven are prayed to at once as it is in many Collects and peculiarly on all Saints Dayes surely that day is not an holy day to the Guardian Angel who must be fain to trot to all the Saints in Heaven and acquaint them that Serenus Cressie being very sick and weak desires their prayers But when they pray to all Angels then the poor Angel must not travel over all the Heavens onely but the Earth to boot But we will not deal too severely with him let him proceed and thus he doth it History tells us that Magiclans have alwaies the Devil ready to come at their call why then should not Angels be witnesses of our Actions P. 184. and especially our prayers which as the Scrripture saith they offer as Incense to God Now to I eave the Scripture till anon Here we have more work for the Angel for seeing 't is an Angel Apoc. 8.3 that offers up the prayers and incense of all Saints the Guardian Angel must make a journey to him to unless you will have him to be Christ which will do our Author but little service 2. History likewise will tell us that Magicians and Witches can swim over the Sea in a shell can creep through a key-hole Can dip their finger in a little juice and flie away out of the Chimnie he may believe one as soonas the other Lastly the number of Magitians I hope is few in comparison of other men and so there is some difference as to that for one Devil may better afford to be nigh them especially seeing his service is so much promoted thereby As to that dispute of Saint Austine which concludes the Section I say 1. That he was very uncertain in it and one while denies and again suspects that such a thing might be 2. He saith only possit fieri it may be done this way And again 3. Vt quaedam cognoscant that they may know something and how little service this will do him every one may see P. 184. S. 8. 2. He further tells us We are ignorant how great the sphere of Activitie of the glorified Saints may be in respect of this whole visible world perhaps saith he in the words of Spalatensis the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them then its proper body to an humane soul informing it Answ And are not these men think you put to their shifts who are fain to coin such inventions to salve their Hypothesis But tell me is it probable they inform the whole world so as to be present each of them in every part of the world Or Secondly to operate in each part of the world albeit not present there If the first then will they be little short of omnipresent nor will it be proper to God to fill Heaven and Earth and they being in Hell as well as Heaven and also in Purgatorie How do they escape the fire How â—re the Angels said to ascend to Heaven and descend from it Is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only How are the souls of the Fathers delivered from their limbus said to depart thence and to be with Christ to be absent from the body and present with the Lord was Lazarus's soul carried to Heaven and afterwards extended Again to what end is this extension seeing they may be happie without it and why should we imagine it seeing here 't is certain they are not extended beyond their bodies If the second let them tell me how or by what Operation a soul that is in Heaven can tell that such a one who praies in his mind only is praying to him And suppose two were praying together and the one prayed to Peter and the other to Paul by what operation can these spirits discern that the one prayed to him and not the other I suppose a Praier to Saint Paul makes a different motion in their Orb of Aether but then how doth St Paul know who it is that praies to him Perhaps different men make different motions but Saint Paul never knew them and how shall he be informed Why the Guardian Angel must go up and tell him 't is S. C. that makes such a motion and haply he will remember it But how will he know when he prayes Hypocritically why truly when an Hypocrite praies it makes a different motion from a sincere one in the spirits Orb of Air. This Platonical stuff is all that I can imgine to salve the Hypotheses Si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti Lastly be it that their presence or operations were so vast yet could they not judge of the heart seeing to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper to God and consequently must be as zealous for an Hypocrite as a devout Christian Thirdly Sect. 9 we cannot tell saies he what things God may reveal to them Answ Nor he whether he reveals any thing to them at all and therefore in these things he doth most evidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. What a ridiculous thing is this to suppose such a Circle that when a man hath made a praier that praier should come to God and be revealed by him to a Saint and that Saint bring it to God again 3. Why must he be thought to reveal this to the Spirits in Heaven and not to the Souls in Purgatorie or if equally why are not they also praied to 4. But it is evident from Scripture that God doth not make any revelations of this kind for 't is said Eccles 9.5 The Dead know nothing that is done in this world neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun And again Abraham is ignorant of us Esay 93.16 5. Bellar. himself confutes this Evasion by 2 Arguments 1. If it were so the Church would not say so boldly to all Saints Orate pro nobis but sometimes would prayto God to reveal our desires to them 2. No good reason can be given why Saints under the Old Testament should not be invoked for God might have revealed their Petitions to them though in Limbo Patrum and sure their praiers might have been as beneficial as the praiers of such as were alive 6. Why upon the same presumption should we not pray to the Saints living for albeit their praiers be not quite so effectual as the praiers of Saints departed yet they are effectual and consequently to neglect this will be to neglect one means conducing to our welfare I say upon the same presumption for this reason why God must be supposed to reveal our Praiers can be no other then our good and would not the reason move him to reveal them to Saints on Earth as well as those in Heaven Mr. Cr. p. 185. Oh but saith our adversarie If God said to Abraham a Pilgrim on Earth shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do how much more may we imagine tha he hideth not the mightie works of his mercie
to them and then Saint Basil adds here it is that a woman praying for her sons is heard or wishing a safe return to her travelling Husband wherefore together with these Martyrs let us poure forth our prayers Immediately before he told the people they had often sought for one that might intercede to God for them Here saith he are forty sending up as it were one prayer and if where two or three be gathered together God is there present who doubts his presence where forty are He therefore c. From whence it is plain that here is not one Iota that bids us pray unto them but when it is said he that is under any pressure flyes unto them it is not to pray unto them but because they were esteemed which the Fathers frequently intimate to pray with them and this interpretation is evinced as by the argument that we shall be heard because we are in the presence of fourty so from that which follows that upon this account it is that the Wife comes hither and is heard And the testimony of Ruffinus will reach no higher then this doth Hist Ecc. l. 2. c. 23. and it onely shews that the Emperour came to the monuments of the Martyrs that so he might more assuredly procure the intercession of the Saints according to that vulger opinion above mentioned But Mr. C. will never be able from this intercession to conclude their Invocation unlesse he can assure us that they hear us and shew us a command to pray unto them no saith Bishop Andrews they will intercede for us on their own accord not being called upon to do so but must not be invocated by us so to do Saint Chrysostom's 66. Sect. 14 Hom. ad pop Antioch must be cited albeit he knows it to be spurious Possevin apparat in Chrys Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl. in eundem Reply to Card. Perron and his own party do confesse it and as for the same passage cited from the 26. Hom. in 2 Cor. Bishop Andrews hath told him that it smelt rank of forgery in Erasmus's nose who in his Preface before his Latine Translation of Basil and Amphilooc de Spiritu Sancio saith that there are some things there which must own him for their Parent qui dulcissimis Athanasii libellis de Spiritu Sancto suas loquaces sed Elumbes attexit noenias quique in Epistola ad Corinthios posteriore in Actis Apostolerum Chrysostomus haberi studuit And Secondly That this passage is not extant in the Latine Edition by Stelsius at Antwerp 1556. set forth by Johannes Affinius so that all Copies had it not yea further that this place is found in Garetius P. 69. de Invocatione Sanctorum cited under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus whom thence the Reverend Bishop well concludes to have been the Author of it And yet if it had not been spurious we could have told you that it was thus to be interpreted The Emperour who is cloathed with purple makes a journey to visit these Sepulchres of Saint Peter and Saint Paul and laying aside his pomp stands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consid Modest p. 113. wanting the Saints to go before him in their prayers to God or intercede for him He whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem wants for his protection even the Tent maker and Fisher-man though dead Bishop Forbs I acknowledge quarrels with this interpretation but he hath nothing at all confuting it as will appear to an unprejudiced eye Yea lastly In Saint Chrysostome's Rhetorical stile he might very well be said to desire the prayers of the Saints because he went to those places where the assistance of their prayers according to the vulgar opinion then on foot was especially to be had As to that of Saint Ambrose Sect. 15 Martyrs are to be intreated De Viduis l. 1. de off and let us not be ashamed to employ them as Intercessors for our infirmities I Answer Bishop Andrews makes it evident that this was written by him whilest a Neophite for saith he he was fain to be christened before he could be consecrated now the very next year after that he wrote his Commentaries upon Luke as Baronius proves from his own words in his eleventh Book upon the twentieth Chapter in which Commentary he cites this Book de viduis which therefore must needs be written before these Commentaries and so consequently in the first year of his Christianity yea he ingeniously confesseth that he beganâ— to teach before he had learnt and Saint Austine confirmes it saying Instruct. Hist Ambr. Vix Christanus de rebus Ecclesiae scribit thus he Now here we must be sent to Vossius and Forbs who considereth some other passages but gently slideth over this convincing evidence without the least notice taken of it but because he sends us to Forbs let him hear him giving us this rule l. 7. c. 5. When one and the same Writer seems to speak contradictions let it be considered where he professedly states the Question and confirmes his sentence by the suffrage of Scripture and Reason confuting disertly the opposite opinion and where he speaks of the same thing as it were aliud agens by the by without such confirmation from the testimonies of Scripture and Reason and confutation of the opposite opinion such things as do not well consist therewith and in this case that which he taught in the former manner must be esteemed to be his Doctrine l. 3. c. 12. C. 1. Thus saith he â—aint Ambrose in his Book De Spiritu Sancto and De Fide teacheth that God alone is to be worshipped not the Virgin Mary or any creature This he confirmes ex professo by the testimonies of Scripture and manifest Reason and yet in his Dook De Viduis he delivers a Doctrine which is plainly otherwise but then it is not operose confirmata industriously confirmed and therefore we must estimate Saint Ambrose his judgement from the former places To which we add that as he grew elder he grew wiser Ambros de obitu Theod. for afterwards he had learnt to say Thou O Lord onely art to be invocated Secondly This may be interpreted to be the obsecration of deeds rather then words for there he teacheth the Widow pleading she was weak and without help to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours to procure her help as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peters wives Mother Now the way saith he to make them so to her was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good for it was not the relation of blood but the kinred of Virtue that makes the Martyrs our Friends and neighbours Sect. 16 To that place of Austine Ad viginti Martyres c. ut vestiretur oravit Further let lt be considered that here we have no better president then a Taylor and that so simple as to bargain with the Martyrs
the Priest as by the people as well at Mass as at Mattins as well at the Altar as in the body of the Church Indeed you tell us it might have been lawful if the Church had so ordered it But do you think S. Austin would have said so too is it not his business to distinguish betwixt the honour which was given to the Martyrs by the Christians and by the Gentiles to the Daemons and having said that they erect no Altars to them as the heathens did for sacrifice but sacrificed to God alone he adds that at this sacrifice the Martyrs were not invocated as the Gentile Daemons were but only nominated now what is it to his purpose to tell us they are not invocated at the Altar if they were invocated elsewhere well then your last refuge is the invocation of Latria which Saint Austin must be thought to speak of C. 21. because he tells us in his twentieth Book against Faustus Manichaeus that they do not worship the Saints with Latria Ans But who told you that invocation of them was not esteemed Latria by him why else doth he say that the Saints were not worshipped sicut dii as the Heathen Gods and then after this non invocantur Secondly Doth he not say non invocantur sed nominantur now I hope your invocation is not nomination and therefore 't is somewhat above it and consequently somewhat comprehended in that which he opposeth to it so likewise in the place you cite he tells us they afforded that cultum dilectionis and such as was given to holy men that were now alive yea saith he we sound forth their praises but we do not worship them with Latria where albeit Faustus there objected that they worshipped them votis similibus with such prayers or vows as the heathens worshipped their Idols with yet could he not get Saint Austin to acknowledge they prayed unto them at all but having told us that they praised them there he stops and riseth no higher albeit the objection and the business in hand which was to shew what honour the Saints did receive from them and what they thought not fit to yield unto them did require it Thus have we returned an Answer to our Authours pleas from Scripture and Antiquity our next work should be to confront to them those many arguments by which our Champions do confute this superstition and plead the cause of Christ against them but I shall wave it at present and content my self with evidencing the judgement and practice of Antiquity to run contrary to them And 1. Sect. 19 It is a strong presumption that this Invocation of Saints is not so pious so profitable as the Trent Council doth imagine in that we find neither precept nor example of all the Fathers of the Old Testament whereby this kind of service to them may be warranted To this the usual Answer of the Papist is Vid. Bellar. praefat in controvers de Eccles triumph ante that the spirits of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Worthies who flourished under the Old Testament were kept in limbus patrum a place nigh to hell appointed for these Fathers to be retained in till the descent of our Blessed Saviour thither But this Answer is evidently grounded upon a false foundation it being clear from Scripture that they were not included in such a place but did enjoy the Kingdome of Heaven Luk. 13 28. For Abrahams bosom is clearly propounded as the place into which the Blessed Angels before the death of Christ convey'd the souls of those which departed in the favour of God Luke 16. and that this bosome is virtually and in terms equivalent Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall ly down promised to those which afterwards should believe is sufficiently evinced from that place of Saint Matthew many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven for the joys of heaven are likened to a feast in which according to the custom then in use they lay down with the head of one towards the breast of another who is therefore said to lie in his bosom and therefore when 't is said of the faithful that believed after Christs death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall lie down at this feast with Abraham 't is as much as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Euthymius paraphraseth it that is they shall lie down in the bosom of Abraham adde to this that when God translated Enoch and Elias was carried up in a Chariot to heaven they could not be conveyed to this limbus patrum a place so nigh to the receptacle of the damned spirits yea 't is not likely they were conveyed to a place where they had no vision of God and yet there is no reason to think Abraham David Daniel and other of the Prophets should be in a worse place or condition then Enoch or Elias seeing they had as large a testimony of their pleasing God as they We go farther yet and urge against them Sect. 20 that in the New Testament it self we can descry no footsteps of this Invocation more then we did in the Scriptures of the Old Saint Paul doth frequently sollicite his brethren to pray for him and for the furtherance of the Gospel P. 1. but not one petition can we find directed to an Angel or Saint departed here presently they flie to their traditions but in vain for if any such tradition as this were at first delivered we demand how it should come pass that for the space of 360 years together after the birth of our Saviour we can find no mention in the Fathers of any such thing but on the contrary when urged by heathens that it was their duty to pray to Saints and Angels they stoutly denied it and cried away with such evil counsel Irenaeus in his first book speaks of Hereticks that had strange phansies concerning Angels attributing much unto them in relation to which he denies that the Church did any thing l. 2. c. 57. viz. in reference to miraculous cures by invocation of Angels or by incantations but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord which made all and invocating the name of our Lord Jesus Christ now whereas Fevardentius tells us that he speaks of the invocation of evil spirits we ask him why then is it that no limitation is given but all Angellical invocation absolutely denied why is it that he binds up the prayers of the Church to God the Father through the name of his Son Lib. de Orat. cap. 12. Tertullian saith we deservedly upbraid those prayers with vanity which are made without the Authority of any precept of our Lord or his Apostles for such are rather to be esteemed superstitious then Religious shew us then a precept of our Lord or his Apostles and we will cease to impeach your practice as superstitious vanity but seeing that is impossible
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
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
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
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and