〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
enjoying a special priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior yea Supream Pastor Supream not in Order only but Iurisdiction Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles or to St. Peter's Successors and all other Bishops 8. Now if the Fathers may be believed is was a priviledge and a great one that St Peter for the merit of his Confession had Christs own Title as Christ was Governor of the Church given him of being called a Rock For in the Syrian language in which our Lord spake the words have no different termination as in the Greek or Latin Petrus Petra but the words were Thou art Gepha a Rock and upon this Gepha Rock I will build my Church It was a priviledge that Peter neither the eldest nor first chosen Apostle is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned and expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First It was a priviledge importing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction when after our Lord's Resurrection St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly â—eeding Christ's Flock And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision as St. Paul was of the Gentiles Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and his house-hold c. 9. But why among such Governors as the Apostles was any Supereminency of Iurisdiction given to one man Certain it is there never was lesse necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions then among the Apostles every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light by which they knew all Truth and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vnâ—ty which exempted them from all ambitious envious or malicious designâ— Yet a Subordination not absolutely necessary to them was established among them for the succeeding Churches sake which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel Hence St. Hierom saies The Church was built upon Peter though true it is the same thing is done upon others and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But among the twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism may be taken away 10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Yet in the very same Book saies Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam c. Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person And though after his Resurrection he gave an equal power to all the Apostles saying As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins you remit c. Yet that he might manifest unity he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Vnity beginning from one And presently after Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church does he believe that he holds the Faith He that opposes are resists the Church he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter upon which the Church is founded does he trust that he is in the Church In like manner St. Optatus at Rome saies he a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair So St. Chrysostome Observe now how the same John that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter And again Christ did constitute Peter the Master not of that See of Rome alone but of the whole world 11. Now whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter and resisting him to his face argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him Let St. Augustin from St. Cyprian resolve us You see saies he to the Donatists what St. Cyprian hath said that the holy Apostle St. Peter in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy being reprehended by St. Paul did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him And he adds The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear resisting even the highest yet without prejudice to Charity when Truth is to be defended 12. From all that has been said on this Subject it will necessarily follow that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed and the Holy Fathers acknowledged was the gift of our Saviour only a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter He was as St. Chrysostome saies Master of the World not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority he therefore made choice of Rome for his See because that being the Imperial City of the World he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church 13. Upon which grounds whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome This is so common in the Fathers writings that I will not trouble him with one Quotation Indeed Iohn of Constantinople when he would invade an equality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some sort with the Pope did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea But St. Leo St. Gregory St. Gelasius c. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. from Pasce oves meas c. Nay St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority Why because of the splendor of the Imperial City No but because the Popes Authority was de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures 14. I might with reason enough yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes as he calls it pretended Headship because such being sitted to vulgar capacities and confidently pronounc'd do more mischief then those that have more shew of profundity and weight Thus then he argues If the Pope be head of the Church then the Church must be the Body of the Pope And if so then when there is no Pope the Church has no Head
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
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles both to the Emperor to Iohn himself and others which being already produc'd by him need not be repeated Yet for all this neither Pelagius nor St. Gregory notwithstanding their detesting this Title did therefore quit their right to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church and their Iurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarks too nay they assert it in these very Epistles wherein they are most sharp against that Title as shall be shew'd 6. The reason of this 't is manifest the Preacher does not understand therefore let him not disdain to be inform'd The like Order that is observ'd in the Church of England he may conceive is observed in the Catholic Church that is that the same person may be both a Bishop an Archbishop and a Primat I will add also the Supreme head of the Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Eccâ—esiasticks For as for his Majestys Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs it is not in this place to be treated of Now my Lord of Canterbury is just like other Bishops merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bishops in it but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves which are not removeable by him unlesse they incur crimes that by the Canons deserve it Lastly he is a Primat over both Provinces that is the whole Nation yet without prejudice to the other Metropolitan in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose though he have a power to summon him to a National Council c. And in this regard he may be stiled the Vniversal Pastor of England and by being so makes the Church of England to be one National Church which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads Yet if any one should stile him the Vniversal Bishop of England it would not be endured because he can exercise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own By considering this well the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church 7. For though this Title of Vniversal Bishop taken in some sense might draw after it such ill consequences yet being apply'd to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church it might innocently signifie no more but such a general Superintendency as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors and with such an innocent meaning as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon without any contradiction of the same Council to Pope Leo Boniface the Third did accept it from Phocas yet having done so it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of Iurisdiction by it more than himself and his Predecessors had enjoy'd And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge If he can find any proof to the contrary let him produce it and I will immediately recall what I have said 'T is true as appears in the History of the Council of Trent written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates against naming the Pope Bishop of the Vniversal Church who in conclusion absolutely gained the silencing of that Title But this happened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church or over all Churches taken disjunctively for this they willingly acknowledged but they opposed this Title only as the Universal Church might be taken in a collective sense that is to say as united in a General Council whereby a right of Superiority over a General Council may seem to be determin'd to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil which in this matter they allowed CHAP. IV. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predecessors viz. St. Gregory P. Pelagius P. Felix P. Gelasius P. Leo. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon illegal Of the 2d Canon of the first Council of Constantinople 1. BEing now to demonstrate more than a Primacy of Order a primacy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third extending it self to all Christians all particular Prelates and Churches yet a Supremacy not unlimited for then General Councils would be useless but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church I will first to make it appear reasonable declare the ground of the necessity of it which in brief is as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers because since General Councils the only absolute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or great expences c. can very seldom be summon'd it would be impossible without an Ordinary constant standing Supreme Authority in the Church to prevent Schisms that is it is impossible the Church should subsist 2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sitting at the upper end of the Table a priviledge to speak first or to collect Votes Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to conserve unity as in a National Church so in the Vniversal is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians For all the subtilty of human wit without such a Concession can never answer the arguing thus If according to the Doctrin of the Fathers there be a necâ—ssity of setting up one Bishop â—ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop â—ver many Bishops and one Patriark over many Arch-Bishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history and experience But what expedient now without such a primacy of Iurisdiction can the Presbyterians find out against the mischief of Schism Truly no other but by rejecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the certainly visible unity of the Catholic Church that is by believing that Schism iâ— no such ill thing as that much care needs be used to prevent it But surely English Protestants not having blotted out of their Creed that Article since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as necessary to the â—nity of the whole Church to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised and without which the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions 3. Certain it is that the antient Fathers thought so
as shall be shewed And because new opinions arising do naturally cause debates and contentions from what causes soever they flow and contentions are apt to generate Schisms since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where if any particular Church were Independent of the whole there could be no remedy against Divisions hence it is that the Holy Fathers do assert the necessity of a Supream Authority and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to determine or at least silence Disputes about opinions 2. In those which are called majores causae as wrongful Depositions of Bishops c. either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd and punish the wrong-doers 3. To take care that Discipline establish'd by received canons be every where observ'd 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils and thereupon to summon all Bishops and as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet 4. These things thus premised now follow the Proofs demonstrating that before Boniface the thirds time suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Predecessors and submitted to generally in the Church I must not write a Volume therefore I will select a few examples in all Ages which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations and when he shall require it many many more shall be added 5. To proceed therefore ascendendo St. Gregory the Great Predecessor of Boniface the third though he would not admit an Vniversal Episcopacy yet at the same time he challenged and exercised an Vniversal Superintendency Hence saies he t is notorious that the See Apostolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all Churches And again more fully The care of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was committed to him and yet he is not called the Vniversal Apostle Again writing to the Bishop of Syracusa If any fault be found in any Bishops I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apostolic But when no fault exacts it we are all in regard of humility equal And this subjection saies he elsewhere both our most Religious Lord the Emperor and our Brother John Bishop of the same City do frequently protest And in an Epistle to Natalis Bishop of Salona If saith he any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople against a Priest of Chalcedon where he saies Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostolic and that the cause was determined by our Sentence A world of like examples more may be added And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpation 6. In the next place the immediate Predecessor of St. Gregory Pope Pelagius the Second in the very same Epistle in which he condemns the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop assumed by Iohn of Constantinople hath this passage writing to the Eastern Bishops The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority Therefore whatever you have decreed in your foresaid Conventicle by the Authority of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Speech of our Saviour who gave to Blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing I do command all things determined by you to be void and repealed c. Again his not immediate Predecessor Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction upon this occasion Pope Felix the second who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria unjustly dispossess'd by Peter an Eutichian whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated Moreover upon the complaints of the same Iohn he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear And upon his contumacy excommunicated him likewise in this Form Take notice saies he that thou art deprived of Sacerdotal honor and Catholic Communion and moreover that thou art segregated from the number of the Faithful having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authoriâ—y Yet this Sentence not having been as the former was denounced in a Synod some Eastern Bishops found fault with it Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dardania he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod as Sabellius c. there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers And that this was the case of Acacius who communicated with Peter and Timotheus Bishops of Alexandria Eutychians which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon In consequence whereto he adds these Words Neither do we omit to signifie which the whole Church all the world over knows very well that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sentences of any Bishops whatsoever as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order and not Supremacy of Iurisdiction 7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great who began his Seat in the year 440. and in whose time the General Council of Chalcedon was assembled How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction most of his Epistles witnesse and almost all Protestant Controverâ—ists complain He in his 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus and the 55th to the Empresse Pulcheria vindicates the Derivation of his Authority not from the Imperial City but St. Peter Prince of the Apostles 8. Therefore whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon decreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities If he had had a mind to dealingenuously he would have cal'd it an
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
not dangerous to States On the contrary c. Protestants writing in favour of it 1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary Yet they may be continued till we come even to the Presbyterians Independants and Quakers Beginning too that is the Gospels themselves To demonstrate this we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constantin whilst it was a mere suffering Church incapable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils But withal a Church lesse dispersed and torn by Heresies or contentions among Bishops and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms Supreme Authority 2. In these holy peaceable times therâ—ore before Silvester I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledgement of such a Primacy And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk whose words are Qualis ipsius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia c. Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced in judgeing the cause of Donatus by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues the Catholic Bishops in Africa in whom no crime could be proved And having censured most deeply Donatus alone whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those subdivided Scismatics that were ordained by Majorinus a Donatist Bishop in so much as his Sentence was that in whatsoever Cities of Africk there were two Bishops dissenters a Catholic and a Donatist he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick who was first ordained c. and that another Diocese should be provided which the other should govern O Son of Christian peace and truly Father of the Christian flock says St. Augustin 3. I will add to this three other examples in which though as to the use and administration of the Superintendency som Objections have been made yet they suffice to confirm the acknowledgement of such a Superintendency in the Pope as the Preacher denies The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyrdom concerning whom we read in Eusebius that he either inflicted or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization after Baptism received by Heretics And in the same quarrel between the same Pope Stephaâ—â—s and St. Cyprian himself matters were almost brought to the like extremity yet neither did St. Cyprian though wonderfully sharp nor even that violent Cappadocian Bishop Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority though as they thought unjustly employed 4. The other is extant in the same St. Cyprian who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles siding with Novatian His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province and to the people of Arlâ—s commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated and another put in his place And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope 5. The third is that so well known example of Pope Victor concerning whom Eusebius thus writes Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia as declining into Heresie and sends Letters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharply reproved as one that was carelesse of the commodity of the whole Church Particularly Ireneus reprehends him telling him that he did very ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches Now in such reproofs from Ireneus and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quartâ— decimani against St. Victor it was not impuâ—ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was â—ot sufficiently weighty 6. Having proceeded thus far our last step shall be to the utmost degree the very beginning it self our Lord and St. Peter in the Gospels And here we will acknowledge what the Dâ—ctor saies that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone sustaining the person of the whole Church was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saies the same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were pari consortio praediti c. endowed with an equal participation of honor and power And as St. Hierom affirms that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium Canterbury or Rochester are of the very same merit c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to interpret it self and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves We grant therefore that all the Apostles and all Bishops their Successors enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either But for the external administration there may be and alwaies was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both among the Apostles and Bishops Let him not find fault with this distinction for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition affirms that Archbishops quoad Ministerium do not differ from other Pastors but touching Government page 303. And afterward page 386. Answering the same Argument out of St. Hierom who equals the meanest Bishop with the Pope he saies that they are equal quoad Ministerium but not quoad polittam 7. Let him take therefore an example illustrating this at home What Function what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Canterbury exercise I mean according to their Tenets which the meanest of his subordinate Bishops cannot perform He can ordain Bishops and Priests So can they the former with him the other without him He can visit his Prâ—vince they their Diâ—cesse He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation So can they He can assemble a Provincial Council They a Diocesan He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops c. They over Priests He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself they can do as much Yet nothing of all this excludes him from
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them 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 expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
Communion are not at all conducing to the Doctors Design I will refer him to the Judgment of Doctor Ferne of some weight no doubt with him who expresly saies and proves by Reasons not unlike these That nothing can be concluded by those two Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church Vniversally and in all the Members of it may be infected with Error in Points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith CHAP. X. Of Prayer for the Dead It s Apostolic antiquity Purgatory necessarily supposed in it The Doctor 's Objections answer'd 1. HAving treated so largely of the Preachers two pretended Noveltys 1. the Primacy of Iurisdiction of the See Apostolic and 2. the Infallability of the Church in her General Councils I might rationally enough neglect examining the following particular Dogma's which he likewise charges with Novelty and betake by self to the point of Schism because if the Church have a spiritual obliging Iurisdiction taking its Original from the Chair of St. Peter and again if what the proposes to us to be believed she proposes validly under the penalty of being separated from Christ since it is manifest that she so proposes the said particular Doctrins not in her Councils onely but universal practise wherein her Infallability is with an equal Autâ—ority demonstrated they ought without contradiction be submitted to Neverthelesse having some reason to doubt that in case any of his Novelties be omited he or at least some of his over-credulous Readers will impute such an omission to a difficulty in disproving him I must be content to take a trouble on me which is therefore only necessary because many Protestants are unreasonable 2. His third pretended Novelty is the Doctrin of Purgatory which he says We have from Origen or at the farthest from Tertullian and he from no better Author than the Arch-Heretic Montanus Nor does Bellarmin mend the matter by deriving it from Virgil Tully or Plato 's Gorgias 3. It would have been a great courtesie both to his Hearers and Readers if he had inform'd them why he singled out a speculative Point touching Purgatory and omitted one of far greated importance because obliging to Practise also which is Prayer for the Dead His way of proceeding doubtlesse does not want a Mystery And he must give me leave to answer his Novelty of Purgatory by speaking scarce any thing at all of it but only telling him nakedly the Churches Doctrin about it and by insisting on the confessed Antiquity Apostolic Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead which being cleared I defie all his learning and skill unlesse he can disprove this to deny or so much as question on the other 4. Now the Doctrin of the Church concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead is contained in this Decree of the Council of Trent There is a Purgatory and Souls detained there are helped by the suffraâ—es of the Faithfull that is by Prayers and Alms and most especially by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar By which Definition the Church obliges all Catholicks no farther than simply to believe that there is a place or state of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers c. The Council tells us nothing of the position of this place nor what incommodities Souls find in it nor whether there be fire c. which are Points that St. Augustin says he could not resolve On the contrary it forbids at least out of the Schools all curious subtile Questions concerning it all discourses which are not for edification 5. Having represented the Churches Doctrine I will next transcribe the Form of her Prayers for the Dead extant in the Canon of the Masse Remember likewise O Lord thy Servants who have gone before us with the Sign of Faith i. e. Baptism and repose in the sleep of peace We beseech thee O Lord mercifully grant to them and to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord. And after the Canon We beseech thee O Lord absolve the Soul of thy Servant from all chains of his sins to the end that in the glory of the Resurrection he may respire by a new life among the Saints and Elect through Christ our Lord. Now if it can be demonstrated that by the universal practise of the Primitive Church such Prayers as these were made for the Dead it unavoidably follows That the Souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hâ—ll And if so where are they Doctor Pierce speak like an honest man 6. To demonstrate this let him view narrowly these passages of the Holy Fathers before and during the space of the first four General Councils St. Denis the Areopagite or whoever was Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and who by confession of Protestants liv'd within the second Century after the Apostles declares that the Priest does demand from the Divine goodnesse for the person departed a pardon of all sins through human frailty committed by him and that he may be conducted into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into a place from which grief sadnesse and mourning it banished And presently after he testifies that What he commits to writing concerning this Prayer pronounced by the Priest for the Dead he received by Tradition from his Divine Teachers the Apostles 7. Next Tertullian Let the faithful Widdow saies he pray for the soul of her Husband and make an oblation in the Anniversary day of his death begging for him refreshment and part in the first Resurrection And to prevent the Preachers Objection that the Father learned this from the Arch-Heretick Montanus let him answer for himself We make saies he Anniversary Oblations for the Dead and for the Natalitia of the Martyrs And presently he adjoynes Concerning these and the like Observances if you require the Authority of Scriptures you will not find any Tradition shall be alleged to you for the Author custom for the confirmer and Faith the Observer 8. After him follows his Schollar blessed St. Cyprian The Bishops saies he that went before us have ordain'd that not any one of our Brethren at his death shall name in his Will for an Executor or Guardian any Ecclesiastical Person and if any one shall do otherwise that no Oblation should be made for him and that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for him at his death For such a one deserves not so much as to be named at the Altar in the Priests Prayer 9. Eusebius relates that at the Obsequies of the Emperor Constantine the People and Clergy unanimously sent up prayers to God not without tears and great groanings for the Soul of the Emperor Likewise Epiphanius disputing against the Heretick Aerius reckons this among his heresies as St. Augustin likewise does That he denyed
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
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
easily misled Soulâ— should be instructed in their Duâ—ies both as Christians and Subjects by plain Catechisms and Instructions prudently and sufficiently with all plainnesse gather'd out of Scripture then that the Bible should be put into their hands a Book the tenth part whereof scarce concerns them to know and in which the several Points wherein they are concern'd are so dispersed in several places so variously and somtimes so obscurely and so dubiously expressed that all the learning and subtilty of Doctors since it was written till these daies have been exercised in enquiring comparing discussing several Texts and clearing the true Doctrine of them fit for the conception of vulgar capacities The whole Direction necessary to govern Pastors in their permiting others to read the Holy Scriptureâ— is fully and excellently containd in that on Text of the Second Epistle of St. Peter 3. 16. Wherein the Epistles of St. Paul there are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable pervert as also the other Scriptures to their own perdition Two sorts of Reaâ—ers are here plainly forbidden by the Apostle for certainly none oâ— them who we know are apt to pervert the Scriptures should be permitted to read them Consider then how far these two words reach unlearned and unstable I doubt to ninety nine of every hundred in England Which if admitted not above one in a hundred were good discipline observ'd would be allowed to read the Bible Nor can it be Objected as usually Protestants do that the Scriptures are safely clear to every one in Fundamentals and mistakable onely in Points of lesser consequence since the very Text saies they are both hard to be understood and pervertible to the perdition of their Readers and if such Points as import Salvation or Damnation be not Fundamental I 'm utterly ignorant of the meaning of that word Let then the Learned and the steâ—dy Christian read and study and meditate thâ— Bible as often and as long as he will every Catholic will commend him but by no means should that liberty be given to the unlearned and unstable lest the Scripture it self condemn it as a boldnesse that may endanger their eternal Salvation And 't is observeable in King Henry the 8 th who after he had caused the English Bible to be publish't so as to be read by all without any restraint was forc't again after three years experience wherein he saw the many strange and horrid opinions rising among the ignorant people by occasion thereof by a new Act of Parliament to abridge the liberty formerly granted and to prohiâ—it upon the penalty of a months Imprisonment toties quoties that any Woman Husbandman Artificer Yeoman Servingman Apprentice or Iourny-man Labourer c. should read them to themselves or to others privatly or openly See Stat. 34 35. Hen. 8. 1. Because saith the Preface of that Statue his Highness perceived that a great multitude of his Subjects most especially of the lower sort had so abused the Scriptures that they had thereby grown and increased in diverse naughtie and erroneous Opinions and by occasion thereof fallen into great Divisions and Dissentions among themselves And if you say the Opinions the King calls here erroneous were the Protestant Doctrines discovered by the Vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures you may see the very Opinions as the Bishops collected them in Fox pag. 1136. un-ownable by any sober Protestant or Christian. A thing perhaps not unworthy the serious consideration of the present Governors who have seen the like effects in these daies 5. But as for other Lay-persons of better judgement and capacities and of whose submission to the Churches Authority and aversion from Novelties sufficient proofs can be given our Ecclesiastical Governors are easily enough entreated yea they are well enough enclin'd to exhort them to read the Scriptures themselves in their vulgar Tongues and are forward to assist them in explaining difficulties and resolving doubts that may occurr 6. And now let Doctor Pierce speak his Conscience if he dare do it Is not this way of managing the Consciences of Christs Flock and this prudent dispensing of Scripture very desireable yea actually in their hearts here in England that it may be in practise among them But it is now too late Their first Reformers found no expedient so effectual to call followers to them out of God's Church as by wastfully powring this Treasure into their hands and accusing the Church for not doing so not fore-seeing or not caring if in future times that which was an instrument of their Schism from the true Church would be far more effectual to multiply Schisms from their false one For the making an ill use of Scripture by ignorant or passionate Laicks is not altogether so certain or probable to follow in the Catholic Church where men are bred up in a belief and most necessary Duty of Submission even of their minds to her Authority for the delivering of the only true sence of Scripture Whereas in such Churches as this in which not any one Person ever was or can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by them can challenge an internal assent from any or that it may not without sin be contradicted to give the Scripture indefinitly to all who can read or are willing to hear it read without a Guide to tell them the true sense which they are bound to believe is to invite them to ascend into Moses Chair which such Reformer's themselves have made empty and vacant for them 7. The second Part of this pretended Novelty concerns Public Praying in an unknown tongue which says he may be fetcht indeed as far as from Gregory the Great that is ever since this Nation was Christian But is as scandalously opposite to the plain sence of Scriptures as if it were done in a meer despight to 1. Cor. 14. 13. c. And besides Origen it is confess'd by Aquinas and Lyra that in the Primitive times the public Service of the Church was in the common Language too And as the Christians of Dalmatia Habassia c. and all Reformed parts of Christendom have God's service in their vulgar tongues so hath it been in divers places by approbation first had from the Pope himself 8. I will acknowledge to Dâ—ctor Pierce that this is the only Point of Novelty as he calls it of which he discourses sensibly and as it were to the purpose But withall I must tell him it is because he mistakes our Churches meaning For he charges the Catholic Religion as if one of its positions were That Gods publick Service ought to be in an unknown Tongue or as if it forbad people to understand it And truly if it were so we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. 13 c. But all this is a pure mis-understanding Therefore I desire him to permit himself for once to be informed how the
be a sin so unpardonable that no ignorance unless supposed such as is invincible which I fear much fewer then is ordinarily imagined of those who have any liberal Education can pretend to in that great evidence and light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual Superiours penances and retirements from the world and several other signal marks of the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church no ignorance I say no surreption provocation c. can excuse it Some may be more deeply guilty and obnoxious to a heavier damnation then others as Ring-leaders more then followers but damnation is by the Fathers generally denounced as the portion of all 4. The true Reason whereof may be deduced from the example of all other Governments whatsoever The greatest offence a Subject can commit against Monarchy is an actual attempt or rather the attempt executed by which Monarchy is disolved Inwardly to condemn the Laws of such a Government to entertain Principles which if put in practise would withdraw Subjects from their due Obedience is an offence of an high nature but the actual cantonising of a Kingdom and the raising in it Courts or Iudicatories independent on and opposite to the Common Tribunal of the Country is the utmost of all crimes both the Seducers and Seduced are not only deprived of the priviledges belonging to good Subjects but pursued by Arms as the worst of all enemies 5. It is so in God's Church The main thing our Creed teaches us to believe of it is its unity without which it is not a Church Now if Vnity then Order then Subordination of Governours c. what therefore is the great sin against this fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism a dissolving the Communion and connexion that the members of this great Body have among themselves and with relation to the whole We all willingly acknowledge that the great sin of the Synagogue the sin that fill'd up the measurâ— of the crimes of the Iews was their murdering our Lord. Now sayes St. Chrysostom We shall not merit and incurâ—d less cruel punishment if we divide the unity and plenituâ— of the Church the mystical Body of our Lord then those have done which pierced mangled and tore his own Body And the very like expression hath St. Cyprian 6. There are very few Heresies that is only such Errors as are formally destructive to those very few verities or Articles of Faith without an explicite belief whereof no man can be saved which do in themselves simply as false opinions universally destroy Salvation Indeed if they have the formality of Heresie joyned to them and be maintained with a knowledge that they are contrary to the sence and authority of the Church then they have involved in them something of Schism or at least they are in an immediate disposition to Schism and in that regard all Heresies though in Points of themselves less important are damnative But Schism alone though there be no Heresie joyned with it immediately divides from the Body of Christ and consequently from Christ himself 7. But may not ignorance excuse the guilt of Schism No on the contrary in some regard it aggravates it For though Pride and Malice be far greater in the Leading Schismaticks persons of wit and learning yet ignorant souls and ideots seem more to contradict human reason because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being confessedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgments to Authority and consequently the preferring their own conduct or the conduct and direction of particular men or Churches before the universal Authority of the Church the excommunicating as it were the whole Church of God the esteeming all Christians both Pastors and Flocks as Heathens and Publicans is a presumption so contrary to human nature and reason that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them I speak not now of persons absolutely ideots who scarce know there are any other Pastors or any other Church then their own who pretend not at all to pass their judgements on other Religions but know only what their Pastors teach them having no ability by reason of their condition to examine Scriptures and Churches For such no doubt may by their simplicity and absolute invincible ignorance escape the malignity of Schism But I speak of inferiour Tradesmen of Gentlemen and Gentlewomen who have a capacity of being rightly instructed and better informed of that spiritual authority to which they owe their subjection and yet who by their own perversness become troubleâ— of the Church and who because they caâ— read the Scriptures take upon them to judge of the sence of them both for themselves and their Pastors c. Such as these no doubt have drunk in the very gall of Schism by usurping an authority which express Scripture sayes belongs only to Pastors 8. Some learned persons particularly Doctor Steward attribute much to the temper of the English Church which he sayes is like St. Cyprians Neminem condemantes aut a communione separantes and this alone they suppose will exempt Protestants as it did St. Cyprian from the imputation and penalty of Schism to which other violent Calvinistical Congregations are more obnoxious But the case is not the same This indeed did exempt St. Cyprian because as St. Augustin sayes the Church had not then decided the dispute to whose decision St. Cyprian would certainly have submitted The case of Protestants is evidently different If a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil authority would this excuse serve them to say We do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King we mean neither him nor them any harm they shall be welcom to come among us if they will we will be good friends we will not meddle with their doings But we will be govern'd only by our own Laws and Magistrates c I believe not Their civility in their rebellion will not change the Title of their crime nor free them from the punishment due to it it may perhaps qualifie the Princes resentment but the civillest Treason is Treason 9. Being to examine the Doctor 's Plea touching the Point of Schism I thought requisite to premise this consideration of its heynousness that both he and my self also should consider it as the most important of all other in which the least mistake will prove mortal I will add a bold word and undertake to justifie it Though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church had been guilty of Innovation in all the Points mentioned by the Doctor yet since by the Protestants confession those Points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her Communion will be in God's esteem very Schism CHAP. XX. How the Preacher vainly endeavours to excuse his Church from Schism Of the Subordination of Church Governors and Synods The breach of their Subordination is the
cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
our selves obliged to the assent unto which is far more then not to contradict And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church derived from the promises of Christ whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresie and an open contradiction to which Authority is formal Schism 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils And hereto we must add that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarks who live under the Tyranny of the Turk and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities as the four first were wherein all the five Patriarks were present at least by their Deputies Yet notwithstanding all this we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity Since therefore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected as was during the times of the Roman Empire the Supremest that can now be had ought to have the force and vertue of obliging which the former ones had the Anathemas of it must be as valid the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismatical as of any Council that ever went before Therefore Doctor Bramhal Lord Primate of Armagh in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church that is to a free General Council most rationally adds this clause or to so General as can be procured 13. Thus of General Councils As for inferior subordinate Councils though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable yet an obligation in both these respects they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to except they be evidently erroneous or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod And all by an Oecumenical of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to For if a Provincial Synod could annul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we profess in our Creed Vnam Catholicam Add to this that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide so that the fewer however they may be esteem'd the better or more learned must submit to them These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated 14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Vnity is the only true unering Touch-stone by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better let it be produced but that being impossible he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church and all other Congregations that call themselves Reformed But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical Independent or Fanatick Congregations because they renounce both all such Laws and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them Therefore leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them I will consider the Controversie as the Preacher stated it between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches I say as he hath stated it because being to treat of Schism he hath given the right notion of it and not mispent time and paper as some others have done with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation c. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion unless men also have with the Presbyterians c. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church CHAP. XXI The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd Dr. Feild c. Of Points Fundamental and Non-fundamental Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sanedrim Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that by which they were Enacted is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose but written in the hearts of all mankind that consider what Government is and it is as to Church-matters particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine when he declares the Order that is in the Church and which alone can keep it in unity Particular Writings of Bishops saies he if any Error be in them may be corrected by others more learned or by Synods and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils and oftimes former Plenary Councils may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils 2. This most Irrefragable Rule is that by which Schism may most certainly and undeniably be discovered And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants I mean the wisest and most learned among them yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation they put such restrictions exceptions to it as utterly take away all use of it For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supream Authority of the Church to reside in plenary or general Councils because he withal implies that such Councils may be corrected they therefore take the liberty to reject them at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance and by that means altogether inervate their Authority Not considering that in case the Decisions which he saies may be mended should regard matters of belief which perhaps upon better consideration may be expressed more commodiously and so as that they may be less liable to misconstruction yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority To demonstrate this I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants such as Doctor Field the late Arch-Bishop Lawd c. acknowledg in general Councils and withal how they circumscribe the same Authority 3.
These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
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
visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of same observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate And sect 56. What do you conclude saith he from â—ence but that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted where note that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners but also in Doctrines and Lawes for from several of these he will not deny Luther to have made a discession Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church Well let this be granted what will come of it That Luther must be a Scismatick By no means I say it is evident as these confess that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves from the whole world that is from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age Since not one Church upon earth antecedent to their separation can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion not one which has Laws or Governors in common with them not one that will joyn with them or with which they will joyn in publick Offices Lyturgies Sacrifices and Synods The English Church doth not pretend a Communion with Churches manifestly Heretical as the Armenian Coptite Abissine Nestorian Iacobite Georgian Churches c. And for the Grecian the Reformers at their first separation were actually divided from her and sure they will not say that by separation from the Roman they became ipso facto in communion with the Grecian or if they would say so the Grecian would protest against them as we see their Patriark Hieremias did c. 17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve which a late learned Protestant Writer in his discourse of Schism insists upon when seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus which was a Church independent of all other and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch For though this pretention could be made good which is impossible yet this would not serve their turn considering the English Church ever since her Conversion acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate But though she had indeed such a priviledge and never renounced it who will say the Cyprian Church because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction as Ordinations Visitations c. could therefore independently of all the world frame or change Articles of Faith or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Councils though onely Patriarckical CHAP. XXII The limitations of the Churches Authority made by Arch-Bishop Lawd c. examined Objections against the Proceedings in the Council of Trent answered Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation Secular and Carnal ends in it 1. HAving shew'd the indispensible obligation of even an internal assent that Roman Catholicks acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils as being infallible and which Protestants ought also to perform though they acknowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental since the Church her self hath not declar'd which of her Decisions are Fundamental and which not for she hath affixed Anathemas to many which in themselves are not Fundamental and hath said only si quis dixerit not si quis non crediderit concerning Doctrines which are unquestionably Fundamental and necessary We will now examine the foremention'd Limitations or cases in which it is said particular persons or Churches may and ought to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental or even for not contradicting them which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd Doctor Field c. 2. In the first place An assent even internal say they is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines only as are Fundamental or Points of necessary Faith because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends But who shall or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with respect to all particular states of men or Churches when the Church her self hath not made any distinction between them and perhaps cannot Surely Prudence and a most necessary care of our own Salvation by continuing in the Unity of the Church would dictate to us that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible and therefore cannot mislead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her Decisions as if they were of necessary Faith for only by doing so we can be sure not to err in necessary Points and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism 3. Secondly As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary if we could find them out the same internal assent say they is due except in two cases i. Vnless Scripture or evident demonstration come against them whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined in which case it is unlawful to assent yea it is permitted rather to contradict and separate But let any Christian mans conscience judge whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which express Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced This licence being admitted who shall be judge whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration be really one or no Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided None can judge of the thoughts of another So that upon these grounds whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred must be believed or however cannot be found fault withall for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church What Presbyterian writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church will doubt to say that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors And if he say so who can demostrate that he does not think so And if he think so he may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and God's Church too by the Archbishop's warrant for he taking notice page 245. that such an Objection will be made resolves it thus That a General Council he means another General Council must decide whether it be a demonstration or not Hence it will follow 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called 2. But if another General Council must decide it why hath not the last General Council which he disobeys decided it Or if this may not oblige him why should the next But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough For
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
assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches Here then are Seven of the Doctor 's Novelties confessed by Protestants themselves to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory which the English here received with their Christianity which also sufficiently appears to those who are yet unsatisfied out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England written about an hundred years after St. Gregory of whom the same Oâ—iander also relates That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein saith he we dissent at this day from the Pope And for the Two others of the Doctor 's Points 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue And 2. Infallibility himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time For thus he The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable that any fallible Authority should assume to it self For surely upon this ground it is that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith though they have put none such in our Creeds 13. By which it appears that this Sermon and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it might as justly have been preach'd and executed against our first Apostles St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk as against us And if against them then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline And consequently if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since I might go higher but this is even too too much That man surely must have a prodigious courage who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament or the 39. Articles than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes And this shall be done by making some Concessions and proposing some other Considerations c. CHAP. XXIV Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation and the vanity of their Distinctions Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 1. FIrst As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism it is borrowed from the late Archbishop The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church the later to no body He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Augustin thus writing to the Donatists Si possit quod fieri non potest c. If any could have which really he cannot possibly a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World How do you know c. Aâ—d again in the same Epistle There is the Church where first that Separation was made which you after perfected if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness as you Donatists do but in the Divine Scriptures where he sees the Church really become as she was promised to be spread through all Nations a City on a Hill c. Hence it is that the same Saint though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists yet whensoever he treats of their Schism he never meddles with any of their Opinions but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture and Promises of Christ which are absolute and unconditional So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation for which there can be no just one is vain and fruitless And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants than it was against the Donatists because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was and alwayes will be unerrable in Fundamentals and this as she is a Guide And further that the Roman is either this Church or at least a true Member of it 2. But Secondly whatever becomes of this Distinction his concession is That really a Formal Schism there is between us nay more that the Protestants made the actual departure and indeed they must put out their eyes who see it not The visible Communion between the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken The same Publick Service of God which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over they refuse to joyn in for fear of incurring sin Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws every where formerly in force they have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches have made new they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body and especially the Supreme Pastor they judged to be a formal Act of Schism Lastly the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority Traditionary only ancient and Primitive Now they called Apostatical Novelties Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other but all of them more then demonstrate it A Schism then there is therefore one of the parties is guilty not of causing but of being Schismaticks properly formally Schismaticks Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience and declare once more at Court which of us two are properly Schismaticks It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland when she asked if she were a Catholick No Madam said she with a low curtesy if it please your Ladyship I thank God I am a Scismatick but withal his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English Reformed Church 3. That which is opposed to Schism is Catholick Communion We shew saith Saint Augustine by our Communion that we have the Catholick Church Therefore in discourse of Schism one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine or of making a secession from
authorized Conference in which the only Design may be by consent to enquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow and without which it must not nor ought to be expected Let us understand one anothers Churches let us know one anothers essential Doctrines If there be any mistakes any misinterpretations on either side let them be cleared But till this be done and it can only be effected by them they must pardon us if according to the temper of calamitous unjustly oppressed persons we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon is in effect the most severe and bitter against us as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlawful 5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King Iames whose authority being his Supreme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal should surely have more then an ordinary influence over him That learned King in his before mentioned Speech hath these remarkable words I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion as laying wilfulness aside on both hands we might meet in the midst which is the Center and perfection of all things For if they of the Roman Church would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs as themselves cannot maintain nor deny to be worthy of Reformation I would fâ—r my own part be content to meet them in the mid-way so that all novelties might be renounced on either side See the condescence of this great King and compare it with the stiff humor of this little Doctor He 'l not comply with the least of our defilements not he Softly good Sir do you not as ill when you comply with the Lutherans who surely are not without some little stains Do you not as ill when you comply with the Hugenots who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean Look soberly into your own rashness you began the Separation that hath bred so many wars and so much licenciousness both in faith and manners upon points which your selves confess are not fundamental and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least difference between us Go now and close your Sermon with a few soft words Your arms are open to embrace c. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches c. of his divided defiled disgraced Spouse And when all 's done you 'l not stir an inch towards the peace you so gloriously talk of If this be Hypocrisie remember Doctor the woes that attend it if not express your self so sincerely hereafter that we may not suspect it For my part of all the faults in a Sermon to that of dissembling I here declare a Vitinian hatred as you learnedly call it Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander whom you commend for complaining of some abuses in the Church among other Authors which you there cite jumbling Protestants and Catholicks confusedly together for after all their zeal they dyed quietly in her bosom and did not like you tear in pieces the seamless Coat of our SAVIOUR and reject all terms of peace unless every pretence of yours be satisfied to a tittle I remember too a dogged word you gave us not far from the beginning of your Sermon where after you had reckoned up Socinians Antinomians Ranters Solifidians Millenaries Reprobratarians c. a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring to all which you yield more antiquity then any will allow your Reformation you pass them over with the gentler names of Heresie and Usurpation but when you come to the Pontificians you immediately grow high and rage and resemble them to the Mahometans c. blind and impertinent Passion Do you not see abroad a civil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and are they no better than Mahometans Do you not see in your own Country and at Court too Persons so qualified that you should blush at your own unmannerliness to compare them to Mahometans 6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns and making Decrees with a non-obstante to c. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since But surely they know Catholick Princes are wiser now and the Court of Rome too This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement On the contrary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome only what France Spain c. find extremely advantageous both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States And as for Decrees with a non-obstante he mistakes the terms of Apostolick Constitutions by which is intended Constitutions not made by the Apostles but former Popes And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin let me ask him a Question or two Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling instead of dipping non obstante that our Saviour and his Apostles instituted it otherwise Do they not think themselves obliged to communicate fasting non-obstante that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper Do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non-obstante the Apostles gave a command to the contrary All this they do because they think these things not essential or unalterable but left to the prudence of their particular Church Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils Mr. Ridley sayes Councils indeed represent the Vniversal Church and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth Doctor Bilson plainly confesses the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth And after fairly sayes The Fathers in all Ages as well before as since the Great Council of Nice have approved and prastis'd this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts Hooker professes The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin yea though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion Their Authority General Councils is immediately deriv'd and delegated from Christ sayes Potter And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Brethren I might say Fathers in this Point I shall not easily fall out with him about it but rather endeavour a further approach by offering this fair Proposal I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make question of the matters of Faith for those they were taught from their Childhood but to consult about their adversaries proofs and what arguments should be alleadged against them to consult
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.
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