this observance without respect to the truth of them Should I tell a Layick that hee must not trust to his private interpretation of any Paragraph of Scripture without the concurrence of some learned Commentator could I bee reasonably thought to tell him that he might embrace any thing as the sense of any paragraph of Scripture which any learned Commentator lays down as such Well then all that wee assert is that this conflict in the judgements of learned men is ground for him to advise and consult and look into the truth but will not free a man from guilt who upon that sole account refuseth to observe the decrees fore-mentioned 3. Sect. 4 Whereas he adds that upon our grounds a Presbyterian if hee think himself certain that our Doctrines are errours Mr. C. p. 268. may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and Gods Church too This is another misadventure for neither do we allow any private mans Authority openly to question or contradict much lesse make parties to reverse the decrees of the particular Church of which he is a Member but constantly assert that such a one when ever hee happeneth to think contrary to the determinations of that Church must keep his judgement to himself and not trouble the Church with it only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed that he may perform it without disobedience against God And the same is said by many of a particular Church in reference to the decrees of the universal represented in a General Council 2. Sect. 5 Hee proceeds thus Let any Christian mans conscience judge Mr. C. p. 267. whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church or as wee have it p. 257. that the supreme guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the onely guardians of the Scripture it self and the onely unappealable Judges of the sence of it should conspire to make decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which expresse Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced Answ 1. To let pass these precarious suppositions that a General Council is of Divine right that the promises considered above belong to such conventions and that they are the only guardians of Ssripture which can never be proved by him who sees not that this Argument proceeds upon two gross mistakes 1. That a General Council is the whole Church when as they cannot be the hundreth part even of the Ministers of Gods Church 2. That if such persons thus convened define any matter of Doctrine contrary to scripture they must conspire to do so as if they could not define it out of weakness rashness prejudice c. 2. I Answ With Dr. Taylor In his liberty of Prophesying that either these Councils are tyed to the rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no farther then they adhere to this unerring Rule and consequently we must be allowed a liberty of judgement to discern whether they keep close to this word or not If they are not tyed to the guidance of this Rule then may they transgress it cancel the laws of Christ and enact things contrary thereunto which even the Romanists disclaim 3. Unless we are bound to shut our eyes unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice as to make us do violence to our understanding so as not to dis-beleive it's decrees though they seem clearly to be contrary to Scripture but to beleeve they agree with the Rule of Scripture though wee know not how unless I say we be bound in duty to bee so obediently blinde and sottish wee are sure some Councils which by our Adversaries are reputed General have notoriously receded from the words and sense of Scripture For what wit of man can reconcile the decree of the thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance with Christs institution delivered to us by way of precept seeing in the preface of that decree Christs institution and the practise of the Primitive Church is expressed and then with a non obstante communion in one kind is established Again is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the decree of the Council of Trent friends with the fourteenth chapter of the Corinthians how do the Hyperaspistes of that Council sweat to reconcile it to St. Paul and the wisest of them do it so poorly as to proclaim to all the world it is not feasible What vice in Scripture is prohibited with greater evidence then this practise and therefore on the same score that we are reconciled to such decrees we may be reconciled to the most gross enormities What ever is brought to prove the infallibility of Councils cannot make it so certain that they are infallible as these two instances do prove infallibly that they were deceived and if these were others might have been 4. What shall we say to all the Arrian Councils celebrated with so great and numerous Assemblies called by the authority of the Emperour which at that time did convocate all Synods and to which as many or more did come then to the Nicene Council Is it necessary to suppose that these have erred in matter of doctrine and must it be unpossible to think the same of the less numerous assemblies at the first and second Nicene Council or of the fifty Bishops met at Trent 5. I hope men may be permitted to know a contradiction now it is evident that your General Councils have contradicted each the other Sess 25. the Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father the second Council of Nice denies it Act. 5. 7. Lastly The Sanhedrim was as much representative of the Jewish Church as a General Council is of the Christian and yet I hope the people might judge of their decrees and were not bound to think that they did well in establishing those traditions which made void the commands of God in condemning the Prophets and that Messias whom they foretold And whereas he adds Sect. 6 that as for universal Tradition there can be no judge of it Mr. C. p. 257. but the whole Church i.e. a general Council need we any other instances to confute that assertion the veneration of Images is delivered by the second Nicene and Trent Council as an universal tradition Now let a man consult the Fathers of the first 600 years who every where denied them this Veneration and must he not be convinced the vanity of this pretence let any man read what one single Dally hath produced against the decrees of the second Nicene and Trent Councils and hee cannot chuse but acknowledge that the judgement of the Church of God in this matter was contrary unto them What he discourses p. 255. sect 8. and again p. 266.
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
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
St. Peter St. Ambrose saith he had primacy over the Gentiles parimodo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id in ch 1. ad Gal. in like manner as St. Peter over the Jews St. Chrysost That he showed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal honour with the best and chiefest of the Apostles and that he was equal to St. Peter and Oecumenius cryes out See how he makes himself equal to St. Peter to whom you may add St. Austin in c. 1. ep ad Gal. 3. Was it ever heard that a Prince should consent to the division of his Province betwixt himself and his inferior yea afford him the largest portion in this division as here St. Peter doth yea why was no special power exercised in this case by the Prince of the Apostles if he were such but the matter indifferently determined by all three 3. 'T is further argued that if St. Peter had been Prince of the Apostles St. Paul would not have had the confidence to resist him to the very face Bellarmine will tell us that an inferior may rebuke a superior Answ But let it be considered that this rebuke was publick and a resistance of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he charges him of not walking uprightly not agreeably to the truth of the Gospel but doing things for which he deserved to be rebuked by him and all this without the least shew of reverence and submission without any artificial preface begging the pardon or deprecating the anger and displeasure of his Superior which seems sufficiently to argue that he did not thus esteem him When St. Paul had rounded the High Priest and told him that God would smite him for judging and condemning him to be smitten contrary to the Law how presently doth he correct himself upon information given that he spake to the High Priest and when he takes up St. Peter in this manner might he not as truly have said I wist not that he was the High Priest the Prince of the Apostles Mr C. p. 75. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatum Now all the answer which is returned to this objection is that St. Austin saith The Superior was reproved of the Inferior Now here let it be considered 1. That this will do him little service unless he will be pleased to grant that the inter pretation of one single Father or two at the most is a sufficient evidence and ground of receiving such a sense of any Paragraph of the Word of God which I am confident he dareth not assert 2. I Answer that what he rendreth Inferiors is in St. Austin posteriores such as were made Apostles after him now the same Austin informeth us that ejus honorem implet clarificatio Domini Vbi supra c. 1. cp ad Gal. si quid habebat ordo temporis minus and as for his first citation That St. Peter being reprehended did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by a novice and one that was posterior I answer That he hath gelded the place and made it look otherwise then indeed it doth Ib. l. 2. de Bapt. for the words of St. Austin are Nec Petrus sevindicavit aut arroganter aliquid aut insolenter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere Peter did not arrogantly and insolently take upon himself to say that the Primacy belonged to him which shews that to have challenged such a Primacy would have been insolence and arrogance in St. Peter according to the judgement of St. Austin The Doctor goes on to argue thus Sect. 7 If the Pope be head of the Catholick Church Mr C. p. 78. s 15. then when there is no Pope at all which is very often the Catholick Church must have no head Now here having told us that never did old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority which is very true because they were elder brothers to it He further answers That for all this Papacy is immortal and in some sense it may be said Mr C. p. 78. that Popes dye not because their Jurisdiction remains in the body of Electors And secondly When an Ecclesiastical Superior dies there remains by Christs ordination a vis generativa in the Church to constitute another in his place I answer There may be a vacancy not only by death but Heresie Paganisme things incident to Popes as may be seen in Mr. Pag. 22 23 24. Baxters Key for Catholicks and yet the power doth not devolve it self upon the Electors and if it doth what if they also prove Hereticks as 't is sure they may and ten to one but they did in the time of Liberius when none were suffered to be in publick places but such as were Arrians then sure he must grant a vacarcy Again when antiently the people were Electors did the power devolve it self upon them in a word either the Pope is an essential head or an accidental if the last then may the Church subsist without him and the being of a Pope is not necessary to the being of a Church seeing accidents potest abesse sine subjecti interitu the contrary to which you above assert and thence conclude the necessity of a Pope If the first then 1. May the Church be unholy because an essential part of the Church may be so unless you will have the confidence to assert that all the Popes that have been or shall be must necessarily be holy Then 2. must the Pope be head when a general Council is convened and consequently be superiour to that seeing an essential head can never cease to be so And 3. He that doth not acknowledge the Pope can be no member of the Church as not being united to this visible essential head and so God must necessarily damn all those righteous souls that live not in communion with him both in all the reformed Churches and all the other parts of the world a thing so contrary to the goodness of God that none but Papists can believe it and a thousand such absurdities as you may see them reckoned up if you please in Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks Part the second The Doctors second inference was Sect. 8 That when there were many Popes there would be many Heads and so the Church would become a Monster To this he Answereth That as when after the death of the King Mr. C. p. 79. s 16. several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one Legitimate Successor and all the rest are Tyrants yea and their adherents rebels so likewise when such a Schism hapneth he that is Legitimately elected is the right head all the rest are Schismaticks Rep. And so must their Adherents also so then in the time of the Schism from Vrban the sixth to Martin the fifth which lasted forty years The Schism betwixt Alexander the third and four Schismaticks which lasted seventeen years the Schism betwixt Benedict the ninth and
Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions now to this he Answers Mr. C. p. 64. That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God which in that time was not in being but only as to his custome and practice of calling Synods correcting manners making ordinations according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction for not only Patriarchical which Salmasius tells us was not then hatcht but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon so that it signifies no more then this that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches and therefore so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis Now 1. We Answer Were this Canon to be limited to ordination the custome of calling Synods c. seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission from him so must the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria and other Provinces hence it follows that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations no more then they have to do with his for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope unless they were supposed to consent to it would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith Rep. p. 193. all other rights of jurisdiction follow the right of ordination neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them 2. In the Canon t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est as in Alexandria and Rome so also in Antioch and other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the government Hes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principalities or dignities shall be preserved to the Churches and consequently it speaks not of ordination and power of calling of Synods only but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province and comparing these with Rome and telling us that these prerogatives shall be allowed to the Provinces of Alexandria c. because the custome was such that the Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Provinces where he resided it seems to argue that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian Adriatick and Tyrrhenian Seas and towards France and Germany to the Alpes we mean that it is terminated there and extends it self no further and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperour so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Provinces it may consequently be argued that his power is limited to them and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria c. And as when the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexandria even so here when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his we are to understand by the Bishops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently his Oecumenical power must be here denyed and indeed unless the Roman Diocess were limitted it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none which yet that it was besides the evidence of the words themselves is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no encrease on Rome Nicholas 1. Ep. 8. but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria Well then if at the making of the Nicene Canon Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops within and by themselves and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. his predecessours power that these bounds must be at all tiems observed which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See for hence t is evident that an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar p. 105 106 107. and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops or which is all one universal Pastorship 3. That the Antients understood it of government and not only as to the matter of ordination in the sense we plead for is apparent from their words thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches and Aristinus a Greek Author in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus Let the Bishop of Alexandria have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do exactly express Ruffinus's Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones yea the Arabick compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus T is decreed that the Bishop of Egypt the Alex. Patriarch should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it quia sic convenit for so t is meet seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it and likewise the Bishop of Antioch let him have power over that whole Province and the Paraphrase upon the Canon tells us that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him again Zonaras with whom consent Balsamon and Nilus saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Popes Legate shews as much Con. Chal. for thus it runs The Church of Rome alwayes had its Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Egypt have so also that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power of all under him because the Roman Bishop hath this custome likewise he that is constituted Bishop of Antioch and in other Provinces let the Church of larger Cities have the Primacy Doth he speak of Primacy of order which the Popes had over all the world then is it a ridiculous argument and a contradiction if of jurisdiction then was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them seeing they were all to have 〈◊〉
because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the table their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church and all sorts and degrees therein thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church the tranquillity of the world for Kings Souldiers Companions the afflicted in fine for all that stand in need of help Christ Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us which therefore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others but that Saint Chrysost never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer Yes saith he we offer but only by a commemoration of his Christs death there is but one host not many how so because it was offered once and that host viz. once offered was carried up into the holy of holies this that we celebrate is the figure of that former and that the truth of this And a little after he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer and which then was offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor possibly can be consumed this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done according to that of Our Saviour do this in remembrance of me we do not offer another sacrifice as the Jewish Priests but continually the same or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice what can be more express then this And indeed our Authour saith the same thing S. 4. p. 146. his words are these Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation shedding of blood and killing and no such matter appearing here but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs Blood therefore we Sectaries will not allow it the name of sacrifice Now not to note that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth and to that which it is supposed commonly to import 1 hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice which we will endeavour to evince from his own words only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation and shedding of his blood thus where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross but here that is in the celebration of the Mass there is only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven For to let pass the question sufficiently handled already whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament or only the Symbols of it either he terms this a proper oblation because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred or presented unto God and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made commemorating the pains that he endured entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested he will turn away all his anger from us Or Secondly as this word is taken in a stricter sence to signifie a sacrifice of inanimate things as fruits incense c. and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an effusion of blood to which it is requisite Clopen Scb. Suc. ab initio if properly and strictly such ut vel incendio vel alio convenienti riâ—u sacro per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur that it be destroyed by fire or any other convenient Rite by the ministery of a Priest and if this be his sense of an oblation we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament and shall now consider it Fourthly Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears 1. because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed the Major is proved by Bell from the perpetuall use of Scripture when speaking of a proper sacrifice for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation if it had life by the deprivation of it if it were an inanimate and solid being as Frankincense Salt c. by combustion if liquid as wine blood and water by effusion Levit. 1.2 Secondly He proves it because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ their death or mutation being Typical of his with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus De Eucha sacrif l. 2. c. 3. who tells us that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice we must acknowledge that first-fruits Tythes the first-born religious persons and innumerable other things which in the Law were consecrated to God must be called sacrifices there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire but the things which are sacrificed do not but suffer as it were a change into another species being either kill'd roasted bruised or boiled or by some other action of the Priest consumed But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross as our Author tells us P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation but without any suffering or change in the divine body it self and the victim saith he suffers nothing But should he eat his words as he doth his God I will thus force him to confesse the truth If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed then either as to its real being in Heaven or its Sacramental but neither can with reason be affirmed Not the first for Christs natural body is now impassible not the second for then would the body of Christ lose its being in
prayer should be interpreting the Churches Prayer or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read 2. Doth the Apostle require that onely some part of the Prayer should be interpreted is there not equall reason for the whole especially when he adds let all be done for edification 3. Were this done frequently yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected though more rarely His 2 Ans I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. It follows Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays that is v. 14. the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me thus Chrysostome Theodoret Photius I know the Rhemists by Spirit understand affections and make the sence run thus in this case my heart and affections pray albeit I understand not what I say But were this the truth that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself Then 1. We must acknowledge that when the Apostles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues they understood not what they said which will not easily be granted Secondly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Chapter ordinarily imports the gift of tongues and therefore most probably it doth so here Thirdly The Fathers generally do thus interpret it besides the three already cited Saint Hierom Basil Oecumenius are clearly for this sence and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it But 4. The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us he that speaks with tongues edifies himself vers 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edifie vers 15 16. Fiftly In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit we should adde praying with the Understanding also so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit yet must you pray so also as to be understood well then our Exposition must take place It follows but my mind is unfruitful that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer viz. because although our spiritual gift perform it's work the mind becomes unfruitfull now here by mind some understand the Intellect some as the Reverend Bishop Morton the matter of the prayer which is the effect of the mind and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of Gods Church c. But this is not material in our dispute this mind is said to be unfruitful not to our selves as the foregoing arguments evince but to the hearer thus Saint Jerome mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti In loeum and Saint Basil In locum when they that are present understand the prayer then he that prayeth hath fruit to wit the edification of those that are helped by his prayer now to be unfruitful in this sence what is it but to be such whereby the Auditour reaps no benefit the Church is not edifyed others are not instructed as the 19. verse doth clearly intimate where we have these words in the Church I had rather speak five words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with my mind understood that I may instruct others then ten thousand in an unknown tongue now hence I argue That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition but the expressing of publick prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer Vers 15. Sect. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what therefore is the result of this even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in prayer that the Church may understand us that this or somewhat like it must be the sence of orabo mente is evident as from the precedent verse which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vol sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to understand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ridiculous inference after this manner if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitfull unto others therefore pray so as to understand your self or that your mind may be employed Nay it is further evident from the next verse which tells us that otherwise the Ideot cannot say Amen Now surely my understanding my own mind will nothing contribute unto the Ideot or make him more able to say Amen Well then to pray with the mind or understanding is to pray so as that the Congregation made up of learned and unlearned may comprehend the import of our words and so this verse affords us a third Argument If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation made up of literate and illiterate persons Ideots then must we not pray in an unknown tongue but in the publick service of the Church we should thus pray according to the mind of our Apostle Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit which is a part of prayer how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks for he understandeth not what thou sayest still the Apostle speaks of Thanks-giving which is a part of prayer and must be concluded with Amen Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Clerk say some Papists but surely they themselves are Ideots for 't is very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle yea See Du Plessis ubi supra a great while after their Martyrdome as Justine Martyr Clom Alexand and others do inform us did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour Well then t is an Hebrew Idiotism and signifies no more then he that is an Ideot for as Moses Egypt informes me More Nevoc part 1. c. 8. and Bux lex Talm. p. 2001. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended to note estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re and they use to say N est in tali loco in hac vel illâ re and such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth patrissare So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is an Ideot And thus the Fathers generally interpret it Chrysostome and Oecumenius indoctum and Plebium Jerome and Theodoret laicum Ambrose imperitum Sedulius Anselme Haymo and Thomas Aquinas propriam linguam tantum modò scientem all in locum Well then this Ideot is he that understands not the learned Tongues and the Congregation is divided into two parts see Acts 4.13 the literate and the unlearned and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them and the reason given because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue Whence we infer First That 't
is the duty of the unlearned to joyn with the Minister in prayer for he must say Amen which he cannot do if he joyn not with him that is if his understanding doth not accompany his prayer Secondly That such are unable to perform this duty unlesse they understand the matter of the prayer for that is the reason assigned by the Apostle why they cannot say Amen Thirdly That to say Amen is not barely to pronounce the word for that assuredly might be done by him that understands not what we say but to professe our Assent to what is prayed our willingnesse that it should be granted our confirmation of the benediction which the Ideot cannot do as not knowing whether thou dost beg a blessing or imprecate a curse whether thou blessest God or rather dost blaspheme him Now hence I argue First That which the Ideot or unlearned cannot say Amen to is not to be used in the Church but prayer in an unknown Tongue is such according to the Apostles Doctrine Secondly That which the Ideot understands not is not to be used in the Church because he cannot say Amen thereto but an unknown Tongue is that which the Ideot understands not and consequently ought not to be used in the Church Now here our Author answereth That the Latine Tongue is alwayes a known Tongue to some if not to all and there are alwayes of those that understandingly say Amen But First What is this to the purpose when the Apostle distinguisheth the Congregation into the Ideot and others and blames the prayers which were uttered in an unknown Tongue because they were such as the Ideot could not understand will he have the whole Church besides the Minister to be Ideots Secondly Is God an accepter of persons would he have the learned edified by the Churches service which have least need of these helps and the unlearned want the benefit If not must it not be acknowledged that the Apostles Reason dictated by the Spirit of God concernes them both Thirdly Is it not the duty of the unlearned to say Amen unto the prayers that are used in publick service And if so then must he also understand them for otherwise as the Apostle here assures us he cannot do it Again Sect. 26 verse 17. For thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified It might have been replyed why may not the Ideot say Amen seeing the matter of my prayer is good Answer True saith the Apostle thou for thy part givest thanks well but albeit it be so that which makes thy thanksgiving unlawful is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that are Ideots are not edified thereby thy benediction or thanks-giving contributes nothing to his spiritual joy doth not enlarge his heart with a sense of Gods goodnesse into thanks-giving and prayses and so he is not edified whereas 't is better to speak five words to his instruction and edification then five hundred in that Tongue which he understands not and consequently is not profited by Hence I argue that which the Ideot is not edified by is not to be used in the Church this being the reason assigned by the Apostle why the unknown Tongue should not be used but prayer in an unknown Tongue is that by which the Ideot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of verse 16. is not edified The other answers which our Author returns are very weak but as they are we shall consider them Sect. 27 First Then he tells us that the service of the Church being a known set form in one set Language P. 176. recurring continually the same according to the feast those that are ignorant of it at first may by due attention and other diligence arrive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof they having in their Manuals Primers and Psalters ready translated both the Psalmes Hymnes and Prayers c. And there being severeal Books both in English and all vulgar Languages that expound the Church-service even to the meanest Answer Quid verba audio cum facta videam what do you tell us that such and such things might by the due attention of the ignorant be done When it is notoriously known that the people still continue ignorant and whilest it is so you transgresse the Laws of the Apostle by praying in a Tongue they understand not was it not notorious here in England in the dayes of Q. Mary that scarce two in a Parish under stood the Service Let us have service in a vulgar Tongue untill you find the Latine service understood and then we will cease to charge you with contradicting the Apostle Secondly Could they at last be able to understand the Latine service as to its chief parts yet would not this acquit you from a violation of the Apostles precept Who would have every benediction spoken to their capacity all things done to their edification and consequently so a that they may be able to understand them Do not his reasons conclude against the performance of any part of divine service in an unknown Tongue Seeing that Hymne Prayer or Psalme that is so performed is such by which the Ideot is not edified with which he cannot joyn as being not able to understand it Yea farther do you not read your lessons and other portions of holy Scripture in Latine also And will you permit them an English Bible by which they may learn to understand them Thirdly is it not a thing extremely difficult if not morally impossible for an illiterate person to retain in his memory a bulky quarto Mass or at least by comparing Manuals c. with it to understand it and be able to joyn with the Priest each Holy-day Can you produce any illiterate Papists amongst us that have used this diligence And if some were able What must those many thousands yea Myriads that know not Letters do What will their Manuals and Primers avail them Fourthly and lastly For I might be endless is the whole Mass extant in these Manuals or not Is it so extant as that the meanest of the vulgar may have recourse unto it Are you diligent to instruct them what parts of their English Manuals c. do Answer to the parts of their Mass read on every day throughout the year Do you suffer them to bring these Books into the Assemblies and is it usual so to do Do you exhort them to the attention so requisite to their understanding of the Churches service reprove them for not doing it If you deal sincerely with us here all these questions must be answered in the affirmative which I suppose you will blush to do Your last Answer is Sect. 28 That the Latine Tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar Tongues P. 177. and its constant use is not so much unknown as we imagine and so there is not the same motive for a dispensation as in other places Hil. l. 1. c. 1. yea and our venerable Bede informes us that in his
of the Church gadding abroad c. yea and being such could scarce hope to procure a Husband among them and therefore that they might not fail of them and that they might live more free from these taunts and disgraces they rejected their office and faith together Now that they did so as it is probable from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies excutere habenas Christi so is it more then so from the 15 v. which tells us that they had turned aside to Satan a phrase in Scripture used to denote Apostacy from Christ and God For as turning from the power of Satan to God is a description of turning Christian so Apostates are said to be transfer'd again into Satans Kingdome Luke 11.13 And to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 6.66 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12.13 1 Tim. 1.6.4.4 as here also it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly That it cannot be understood of a solemn vow of Continency joyned with an abnegation of the married state beside what I have said before is proved 1. In that the Apostle denies that he would cast a snare upon any that is lay a necessity on them to contain unmarried but on the contrary gives this general axiom that it is better to marry than to burn And therefore it is altogether unlikely that he would now tell them that they must continue though he found they had not the gift of Continence under pain of damnation No rather he would have admonished them to repent of their rash vow and told them with Epiphanius Epiph. de tradit who is clearly ours as to this that it is better to have the guilt of one sin viz. a rash vow then of many viz. Continual burnings Calling the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a fault to which he enjoyns pennance the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which will bring damnation 2. If the vow of Continence be the first faith here spoken of then may not any woman or widdow make this vow by the Apostles charge till she be sixty years old Sess 25. C. 15. which how is it this day practized in the Romish Church since the Trent Councel admits them at sixteen Let them then confess that this Text speaks not of votaries or else that they sin against the Apostles precept by warrant of their infallible general Council For it is evident the Apostle bids them not admit a Widdow under sixty for fear of her incontinency and for that reason requires them to refuse those that are younger then so I confesse besides Bellarm who is very frivolous and every where confuted Estius tells us 1. That there is not the same reason for Widdows as for Virgins For these having not felt the pleasure of due benevolence are not so much tempted as Widdows But to this 1. It is evident you admit even Widdows long before this time yea at any time 2. Seeing marriage was ordained for the abating of this fire of lust sure it will somewhat do so not more inflame it and it is unconceivable that women though thirty or forty once marryed should bee more prone to lust then those of sixteen or eighteen never Marryed 3. Be it that there were some difference yet surely not such as will put Virgins out of danger especially when the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 7. that there may bee need and therefore he will not put a snare upon them 2. Hee tells us that they had no Cloisters to bee immured in then as there be now and therefore they were more obnoxious to this failing Answ By no means when it must be granted that Church Discipline was more strict then Christianity more lively and better practized then now 2. Solitariness doth not help this disease but increase it rather 3. That their Cloisters do not abridge them of occasions of lust appears by their frequent pregnancy and the above cited Authors neither ought they to change the Apostles precept upon such sleight and frivolous grounds In a word to conclude why may not this sense of the words pass for currant you admit younger Widdows into this Office upon their promise of continuing in that estate when alas they are in danger to wax wanton against Christ by this means and when they have done so to marry which course of yours will bring condemnation upon them This waxing wanton being an evident breach of the promise of obedience to the Commands of Christ which they made at their entrance into Christianity And whereas he tells us that his Exposition which makes it plead for their vow of Continency is not contradicted by any of the Antient Doctors Bishop Hall will tell him p. 725. I had thought I had read in Holy Athanasius wo to you that make void the first faith of Baptism I thought that St. Jerom had said in the preface to the Ep. to Titus They are not worthy of belief qui primam fidem Baptismi irritam fecerunt who have made void their first faith in Baptism Now if a contrary Interpretation be not a contradiction to the sense contended for I may say as well that the Interpretation of these two Fathers was never contradicted by any of the rest But it is the consent of antiquity in which our Adversary vaunts himself Sect. 12 And 1. M. C. p. 216. As for the councel of Eliberis which if we may believe him Can. 33. absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children let it be considered Melchior Canus l 5. de locis c. 4. Binius p. 239. Bellar. l. 2. de Imag. c 9. Baron ad An. 56. Hum. 119. 1. That when the decree of this councel is urged by us against Images they presently deride us as producing a Councel of nineteen Bishops met in a corner of the world telling us that it was an erronious Councel bordering upon Novatianism and manifestly void and null in many things viz. In those in which it thwarts their superstitions Now if these things be true what advantage can they have from these nineteen Bishops may not we as lawfully reject them as the Romanist 2. The Canon doth not command this abstinence to Bishops and to other sacred Persons absolutely but onely in the time of their ministration or whilst it is their turn to assist at the Altar which thing is determined in many councels and is not in the least manner contrary to us 3. The words of the Councel run exactly contrary to what you have given us even thus this Councel hath thought good not to command but wholly to forbid Bishops Priests c. to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children And so it will be parallel to the Canon of the Nicene Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made in opposition to the condemners of due benevolence in Priests Another Councel produced by him is the seventh of
Carthage Sect. 13 for that which he calls the second was indeed the seventh which thus he gives us Can. 2. it was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons As you may see in Calixtus de con Cler. p. 286. Mr. C. p. 215. and such who dispense Sacraments should be observers of chastity and abstain even from their own Wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep Answ Now here again Est quidem alia lectio secundum quam quod unus Faustiâ—us dixit universis Episcopis tribuitur sed eam mendosam esse cum resipsa tum Graecus codex evincit Quomodo enim ab universis dictum est quod mox Universi mutarunt alitur extulerunt Calix ibid. he is somewhat dis-ingenuous and takes some part of the sentence of Aurelius and joyns it to the proposal of Faustinus And 2. Taking advantage of a spurious lection makes that to be agreed upon by all the Bishops which was onely the proposal of one Faustinus a legate of the Roman Church to which the Synod doth not assent I will faithfully transcribe the whole matter that you may see the truth of what I say Aurelius then speaks thus It pleased the Bishops Priests and Deacons to be continent in all things which sure they may be in marriage as it behoveth Bishops Priests and Levites or those who serve at the Holy Sacraments that so they may obtain what they aske of God and that what the Apostle taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time 1 Tim. 3. 1 Cor. 7.5 that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer and Antiquity observed in abstaining from those lawful pleasures at such times of fasting and prayer and ingagement in Divine Service Vide Can. 3. 4. We also may keep Thus Aurelius Next comes Faustinus and proposeth that Bishops Priests and Deacons and all who handle the Holy Sacraments should abstain even from their own Wives to which the Synod answereth onely thus It pleaseth us that those who wait at the Altar should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve chastity And therefore it doth not at all appear that they consented to his proposal seeing chastity may bee preserved in lawful Wedlock as the Carthaginian Bishops in the third Synod do acknowledge The like prevarication we meet with Sect. 14 in your citation of the 28. Can. of the Afric Coun. which in brief runs thus Aurelius the Bishop said Uxores nisi eustodita pudicitia duxerint lectores legere non sinantur Can. 19 Vide Calix edit Helm p. 397. See Mr. C. p. 215. I add Reverend Brethren that which hath been confirmed in divers Synods in their relations or consultations about the temperance not intemperance as Mr. C. of Clerks with their own Wives and chiefly Readers That Bishops Priests Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the Holy Mysteries in their proper turns of service words which our Author thought good to change should be Continent even from their Wives and be as if they had them not which if they do not c. Indeed the Canon as it is in latine agrees with his interpretation as far as it extends but that wee should rather follow the Greek version appears from this that the Canon in its full extent is no where extant in latin and now for the sense of it that it intends the prohibition only in propriis viois suae temporibus appears 1. From the very words which determine and prescribe this Continence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according not to former decrees but to the proper terms of their attendance 2. Balsamon upon the Canon tells us that this was the very mind of the Councel nec prohibuit eis Synodus cum ipsis consuetudinem nisi in propriis terminis i. e. in prestitutis uniuscujusque vicis dieâ—us Yea the general Councel at Trullo Can. 13. doth evidently declare for this interpretation their words are these Wee know that those who met at Carthage being carefull of the holiness of Priests decreed that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the holy Mysterys should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of the Greek Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words do not only evidence this sense and tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are proper turns of administration or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also evidently explain the meaning of that clause in the former Canon that so what the Apostle taught and Antiquity observed to be the very same which I have imitated from what hath been said I thus argue they which limited this abstinence to a certain time did not intend that it should be perpetual seeing regula firmat in non exceptis but thus did these Synods Ergo. Thus have we returned answer to his Synods Sect. 15 it follows now that we produce our Synods against him And 1. I will begin with the Nicene Councel the History of which wee have related by Gelasius Cyzicenus and in that this passage It seemed good to some Bishops in the City to introduce a new law or custome into the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to define that Bishops Presbyters Deacons Sub-Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other sacred Persons ought not to use those Wives as Companions of their Bed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being Laicks they had married these things being thus determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paphnutius rose up and cryed with a loud voice Oh do not make grievous the yoke of Priests for Marriage is honourable amongst all and the bed undefiled least by too much exactness or severity you rather bring detriment to the Church then good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither are all sufficient to exercise this Apathy thus to restrain their sensual appetite nor will any I suppose be kept in chastity if women should be thus deprived of their husbands Moreover I affirm that the affording due benevolence by any man to his lawful wife is honest chastity wherefore her whom God hath joyned or whom any being yet a Lectorer or Singer or Laick hath married do not you separate Soz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which the whole Synod assented and left every man to his freedome to abstain or not This history we have in Suidas Verb. Paphn in Gratian C. Nicaena dist 31. In M. Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 1. c. 14. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. Now there is scarce any thing asserted in this chapter which is not contradicted by the decree of this Nicene Councel doth he tell us that a matrimonial use of Wives to the formerly married Mr. C. p. 215. Cujusque arbitrio abstinentiam ab uxoris consuetudine permittentes Soc. Mr. C. Ib. Mr. C. p. 206. was forbidden the Story tells us that it was left free by the Synod to abstain or not Will he cite some
Justine in his Apology to Antonius Pius 4. Lib. 7. Consonant to this is that of Origen against Celsus who tells him That amongst the Christians there were men which needed not Hemlock as the Athenian Pontifex to keep them Chaste but the Word of God was sufficient for them Now had there been any sanction of the Apostles any custome of the Church which enjoyned this Celibacy to the Clergy could it be imagined that this amongst other things should not have been mentioned by any of these Champions of the Christians But that their apologies should run so generally as they do in the places mentioned Could it reasonably be thought that Origen would have said so crudely there wants not men amongst us if he could have instanced in the Clergy would he not rather have opposed our pontifices to theirs 5. That Tertullian was married his books written to his Wife do sufficiently assure us that he did not separate from his wife is evident from the seventh Chapter of his first Book quare facultatemcontinentiae c. where speaking of Continence he saith quod in matrimonio non valemus inviduitate sectemur that which our matrimonial condition will not bear viz. the former abstinence in Widdow-hood let us follow after embracing the occasion which hath took away what necessity viz. that of the married state required C. 3. delendis conjunctionibus c. Yea in the same Book he saith Christ came not to separate marriages or to dis-joyn those that were made one and chap. the first he exhorts her that after his decease with as much Continence as she could she would renounce marriage But if in respect of humane infirmity shee could not that she would marry to a Christian not an Heathen Would he have writ thus to her if she had already abstained from the embraces of her Husband from the time of his Ordination and already promised perpetual Continency 6. How many marryed Bishops Priests Deacons do we meet with in the Primitive Church Sect. 24 See them in Chamier and Calixtus reckoned up according to the Centuries they lived in To 3. lib. 16. c. 13. Now as to the answer usually given that these abstained from their wives it is very improbable if it be considered 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante medium propter quod conjugia copulâ—nda sunt de Hares C. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paeda g. l. 2. ab initio That they tell us procreation of children is the very end of Marriage Justin Martyr ubi supra wee saith hee do not marry at all but to get children St. Austin Without doubt they condemn marriage and as much as in them lyes forbid it when they forbid to beget children to which end the Marriage knot is to bee tyed And Clemens Alexandrinus the aime of the marryed parties is the procreation of Children 2. That the marriage of the Clergy was required to bee before Ordination onely upon this ground that the person professed hee either could or would not Contain and it is strange that they who marryed upon these accounts should not use the remedy which they thought necessary 3. That they who were Orthodox esteemed marriage honourable in all and the bed undefiled by this act as wee shall see hereafter And 4. That it is recorded of some of them that after their Ordination they did not abstain Car. de ejus vita as Gregorius Nazianzenus tells us that he had not lived so many years as his Father had spent in the Priest-hood To these testimonies we add the suffrage of Scripture by them interpreted Sect. 25 1. The Scripture tells us that St. Peter and St. Mrt. 8.14 Marck 1.30 Luke 8.18 1 Cor. 9.5 Philip with others of the Apostles were marryed Now here it is answered they begot no children no young Apostles Rep. Clem. Alex. tells us they did It is again answered that however after their Apostleship they ceased to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stro. 7. 1. Who told them so 2. It is evident they might have done it by their own rules seeing the marriage bed hath nothing of defilement in it we never read of their divorce nor it is permitted by our Saviour but in case of Adultery due benevolence is commanded to be given and the with-holding of it is styled fraud and therefore undoubtedly had it been required they would have given it 2. VVe produce the Apostles testimony Sect. 26 let a Bishop be blameless the husband of one Wife so that a Bishop may have one wife and yet bee blamelesse 1 Tim. 3.2 nor is the having of one wife sufficient to hinder a man from ascending the Episcopal chair but the having two Now here some give this answer The Apostle saith a Bishop may be ordained not who is but qui fuerit who hath been the Husband of one wife To which we reply 1. That Dominicus a Soto a great stickler for Celibacy sufficiently confutes this answer L. 7. de just jure qu. 6. Art 2. con 1. thus It doth not sufficiently clude this place to say the Apostle speaks of such as have been married but now are separated from their Wives for St. Pauls Text manifestly shews that he speaks of those that remained in the state of marriage for as much as unius uxoris vir is the same with uxorem habens and also because the Apostle requires amongst other vertues of the Bishop that he look well to his house c. 2. The very text is contradictory to this sence for the words in Timothy runs thus 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 2. It behoveth a Bishop to bee blamelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Epistle to Titus ordaining in every City Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Hee that had a Wife but now hath her not is not any longer unius uxoris vir but nullius and therefore a Widdower for these relata mutuo se ponunt tollunt 2. Others answer that he permits them to have a Wife but yet they must cease from the use of wedlock Answ Neither can this exposition hold good for in the Apostles times it was a thing unknown that a man should have a wife and yet no power to make use of her which all husbands from the Creation to those daies had seeing therefore he reiterates the phrase it is manifest he understands it in the common sense yea 2. It is contrary to the Apostles rule of not defrauding each other contrary to justice for the wife hath power over the husbands body contrary to the Apostles decree touching widdows that they should be permitted to marry and get children Now the widdows of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons could not do so without adultery by the Papists own tenent of the indissolubility of the knot of Matrimony 3. ad Oceanum in multis uxoribus liberos spargeâ—e The Fathers here are for us St.
Jerom. Ep. 83. the Patriarches and Priests under the old Testament had liberty to have many wives The Apostle therefore Commands that the same liberty be not taken by the Priests of the Gospel Bina trina pariter conjugia sed ut singulas uno tempore uxores habeant Uxores habcant to have two or three wives together but will have them to be content with one Where note two things 1. That Sacerdotes Bishops Presbyters c. For he is interpretting this place of Timothy which speaks of them may have wives which opposeth the first interpretation 2 That uxores habere and in uxoribus liberos spargere is the same with St. Jerom and therefore this also is granted by him to priests to beget Children Ibid. And in the case of Carterius Bishop of Spain who had married one wife before Baptism and the other post lavacrum the former being dead do you think saith hee that he contradicted the Rule of the Apostle let a Bishop bee the Husband of one Wife No saith he omnis mandus his ordinationibus plenus est the whole world is full of such ordinations not onely of Presbyters but Bishops whom if I should reckon up they would exceed the number of Bishops convened at Ariminum that is 400. But why did Bishop Carterius desire a wife St. Ibid. Jerom will tell you ille in uxore optavit liberos he did it that he might have Children by her Yea hee adds that it is written to him Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled And was this written unto him onely Not to other Bishops and innumerable Presbyters Did he onely in uxore optare liberos and none of the residue of the Prelates or Presbyters Clemens Alexand. Stromat l. 3. p. 521. saith the Apostle permits that either Presbyters under which name he includes the Bishop or Deacons should be the husband of one wife utens matrimonio citra reprehensionem Chrysostom tells us in Tim. Hom. 10 that hee doth not necessitate a Bishop to have a wife sed ejus rei modum constituit he gives bounds to him viz. permitting but one wife at a time for the Jews were permitted Digamy and Hom. 2. upon Tit. he saith this to stop the mouths of Hereticks who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing that it is so honourable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it the Episcopal chair may be ascended Now let any man judge whether according to common speech p. 327 Ed. Helm 1631. he doth it cum Conjugio who separates from his wife Quid enim est Conjugium ut bene Calixtus nisi maris faeminae societas cum reciprocâ potestate unius in corpus alterius eâque indissolubili vitandae fornicationis generandae sobolis ergo Jam si Episcopatus imponat necessitatem abdicandi a se istam potestatem seperandi uxorem quommodo vere diceretur in conjugio positus cum suo Conjugio Episcopalem Thronum ascendere quomodo inquam verè diceretur Episcopatus cum conjugio non pugnare Si qui Episcopus factus sit generare prohibeatur propter quod conjugia ut Augustinus loquitur copulanda sunt De Haeres c. 6. And Theodoret to omit Ambrose Austin Theophilact Hugo Clemens Rom. Leo c. approves of the interpretation of those that say whereas the Jews and Greeks were permitted to be joyn'd in Matrimony with more wives then one the Ministers of the Gospel should have onely one but yet he admits their interpretation Si urgens natura ut secundae conjungatur coegerit who permit a second marriage after the death of the first if the infirmity of humane nature doth require a second evidently supposing that nature might compel some to make use even of a second wife Again the Scripture saith that marriage is honourable in all Sect. 27 and the bed undefiled now this Paphnutius the councel in Trullo Heb. 13.4 and St. Jerom extend to Priests and therefore understand it of all persons not things and the Argument of the Apostle pleads for the same sense as telling us that God hath provided a remedy for incontinence honourable in all and free from defilement and therefore if this remedy be neglected and men commit fornication he will severely animadvert upon such offenders For as Chrysost and Oecum have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If marriage be granted fornication is justly punished Again from Matthew 19.12 Sect. 28 our Divines thus argue that which they onely are sufficient for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all men are not sufficient for but abstinence from marriage is that which they onely are sufficient for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom it is given the sequel of the major is evident from this that they to whom it is given are opposed to all and therefore are not all and the sense I give of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not sufficient for this I have not onely from the Syriach and Grotius but indeed from our Saviour who hereupon adds hee that can receive it let him receive it as if hee should have said I acknowledge that all are not sufficient for this matter and therefore I permit them to their liberty hee that findes himself sufficient let him do it hee that is otherwise let him forbear You will reply the text faith not all men cannot receive this saying or all men cannot be sufficient for this but all men are not To this I reply the Text gives the reason because it is not given to all of God now no man can contain unless it bee given But you will again return would they use the means it might bee given Ans 1. Then our Saviours Argument would not be good for the Apostles Aphorism is consultius esset non nubere no saith our Saviour because all cannot contain as not having the gift of continence and might not the Apostles have replied that this was nothing to the purpose seeing they might purchase it if they pleased 2. The Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 7.7 that this is a proper gift vouchsafed therefore onely to some even as the gift of tongues of healing diseases c. 3. Our Saviour saith he that can receive it let him receive it and therefore he evidently shews that there are some who cannot The Fathers here consent St. Hilarie tells us C. 19. in Math. that Christ makes nature in one necessity in another and the will in a third to bee the cause of this abstinence Cont. Montanistas Har. 48. now to the last saith he wee are admonished to bee like si tamen possimus if we be able which includes a supposition that some cannot be so Epiphan Wee exhort him that can Et Apostolus in suadendo non trepidaret l. 1. cont Jovin id in C. 19. Mat. but impose no necessity upon him that cannot St. Jerom if all could bee Virgins our Lord would not have said he that can receive it
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
Lateran Council where there were Eastern Bishops manifestly Schismatical according to your Principles 2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox or if she did is it not rediculous to suppose that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained 3. Were we Schismaticks in this what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome 4. 'T is very impertinent to trouble us with an Objection which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers beyond the Seas in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England when what is said by them hath been refuted then may this question be seasonable As impertinent is that which you object to us ch 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal Rep. paulo post init and Dr. Crakanthorp in several chapters of the same Defence as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question do it if not why do you trouble us with it afresh Lastly Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholick Church the opinions of particular writers which wee have observed albeit your reason that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council is a very poor one for who knows not that as too many of the points in controversie your Church hath not declared her self but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed her self thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images what are wee the nearer seeing shee hath not declared what veneration is due when she declares for a proper Sacrifice shee hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice when she defines for merits whether shee means meritum de condigno or in that large sense in which the Fathers used the word shee hath not told us The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies c. and is this sufficiently to declare her self Again is it the doctrine of your Church that the Pope is above a General Council then doth not the Church of France hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine or if neither bee how hath she sufficiently declared her self who in that which is most material hath been silent And thus wee have considered your conditions Sect. 9 wee come next to propound what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply And 1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given to any of your Arguments for as long as any single Answer remains firm your Argument must be invalid 2. In the doctrine of the Popes supremacy you must prove these three things 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles and over all the world 2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors 3. That it was to bee conferred by Divine Right upon his successors at Rome and not elsewhere because all this is necessary to prove the Popes supremacy by Divine Right 3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers or if you will not dispute that then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture otherwise that kinde of disputation must be impertinent 2. If you accept of this then secondly I require 1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture for otherwise your discourse will bee rediculous as bottomed upon that which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it 2. That you answer the Questions proposed touching this matter above 3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original seeing translations do very much vary from them 4. That you cite none which Rivet Cocus and other Protestants stile spurious unless you answer their Arguments for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary 5. That you be so ingenuous as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you for citing old Editions which no body can meet with partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered And 1. Mr. C. p. 227. Wee are told that few who have any liberal education in that great light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual superiours pennances and retirements from the world c. can bee excusably ignorant of the one holy Catholick Apostolick Church that is that the Roman Church is this Church Where 1. As to continued succession when they are told by men as pious and as learned as any of the Papists 1. That the Papists have no such succession but that it hath been interrupted many times when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie When they are told 2. That it is not succession of persons but of Doctrines which is a mark of the true Church nor the want of it of a false for if hee bee a true Platonist that holds the Doctrines of Plato Chil. p. 356. sect 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section albeit hee cannot assign any one that held it before him for many Ages together why should not he be a true Christian who believes all the Doctrine of Christ though hee cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him When 3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Hereticks viz. the Eastern Church have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have can this bee such a demonstrative evidence that you are onely the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable Again can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them when 1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned for speaking the language of the Protestants And 2. They find it evident that it is not impossible that errours may be held with as great an unity as you can shew Seeing they find the Grecians yea the professors of Mahometism at greater unity