But he discourseth so as if the Christian Prince were herein infallible when yet he supposeth that all his Clergy may be herein deceived As if Queen Elizabeth understood the Scriptures and ancient Tradition aright in these Lawes whilst her Bishops and Convocation erred in both till she had new-moulded them Is not this a strange way to justifie a Church-Reformation For the Kings of Iudah it shall be spoken to by and by and as to what he urgeth concerning the power of Kings it is by no means denied that these have Supremacy proper to them to command obedience from all their Subjects and that as well from a Clergy-man as any other to the Lawes of Christ and his Apostles with the civil Sword and with temporal penalties a Supremacy to which the Church layes no claim But when any doubt or controversie ariseth what or which these Lawes be as there was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign in many points Secular Princes as well as others are Sons of the Church and are to learn this from the Expositions of their Spiritual Fathers the Church-Men I mean that body of them which hath the just and Superior Authority of deciding such controversies And let this suffice to shew the legality of the first proceedings of the Reformation in opposition to the unanimous Votes of the whole Clergy or of those therein who clearly had the decisive power of Ecclesiastical Controversies either concerning the sense of Scriptures or Truth of ancient Tradition 12. Then comparing this Reformation with the Council of Trent in regard of worldly or carnal interests let any indifferent man judge between them Was not the liberty obtained by King Henry the Eighth to bring into his Bed a new handsom Wife instead of his former vertuous Queen a very carnal Interest Was not his invading all the possessions and treasure of Monasteries a great secular Interest was not the dividing the said Lands among the Nobility and Gentry at very easie rates a very great interest In King Edwards daies was not the Protectors seizing on the remainder of Church-spoils a great Interest Was not the freeing of Clergy-men from a necessity of saying daily and almost howerly long Ecclesiaâ—â—ical Offices from lying a lone without bedfellows c. Matters of great both carnal and secular Interests Was not the exempting of all both laity and Ecclesiasticks from the Duty of confessing their sins and submitting themselves to penitential satisfactions from rigorous Fasts out of Conscience and Religion and other austerities a matter of considerable interest to flesh and corrupt nature Can any such interests as these be proved to have been operative in the Council of Trent How far all these interests of the world and flesh had influence on the first godly Reformers we may rationally suspect but God only knows and themselves long before this time feel God is not mocked 13. By what hath been hitherto said appears but even too clearly how that Fundamental Rule of all Government and subordination was utterly neglected in England at the time that the pretended Reformation was contrived and executed Here is a new and thorow moulding of a Church both a Doctrines and Discipline called a Reformation wherein all the Synodical Acts of this Church since Christianity entred among us are as to any obliging power by their Authority reversed wherein all the Decisions of Patriarchical Councils yea of Oecumenical Synods are call'd into examination all their Laws so far as seemed meet reform'd the whole regard that England had to all other Catholick Churches as a Member of the whole is utterly broken by one National Church Nay not so much but by one luxurious King by one Child and by one Woman even when the whole Body of the Clergy protested against it And yet after all this if Doctor Pierce may be believed thus to reform was to write after the Coppy which had been set to the Reformers in his Text by the blessed Reformer of all the World which was so to reform as not to innovate and to accommodate their Religion to what they found in the Beginning In the mean time accusing the Church of Rome as he expresseth it but indeed the whole Catholick Church as he must and as others grant of not only horrible corruptions in point of Practise but hideous errors in matters of Faith too such as trench upon Foundations 14. But the Preacher must not expect his confident asseveration without proof can seduce the judgement of any considering man to believe him against evidence and experience Nothing is more plain then that the Catholick Church by observing the foresaid Fundamental Rule is and will be eternally free from danger either of causal or formal Schism And as plain it is that no Churches can be separate from the Catholick Communion but by transgressing that Rule For if Diocesan Churches and Synods would submit to Provincial and Provincial to National and these to Patriarchical and all to Oecumenical how could Unity be dissolved But on the contrary if subordinate Councils shall take on them to reverse the Acts and Decisions of Superior ones especially of Oecumenical how can Schisms possibly be avoided And with what shew of reason can any particular Churches thus breaking Ecclesiastical Orders charge other Churches with Schisms because they will not break them too CHAP. XXIII An Answer to the Doctor 's Proofs alledged to justifie the lawfulness of the English Separation As 1. From the Independent Authority of our Kings 2. From the Examples of Justinian and other Emperors 3. From the practises of fourteen of our Kings 4. From the Examples of the Kings of Juda. In what sense New Articles of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent 1. IT remains now that I answer the examples produced by the Preacher to justifie their Separation to be no Schism he sayes That by the concessions of the most learned Popish Writers particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church as in the State without leave had from the See of Rome This is willingly granted But do those Writers concede such a purgation as their first Reformers administred to this Kingdom not only without but against the consent of the See of Rome nor only of Rome but of the whole Catholick Church A Purgation from the whole Faith and Discipline in any thing they judged fit to be rectified that by the Authority of Councils and Laws of Princes had been received and in force ever since the Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves Members of the whole Catholick Church On the contrary from the beginning of Christianity he will not be able to produce one example either of States or Princes except profess'd Hereticks such as the Emperors Constantius Valens Zeno c. that ever made any Laws to repeal any Doctrines declared or Disciplines established in the Church The Purgations conceded and executed by Princes
the great Saint Basil who writing to St. Athanasius about suppressing Arianism in the East hath these words It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to desire him that he would have regard to our affaires and interpose the judgment of his Decree c. Moreover that he would give Authority to sâ—m choice persons who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there c. 6. Again when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice had framed a new confession of Faith it was argued of nullity saith Sâ—crates especially because Iulius Bishop of Rome was neither himself present nor sent any to supply his place Whereas saith he the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome And this authority the same Pope Iulius asserts For writing to the Eastern Bishops who had condemned St. Athanasius he sayes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are you ignorant this is the custom that you should first write to us and after that determin just matters there Therefore if there were any ill suspition against that Bishop of Alexandria you ought to have signified it in the first place to the Church here 7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen another Greek Historian saith expresly That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law declaring all things to be void that are done without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Nay which is yet more this which for ought appears was only an unwritten Canon or Custom for no Council mentions it but deliver'd by Tradition even in the Eastern Churches was of such authority that the foresaid Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial We decree says he that according to the antient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order here is a Iurisdiction asserted extending it self beyond the Diocesâ—n Metropolitan or Patriarcal limits of Rome 8. I will add a few examples more when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Priâ—at of Ancyâ—a and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza The Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain restored to every one of them their own Church And he adds further That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunish'd if they did not cease from innovating All this he did saith Theodoret not by usurpation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Churches law 9. Again when the General council of Ephesus was entring into debate about the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch the Bp. of Ierusalem interposed affirming that according to the antient custom the Church of Antiochâ— as alwayes governed by the Roman Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope 10. Moreover when Dioscorus Patriark of Alexandria in the Scismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope And this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the custom of Synods sayth the Emperor Valentinian 11. Two examples more I will the rather add because we of this Nation are particularly concern'd in them The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice This Council was by Iustinian called Oecumenical because though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion yet the Canons of it were never rejected by them In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was ordain'd upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba to this effect That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the Process and appoint Iudges And by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop in case any Bishop deposed should make such an appeal till the Pope had determin'd the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place These Decrees the Council made to honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle 12. Now at this Conâ—cil among other Bishops from all the Western Countreys some came out of our Britany as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us And therefore the General Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk or the Saxons had possession here By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper though much bragged of in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope which St. Augustin requir'd of the British Bishops For what grosse ignorance was it in this Abbot if the Paper relate truth of him That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God especially over the Western Provinces and so much respect return'd him from them after the presence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishops of Romes delegation he should be such a stranger to his person or authority or his titles after the year of our Lord 600 At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop when the Britains thus denied it as appears Both in that they are said by venerable Beda the South-Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Antistitis and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis as may be found in the Register of his Epistles 13. A second Monument wherein we Britains have a peculiar interest is that most antient first Council of Arles celebrated according to Baronius and Sirmondus assented to by Sir Henry Spelman in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome as appears by the first Canon in these words First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Breviary of
was not by telling them it was no sin but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning because they allowed them maintenance 3. Again he will find that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things both for their frequent abstinences from flesh and some other Fruits and for their to some Persons at least recommending Virginity who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner as the Protestants objecting the same things are now by the Church Catholic See Chrysostom Ambrose and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy understanding it of the same Heretics Lastly he will find that Faâ—stus the Maniches made the very same Objection to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Doctrin of Devils To whom St. Augustin thus answers I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself lest he should seem to have introduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed to a love of perpetual Virginity and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow 12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon let him consider what an Author not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church has said of that Point that is The Patriaâ—e of Presbyterians Mr. Cartwright The Council of Nice says he did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward only being married before intrance into the Ministry it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that precedent Marriage And Paphnutius shews that not only this was before that Council but was an antient Tradition of the Church in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested for a motion being made by some in the Council that the married Presbyters such as were married before made Presbyters should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives this Paphnutius a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor though himself never married opposed saying Grave jugâ—m This was a heavy yoke c. and that perhaps such a strict rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives But now mark what follows That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditionem according to the Churches antient tradition ' should afterward forbear from marrying But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before when yet a Laick The story is in Socrates l. 1. c. 8. in Zâ—zomen l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much advantage from Paphnutius 13. Now for as much as concerns the Controversie touching Marriage of Priests Bellarmin will grant That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree and consequently that it may be dispensed with Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permited the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Ordination And indeed considering the temper of the Eastern Countries far more enclin'd to such passions than that of the Europeans we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western Yet no antient Canon â—f either of the Churches can be â—ound that permitted Priests to contract Marriage after Ordination And even among the Grecians a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests who attended the Altar 14. But what the universal belief and practise of the Western Churches was our Preacher may collect from the following Testimonies Therefore not to insist upon the generally esteem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony of a dispensation from which not one example can be given It appears that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly married was forbidden 1. By the Second Council of Carthage express in this Point It was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons 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 2. The Second African Council thus decreed Whereas Relation was made of the Incontinence of certain Ecclesiastics though with their own Wives this Council thought good that according to former Decrees Bishops Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives which if they do not let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office As for other inferior Clarks they are not compell'd hereto But let every Church observe their own custom 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same You says he who with pure bodies uncorrupted modesty and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation have received the grace of the holy Ministry know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence without stain neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates some have prâ—created children when they exercised Priesthood And again the Apostle speaking of a Bishop sayes having children not getting them 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius sayes What shall the Churches of the East do What shall the Churches of Egypt do and of the See Apostolick all which receive Clerks either such as are Virgins or Continent or if they have wives such as cease to be husbands to them The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian And he writes to Pamachius thus If married men like not this let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the Act of marriage 5. We are wont says Saint Augustin to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden and yet having received it they by Gods assistance bear it to their end I will conclude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis more ancient then St. Augustins time nay ancienter then the First General Council of Nice The Council hath thought good that it should be absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget children 15. That the Eastern Churches took to themselves anciently a greater liberty is to be understood not generally for in many of them aâ— great a strictness was observed as besides the forecited tâ—stimony of S. Hierâ—m concerning the Churches of the East and of Egypt appears from Origen Eusebius and Epiphanius who all require continence in Priests even from their wives if they have any And particularly S. Epiphanius says That to
the Church is a General Council The same holy Father treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Cyprian and after by the Donatists says That for that Doctrine which was truly Traditionary the Donatists were Hereticks but St. Cyprian not Why Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate and without breaking Communion to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils Till in a General Council the true Orthodox Doctrâ—ne were without all further doubts confirmed Which Authority says he St. Cyprian if it had been declared in his time would without any doubt at all have believed 9. In the next place as touching Decisions of Controversies about not expressly Traditionary Doctrines but clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines it is absolutely necessary oft-times for the Church to make such Decisions for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given to maintain freely any thing that does not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or in Tradition Thus many of the Articles of the Nicen Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions which Articles in the Terms wherein they were there conceived were not absolutely necessary to be believed before the arising of Heresies forced the Church further to explain the Faith And hence it is that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith in many Doctrines otherwise not necessary to be so generally known must and will encrease to the worlds end in case New Heresies arise 10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide or objects of our Faith For though it be most certain that the Church neither hath nor pretends to have any New Revelations of Christian verities but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles is still the Faith of the Church and no more There are no Additions made no new Articles invented Notwithstanding the same Articles by occasion of Heresies arising may in succeeding times be further explained and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered In like manner some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the Church when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks are often explicitely declared in Councils to be Traditions by which Declaration there is no new thing taught but that which was formerly involved is more clearly manifested and that which was taught by practice is declared by words and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians becomes extended to all Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. have been in later Councils made Articles not de novo as the Doctor misapprehends but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed and so are all other new decisions of later Councils Points of ancient Faith either in themselves explicitely or in their necessary principles implicitely And if after such decisions of Councils there ariseth a new obligation that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error and that in a matter of Divine Revelation Such Points were alwayes matter of faith if we would believe in those particulars what was Divine Truth though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement to which judgement we could have no obligation before she declared it Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians in relation to Her of believing it else to what end does the state it Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters without the guilt of disobeying the Church but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now which perhaps we did not formerly and that in a time when we are in more danger from Seducers of falling into the contrary Error And now behold these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith this is her chief accusation and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality which was not found in their former Creed as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council and by the Eutychians against the fourth And therefore why may not the Council of Trent for its defence return the same answer to the Preacher as the fourth General Council which he professeth to allow did to the Eutychians A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient say they for the benefit of sincere Believers But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine 't is necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach and to provide fit remedies to their objections For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the Nicene Faith and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation it were meet for the posterity of the Church to excogitate in their Councils no new additions But because there are many that decline from this right line through the crooked paths of error we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church Not as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness as though the former faith were defective but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them Thus that Council whose words clearly demonstrate that Councils may define not only traditionals in matters of Faith but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them And here let the equal Reader judge whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles or the Council of his and his Predecessors new Errors Out of which evil yet the wisdom of God in the several ages brings this good as Evagrius â— accutely observes to the Pagans scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished and more entirely compiled and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed by the springing up of several Heresies in those days had enlarged the Apostolick 11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils we Roman Catholicks do esteem
general were allow'd them That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries this will not excuse them for dissenting from the Church in any particular Doctrines actually decided by a General Council Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even internal is unlawful without a certain demonstration that the Church hath actually erred in such and such Doctrines But which way possibly can any particular person or Church arrive to such a demonstration It must be by producing express Scripture or universal Tradition formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared Who can think who dares believe that those supreme Guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the only Guardians of the Scripture it self and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and manifestly contrary to express Scripture or evident demonstration And as for universal Tradition there can be no Iudge of it but the whole Church particular persons or Churches are utterly uncapable of making such a judgment especially in opposition to the whole Church 11. It were happie therefore if Protestants considering the Promises of Christ and the necessity of unity in the Church would allow but as much submission to the Supreme Tribunal of his Church as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim to which no such Promises were made For then though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible yet they would acknowledge that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbidden but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisions 12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore produced in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals And indeed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh that is the Messias came By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed For as to the outward proâ—ession and practises of the Mosaical Law it was alwayes continued in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair I say as to the outward practises of it For in the Spiritual sense of it the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself typified therein But now Shiloh was already come and God's promise of Indefectibility rested in this New High Priest and his Successors 13. Notwithstanding all this yet Errors might creep in about non-fundamentals as the Rabbins confess when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place and without all tergiversation be obeyed So as though they being indeed in such things fallible should command any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law the Iews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of Judgment and internal assent to such Commands that they were agreeable to God's Law because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great importance should be transgressed than that Contentions and Disputes should be endless 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority than the Iews did to their Sanedrim which was infallible in fundamentals but subject to Error in non-fundamentals they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council but ought to submit their internal Judgment to them For since it is impossible they should have any demonstrative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred I mean in matter of Doctrine all other inferiour Judgments all only probable Arguments against them ought to cease the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opinions altogether improbable So that though upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions and by consequence their assent would be erroneous yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience humble submission of Judgment love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it Besides that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches and not at all on their account 15. But since Protestants find an extraordinary difficulty more than Catholicks to submit their Judgments to Authority and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges Let it be supposed that their first Reformers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions should thereupon have been excommunicated by the Church In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience and not voluntarily forsake her Communion and much less ought they to have set up or repair to an Anti-communion For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism 16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church and the unlawfulness of separation from it I do not mean a Church of one denomination no not the Roman as such for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her But I intend the Vniversal Church which we call Roman Catholick because all true Orthodox Churches an union of which constitutes the Universal Church acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Root of their Unity Therefore Protestants in vain seek to excuse their separation upon pretence it was onely from the Roman not from the Vniversal Church because 1. A separation from the external Communion of any one true Member of the Catholick Church for Doctrines which are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that Member is indeed a separation from all Churches which is manifestly the case of the English separation 2. Because it is evident that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves a toto mundo A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melancthon in these words Nec non parvi refert c. For it doth not a little concern us that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us descend to posterity For it were a thing more then absurd after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world if we in our very beginnings should also divide from one another And which Chillingworth also confesseth in several places cap. 5. sect 55. As for the external Communion of the
Religion of their Fore-Fathers even King Henry the Eighth for all his Headship never pretended so far Of this I dare accept as Judge even Sir Edward Coke himself and Balsamon likewise though a malicious Schismatick therefore the fitter to be quoted by him yet all he sayes is That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. which whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church he can do or no is little for the Preachers purpose I am sure he is not able to prove it or if he could it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn 7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes is that of the Kings of Iuda in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed But withal the Doctor may do well to take notice 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the High Priest or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves 2. They are not said to have reformed the people against the Priests 3. Or without the Priests 4. Yea in several places we read they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation And therefore Bishop Andrews who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church as might be says only that those Kings did reform citra or ante declarationem Ecclesiae but he saies not contra And to make good his citra or ante hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments a Negative thus There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture ergo there was none The infirmity of which argument is much more visible if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles containing a relation of so many hundred years and chiefly of the actions of Kings not of the Clergy 8. It cannot indeed be denied but that in such publick changes the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual and therefore no wonder if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of especially in so very short a story But certainly according to Gods Institution the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge and it is from their mouths that Kings are to learn Gods Law and what they are to Reform because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now for Reformations or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David Solomon c. who besides a Regal Authority were Prophets likewise immediately inspired and so employed by God I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth the young child his Son or youngest Daughter no Prophets surely 9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive which as he sayes set on work the English Reformers of happy Memory which was their observing that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partizans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation Gal. 1. 8. 10. But to omit his contradictions charging us with hideous errors in Faith which yet he dare not say are Fundamental lest he ruine his own Church To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council persons of too honourable a quality to be called by a little Doctor contemners of the Apostles denunciation conspirators liable to a curse To omit his commending the first English Reformers our Kings c. that they consulted not with fleth and blood then which what could be said more unluckily to himself Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual Do not your self confess that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation To omit his petty Quibble that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain Directly contrary not only to many of his brother Divines but to the Head of his Church King Iames who in a publick Speech to his Parliament says I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church To omit all these and more I shall desire the Doctor to take notice that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adversaries should make such an objection concerning which the Reader may please to review what has been said before chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers that the Church hath been forced to make such as they call them new Articles of Faith For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators As yet such Doctrines c. having never formerly been opposed except by inconsiderable Hereticks Such as Iovinian Vigilantius c. whose Errors before any Council could take notice of them soon after they appeared withered away again were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholicks But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter that they were unjustly question'd either of Error or Novelty Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils For fear of new Articles must liberty be given to new Heresies Old Articles such as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council New ones that is Old ones further explained Or Old Practises newly declared to be Traditions 12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor and related to in his margin are no new Articles Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England For even St. Gregory who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel is accused by learned Protestants of all or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects Doctor Humphrey accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium c. that they brought into England Purgatory Oblation of the salutary Host and Prayers for the Dead Relicks Transubstantiation To which Osiander adds That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy Invocation and Worship of Saints nay that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved excused defended To which Carrion in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes adds That when he tragically exclaim'd that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies in his
their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches it must also subdue their minds to an assent and this under the Penalty of an Anathema or cutting off from the Body of Christ which answers to a Civil death in the Law 9. If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal Iudges who might possibly give a wrong sentence How securâ—ly may we submit our judgements to the Supream Tribunal of the Church And how justly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gainsayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never mislead us And the grounds of this assurance which the Preacher is not yet perswaded of are now to be discoverd 10. The true grounds of the Churcheâ— Infallibility are the words of Truth the Infallibility of the promises of Christ the Eternal wisdom of the Father These Promises are the true Palladium not of the Conclave but of the Vniversal Church Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Vlisses as to apprehend he can steal it away 11. We do not deny however that Infallibility and Omniscience are as he saies incommunicable Attributes of God It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary because he is essentially immutable as in his Being so in his Vnderstanding and Will Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from actual mutation God who is absolutely Omniscient can teach a rational Creature 〈◊〉 Truths necessary or expedient to be known So that though a man have much ignorance yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know and has promised he shall faithfully teach others Our Saviour as man was certainly infallible and as far as was requisite omniscient too So were the Apostles likewise whose writings Protestants acknowledge both to be infallible and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation Good Doctor do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an infallibility as to some things on a Creature What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Thus the Doctor may see what a trifling Discourse he has made against Gods Church 12. Now the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church by vertue of which she has alwaies been believed to be in our sense infallible follow At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles That he would be present with them alwaies to the end of the World Therefore since not any of them out-liv'd that age this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Surely to direct them Therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his businesse onely 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know 4. He has promised that Against his Church built upon St. Peter the Gates of Hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail Therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie 5. He has commanded that Whoever shall not obey his Church shall be cut off from his Body as a Heathen and a Publican Therefore Anathema's pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of Decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to Decisions of the Universal Church call'd by the Apostle The Pillar and ground of Truth made for the composing of publick Debates about the common Faith 6. To conclude the belief of the Churches Vnity is an unchangable Article of our â—reed Therefore certainly the onely effectual mean to preserve Unity which is an un-appealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church 13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Authority of Tradition produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church representative which has an influence over the Souls of menâ— requiring much more than an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic general Councils We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths miserable shift and say that all these Promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity which from these Promises argues invincibly against all Heretics and Schismatics who might otherwise on Mr. Chillingworths ground alledge as the Donatists did that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority and that Gods spirit was transplanted from her into themselves Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers somwhat more discreet who are willing to allovv those Promises absolute and to belong also to the Guides of the Church som or other that they shall in all ages continue orthodox but not alvvayes to the more superior or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Councils because thus they see their cause will suffer by it But this plea also is utterly unsatisfying For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers or Ecclesiastical Courts shall contradict or oppose one another here the superior questionlesse is to be our Guide otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so and therefore to these not the other in such cases must belâ—ng these promises where they cannot possibly agree to both 14. These promises now being Yea and Amen the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord passe for a Deceiver but apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholic for to some Church they must be applyed But let him consider withal he must condemn St. Gregory who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church as the four Gospels He must condemn Constantine who in the first Council of Nice professed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops that ought to be attributed to thâ— Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the General Councils of Gods Church condemn likewise which is more dangerous the Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many Anathema's against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisions of theirs in some of which were new expressions not extant in Scripture but devised by the Fathers then present as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now I ask Doctor Pierce were
mercifully than their sins deserve not to be doubted For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord Prayers should be made when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy works of Charity and Alms are made who will doubt that these things help towards their good for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead yet only such as before their death have lived so as that these things may profit them after Death And again For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving and for others as a propitiation 14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience for he is no Stranger to the Fathers what a great Volume may be written to confirm this And that not one expression can be quoted against it Therefore whereas he said without any ground that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus I would ask him From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead but from the Heretie Aerius Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them which without any fault may be omited On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him the Church does these things necessarily having received such a Tradition from the Fathers And St. Augustin we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lye here or in another place repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice to make Supplications to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings a translation into the region of Light and peace and a place in the bosom of Abraham But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell where are they then He cannot deny a third place unless he thinks them anihilated He will not say that third place is Purgatory because the Church calls it so But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed 16. To conclude If all the Liturgies of the Church all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church an expresse Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees He will say it is not Canonical at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance and however the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin and from Plato Cicero and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him that Heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls as to perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers becom immediatly perfect 17. To fill his learned Margins he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin as the Bishop of Rochester Polydor Virgil Suarez and Thomas ex Albiis but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church in contradiction to the Preacher that there is a Purgatory what other inducement could he have to mention them unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not that he was resolved to pretend but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church CHAP. XI Of Transubstantiation or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament Iustified by the Authorities of the Fathers c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd 1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament That blessed Mystery which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument to signifie and to operate Vnity is by the cunning of the Devil and malicious folly of men becom both the work and cause of Dis-union 2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran For in Pope Nicholas the Second's time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con then Transubstantiation But evident it is That it was never taught by our Saviour since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced This is my Blood explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrin than the concession of Aquinas who says That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one From whence Bellarmin angrily infers that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one 3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter I will as before set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv out of the Council of Trent it is said I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Conversion or Change of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body and of Wine into his Blood which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received 4. And if he will needs have it so let it be granted that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as old as his Beginning that is in the time of the first General Council But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends 5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
an Auditory And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament For though those special words I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill c. if they stood alone might seem applicable to the consecrated Chalice yet those other of Saint Luke I will not any more eat of this Passâ—over untill c. cannot possibly be applyed to the consecrated Element of Bread and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly intended of the same Subject It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper and not at all of the Sacrament 14. As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Thomas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places and his revengeful inference that neither then caâ— they be Sacramentally All I will say hereto shall be that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed Yet however since it is only about a Scholastical Notion of Locality Circumscription c. and it is apparent that both these Doctors held a true Substantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament as the Church teaches I will not by troubling my self about composing the matter between them invite the Doctor hereafter to unnecessary excursions It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to justifie 15. In the last place touching Berin arius his submission if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation Certainly it was sufficient if he spoke sincerely to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Body and that onely was his businesse As for his Expressions that Our Lords Body not onely in Mystery but Truth is handled broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants unlesse they be understood Sacramentally they are far from being justifiable And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Protestants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual an Oral Manducatian but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us but not after a Carnal manner Christ is not changed by Digestion into our Bodyes yet sanctifies even our Bodies also as well as our Souls Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression Insinuating it self into our Bodies by an union with our Lord 's Immortal Body We are made Partakers of Immortality CHAP. XII Of Communion under one Species-Confirm'd by the practise of the Primitive Church in private Communions The Preachers Objections solved 1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty imputed to the Catholic Church is Communion under one Species no older saies he then since the time of Aquinas unlesse they will own it from the Manichees But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest Drink all of this saies he And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood as eating the Body of Christ. 2. To the substance of what is here alleged we readily subscribe We acknowledg our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds That the Apostles received it in both kinds That St. Paul speaks as well of drinking c. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas in the public Celebration of these Mysteries the people communicated in both kinds All this we agree to 3. But the general Tradition of the Church at least from his beginning will not permit us to yield that the receiving in both kinds was esteem'd by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion or integrity of the participation of Christs Body and Blood or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion when deliver'd and receiv'd only in one kind On the contrary we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience whether if we should yield this we should not be overwhelm'd with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us As evidently appears in Communions anciently practised under one kind only and this upon many occasions As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions mention'd by Tertullian St. Cyprian and others in which the holy Eucharist was deliver'd to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone and by them carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions The same was practised in communicating Infants or innocent Children of more years witnesse besides the said Fathers the practise of the Church of Constantinople mentioned by Nicephorus In communicating the Sick and Penitents at the point of death In communions at Sea In communions sent to other Provinces c. 4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteem'd to be partakers of â—ntire Christ nor did they think they received more of him at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one only They believed it was Christ entire which they received in every divided particle of the species of Bread and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the flesh of Christ could not be participated without a concomitance of his Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity Hence St. Ambrose Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ. And the Council if Ephesus That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do participate the Flesh of Christ not as common meer Flesh but truly quickning Flesh. And St. Augustin That Christ ferebatur in manibus suis did carry himself in his own hands and this in a litteral sense And St. Cyril of Alexandria says By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified that the four parts of the world being brought to salvation by the Gospel did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it For says he the only begotten Son of God passing into and by his Flesh sanctifying the Soul â—nd Body of each of them severally and in particular is in each of them entirely and undividedly being every where one and in no sort divided 5 These things thus premised which are certain Truths and cannot by the Preacher be deny'd since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject he must necessarily take upon him to demonstrate 1. Either that these Communions under one species allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times were half Communions sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord contrary to the teaching of St. Paul conspiring with the Heresie of the Manichees c. And doing so he will contradict himself whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times 2. Or if these Practises were justifiable and that
For though he florish with Greek and Latinâ—quotations of Fathers joynd to Scripture which they do not yet since there is no visible Judge talk'd of in it but himself that is able to speak What is this but private spirit having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have So that let them preach as much as they will the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this Whether their last speaking Iudge in England or ours in the whole Catholic Church deserves better to be believ'd and rely'd on 5. It cannot be deny'd but that there is somthing of Truth in all these Sects The Guide which each of them respectively layes claim to is a justifiable Guide though being alone not sufficient For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us would be to become Beasts 2. To exclude Gods Spirit from directing us would be to cease being Christians 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity and Authority of General Primitive Councils would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable 4. And last of all to deny a judging determining power to the present visible Governors I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected Yet unlesse they all concur that which we take to be Reason and Inspiration and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and mis-guide us 6. Now it is only the Roman Catholic Church whose enâ—â—re Guidance proceedâ— from all these and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each mans Soul and universal peace in Gods Church which effects cannot possibly flow but from a complication of all these Guides Roman Catholics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture as the Socinians do but they give due bounds to Reason nay they silence it quite when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture they with the Presbyterians and even Fanatics acknowledge it is Divine Inspiration that moves the Soul to assent thereto and embrace the verities contained in Scripture directing their actions accordingly But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light neither can there be any Guide more dangerous then false Inspirations they conclude that all such pretended Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Suggestions which are prejudicial to Honesty Virtue Piety and the common Rules of Obedience both Spiritual and Civil All Inspirations which which incite private uncommission'd persons to reform either Churches or State all that nourish Factions or Commotions in the Common-wealth All that beget Pride and an opinion of self-sufficiency or an humor of censuring others especially Superiors In a word whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the community of the Prophets that is Church Governors such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected detested and sent back to the Infernal Father of them 7. Moreover Roman Catholics do willingly and confidently appeal to the Primitive Church the four first General Councils and the holy Fathers But universal experience demonstrating it impossible that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed and therefore not impartial or indifferent their last recourse is to the present visible Church which cannot declare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations that is by a General Council All Catholics submiting to this Council not their tongues only but also their judgments by following the Church thus with humility shew that they are guided both by Reason Inspiration and Examples of Primitive Fathers Hence St. Austin sayes We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church if we rejoice in the name of Catholics and in the Catholic Faith And elsewhere Contra rationem nemo sobrius c. No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason no Christian against Scriptures no lover of peace and unity against the Church And this only is the Guide that we say and presently will demonstrate to be infallible 8. Now that the final Decision of all Controversies in Faith can only be expected from such a Guide and consequently that all Christians under pain of damnation are obliged never to contradict this Guide and alwaies to assent when it requires we are taught not by Reason only but God himself also and this in the Law of Moses The whole Nation of the Iews saith St. Augustin was as it were one great Prophet the policie of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian to the twelve Princes of their Families answer'd the twelve Apostles to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples to the several Courts of Judgement our Ecclesiastical Synods to the great Sanhedrim a general Council and to the High Priest our Supreme Pastor Now for our present purpose the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law ran thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement c. that is as we find in 2 Chron. 19. 8. between blood and blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Iudgements then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall shew thee c. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right hand or to the left The man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel Upon those words in this passage unto the Iudge that shall be in those daies Ainsworth out of the Rabbins observes that if the high Synedrion had determin'd of a matter after another Synedrion rose up which upon Reasons seeming good unto them disannulled the former Sentence then it was disannull'd and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later So that the present Authority was alwaies to take place and no Appeals to be made from it For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking Iudges upon any pretence whatsoever either of a private exposition of the Law or the Authority of preceding Rabbies were allow'd there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue And observe that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of Judgment For otherwise it would be against Conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law It is just so and alwaies has been so in the Catholic Church The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers
Prayers and Oblation for the Dead In opposition whereto he saies Prayers made for the dead profit them though they do not blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entirely all mortal sins And again Who shall now have the â—oldnesse to dissolve the Statute of his Mother the Church or the Law of his Father which Father he there interprets to be the Holy Trinity Moreover St. Chrysostome It is not in vain that the Apostles have instituted this Law That during the celebration of the dreadful mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead for they knew that great benefit and profit would thereby accrew unto them And yet more expresly in another place We must saith he give our help and assistance to sinners departed by our Prayers Supplications Alms and Oblations For these things were not rashly and groundlesly devised Neither is it in vain that in the Divine Mysteries we make mention of these who are dead and approaching to the Altar addresse our prayers for them to the Lamb placed there who took away the sins of the World But we do this to the end that some comfort and refreshment may come to them thereby Neither is it in vain that he who assists at the Altar at the time when the dreadful Mysteries are communicated cries out Pray for all that are dead in Christ and for those who celebrate their memorials For were it not that such commemorations were profitable to them such things would not be spoken For the matters of our Religion are no sport No God forbid These things are perform'd by the Order and Direction of Gods Spirit 10. True it is that antiently in the publick Liturgies a commemoration was made even of the greatest Saints yes and prayers were made for them But yet not such prayers as were made for the imperfect But since all future things may be the subject of our prayers it may become our charity to pray for accession of glory to Saints already glorified but which at the Resurrection shall be in a yet better State And therefore when St. Austin saies It is an injury to pray for a Martyr since we ought rather to commend our selves to his prayers he means such prayers as we make for imperfect Christians that is for remission of their sins refreshment c. 11. Now tho' some such prayers extant in the Holy Fathers did regard the day of Judgment and the glory ensuing yet withal that they thought to some Souls a present refreshment did accrew in the intermediat condition is evident both by the foresaid Testimonies and many more that may be added As where St. Aâ—brose saies he would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperor till he found a deliverance by them This is so apparent both out of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies that Bishop Forbes Spalato and other Protestant Writers do acknowledge it and refuse not to assent to the ground of such a practise The words of Spalato are these There would be no absurdity if we should confesse that some lighter sins which have not in this life been remitted quoad culpam as to the guilt or fault may be forgiven after death and this somtimes a little after the departure of the Soul c. by vertue of the Churches intercession 12 It cannot be denied but that there are among the Holy Fathers great varieties of Opinions touching some particular circumstances regarding the state of Souls after death and at the present some differences there are between the Roman and Greek Church In which notwithstanding it will appear to any who will compare them that the Roman Doctrin is far more moderate receiveable and approaching to the grounds of Protestants than that of the Eastern Church But however it is without all controversy that all Churches who professed Christianity before the Reformation do agree unanimously in the practice of praying for the Dead so as to beg forgiveness of sins a bettering of their state an asswagement of their sufferings c. Which practise they esteem not a voluntary offering but a duty to a necessary performance of which charity obligeth all Christians And therefore English Protestants cannot be excused for their neglect of this duty especially consisidering that the Doctrin upon which this Practice is grounded is not mentioned at all among those Points which they account Novelties in the Roman Church On the contrary the more learned among them have and do though not in expression yet in sense agree with Bishop Andrews conceding in his Reply to Cardinal Perron That for offering doth he not mean here for offering the Christian sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist for them for what is more manifest in Antiquity than this and prayer for the Dead little is to be said against it No man can deny but it is very antient Since then the Church cannot be thought from the most antient times thereof to have offered up to God all her prayers in all ages pro defunctis in vain methinks I cannot here but in this respect also commiserate the condition of those poor Souls who depart hence un-owned by that Church and without any share in her prayers which only like a true Mother is so sollicitous and carefull a Supplicant not only for her living but also deceased children and who after a life here not so well spent seeing themselves going hence only with an inchoated repentance an unperfect reformation and very unprepared to be immediatly entertained in that place of bliss and glorious society into which no impure thing shall enter yet are content rather to lose the benefit of the daily prayers and oblations for them of this careful Mother than to render themselves capable thereof by returning into her Communion And surely much more uncomfortable must such a death be that is void of the hopes of any such assistance than theirs is who departing hence in the bosom of the Church and in this blessed communion of Saints with the request of St. Austins dying Mother in their mouth Illud vos rogo ut ad Domine altare memineritis mei This I beg of you that at the Altar of our Lord ye make remembrance of me are sure to enjoy the last aid of this pious charity and also the yet more efficacious sacrifice of the Altar to be frequently offered to God in their behalf 10. Lastly to omit particular Quotations out of the antient public Liturgies of the Church that of St. Iames acknowledged by the second General Council that of St. Basil St. Chrysostom c. in every one of which are expresse prayers and oblations for the Dead demanding pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings c. I will conclude with a full convincing Testimony of St. Augustin whose words are these That by the Prayers of the Holy Church and saving Sacrifice as likewise by Alms expended for their Souls our departed Brethren are helped that God may deal with them more