Language is evidently to be prov'd out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ and in his Exposition on Psal 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this it might have been begun several hundred Years past for it can be prov'd that this Nation us'd Latin in her Publick Service above Nine hundred Years ago as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae under Archibishop Cuthbert But that which gives me full satisfaction herein is that our Apostle St. Austin who made us Christians taught us to serve God in that Language and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty to serve him in Publick Liturgies not in the Common Profane Vulgar Tongue but in the most Pure Sacred Language but it seems likewise to denote Unity that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church a German if in Italy a Frenchman if in Poland an Englishman if in Spain c. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day and being in one set Language they by vertue of their Catechisms Manuals Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue where the Prayers used by the Church are found and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day have several other Books Expounding the Churches Service to the meanest capacity Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein assisting them by their private Instructions so that the Sense of the Churches Liturgy is well understood even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity But this Practice of the Church in having her Liturgy in Latin being no Article of Belief but rather a Point of Church Discipline and as such not indispensable but changable whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable you who knew 't was in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein should have fairly requested it before you made the breach and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guids It may be the Church to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humour'd you condescending to what might have seem'd most expedient for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship the Church do's not hold it as unlawful but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue as she declares in the Council of Trent The Fifth Point is St. Peters Supremacy This is I must confess an Article which all Catholicks are oblig'd to believe and because it is of high import being the Basis of Papacy I intend to Discouse of it at large and to establish it The Sixth Point c. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy This flows naturally from the Fifth Jure successionis St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction The Seventh is the Popes Infallibility to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible separated from a General Council As for his granting Indulgences to break Gods Law as you accuse him of that is a false Crime of your own hatching for we deny any thing of that Nature knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes when 't is acknowledged as an Article of Catholick Faith I shall Discourse of it in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you or that you will absolve your self of your Allegiance and herein we shall desire no more of you than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes as we did by his Royal Brother and Father Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism for this you have Three strong Reasons The First is because she renounces Communion with other Churches c. As to this I must needs tell you that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her and then falsly to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you 'T is clear enough that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her and so found guilty of Schism and Heresie The Second is Because she denounces all damn'd who submit not to her This you look on as very hard and uncharitable tho' the Church herein is not blamable but those who dis-join themselves from her and stand in opposition to her she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate this she do's out of kindness rathan severity that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition may return to her Bosom and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconcil'd to her Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition cheating their baffled expectancy of their imaginary Paradise If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia Cyprian 62 Epist ad Pomp. and St. August in his 204 Epist to Donatus says Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris The Fathers are so strict herein that they look on that Person who separates from the Catholick Church to be in a damnable state tho' he leads a Religious Devout and Vertuous Life Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus non habet vitam sed ira Dei manet super ipsum says St. Austin to Donatus the Reason is because being separated from the Catholick Church he is consequently separated from Christ who is the Head to that Mystical Body Another Reason is Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur The Third Reason may be Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat as I find it St. Aust Serm. 181. de temp He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism is Because she sends her Emissaries into the known
the Old Testament being Imperfect Carnal Umbratick and Prefigurative of one that was Compleat Sublime and Spiritual Hence St. Chrysost Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosie of the Body but to these the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul they bring Fire but these the Holy Ghost And in his Orat. 5. adver Judaeos speaking of the Pontificate of Melchisedeck he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish how much more glorious is the true one Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs is Because by Divine appointment they were Custodes utriusque Tabulae This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversie but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it That by the frequent reading of it he might learn to fear God and keep his Statutes and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword he should defend the true Religion therein concontain'd As for the Interpretation of the Law that belong'd to the High-Priest according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam Legem requirent ex ore ejus They were as Josephus affirms in his Second Book against Appio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges of Controversies And in Deut. 17. Princes were by Gods institution to take the Copy of it from the High-Priest And in the same Chapter in doubtful Cases the Jews were oblig'd to recurr to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations Now whether the Jewish High-Priest were liable to Error as you assert is not worth my present Discussion no Catholick being bound to believe the Popes Infallibility but in Conjunction with a Council But this is clear the Jews were absolutely oblig'd to submit to his determinations under penalty of Death he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS By this you may imagin how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirm'd him Fallible and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions You see our Savior put no such fancies into their Heads but paid much respect to Moses's Chair and tho' he knew that those who sat in it were bad Men yet he says Quaecunque vobis dixerint facite And St. Paul stiles the High-Priest tho' a Persecutor of the Christians Princeps Populi CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes these you assert to be Heads of the Church and your Reason for this Assertion is this That if a King be Head of his Kingdom he is Head of the Church because that is in his Kingdom This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument to prove a Nero Head of the Church because in its Infancy it was in his Dominions But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein and acquaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom and how they may be Supreme Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus non ut Christiani sed ut homines sunt Reges non ut Christiani praesunt sed ut homines politici c. And again Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos ut Christiani sunt homines id est Cives terrenae Civitatis Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum Domestici Dei Ecclesiae membra Hence you may see that a King may be absolute in his Kingdom and yet not be Head of the Church those two Estates residing in two several Persons as being of distinct and different Natures The ones Dominion extending to Mundan Temporal Corruptible things the Body and Goods of Fortune the other reaching to things Spiritual Eternal Celestial to things appertaining to another World and Salvation of the Soul And 't is necessary to have two such distinct Governors The Civil Power to maintain Peace to protect and secure us in our Temporals The Ecclesiastick to teach us the true Worship of God to feed us with Food that perisheth not to direct us in Spirituals to the attainment of Eternal Bliss These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another or any way interfere but by way of abuse but rather assistant to one another being in themselves Friendly and Amicable Hence Samuel having anointed David King kissed him the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement and Accord betwixt these two Governments they are both Independent so as one might not usurp on the other or hinder the other in the due Execution of their Charge The Prince is absolute in Administration of all Civil Matters in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor as Tertull. has it ad Scapul or as Chrysost says in Hom. 2. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth The Priest on the other side presides in Church Government in Spiritual Affairs in Resolutions of Controversies in Faith in Explications of Articles of Belief in Interpretation of Scripture c. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale They are both of Divine Institution The Kingly Power communicated to Princes from Heaven their Charter being deriv'd from God by whom Kings Reign The Priestly Jurisdiction originated from Christ subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power Now to admit and submit to the Sacerdotal Power as Supreme in things meerly and purely Spiritual do's not at all dislustre the Regal Sway nor defringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction the former properly insinuating it self to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses where the Scepter of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion Having premis'd thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes whom you affirm to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs is not deny'd several of them being Arians but that they did it de jure will not be yielded you neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right for 't is evident that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their
the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
Reign of Henry the Eighth agreed with the Church of Rome and all other Churches in her Communion concerning Faith and Doctrine is undeniable That at his coming to the Crown there was an Actual Church Government settled by a long continuance in Antient Possession is undebatable That Protestants alter'd the then own'd Faith and brake the Bands of that Government is manifest to the World Both the Time when and Occasion why can be assign'd Moreover That the first Protestants were born of Catholick Parents and Originally in the Communion of the Catholick Church is unquestionable and that they as desirous of Innovation voluntarily departing from that Church renouncing those points which were Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government ipso facto became Schismaticks is easily prov'd for Schismaticos non fides diversa facit sed communionis disrupta societas says St. Hierom on Matt. 11. Now how Rome should be guilty of Schism which did never withdraw from any known Christian Society or depart from the Communion of any former Church with which before she held Communion I cannot possibly apprehend she continu'd fix'd where she was as the Pillar and Firmament of Truth All Hereticks and Schismaticks go out of her this going out is an antient note of Falshood Truth being elder than Error They went forth from us 1 John 2. 19. And certain that went from us Acts 15. 14. and accordingly St. Austin 3. tract Epist Johan says Omnes Haeretici omnes Schismatici ex nobis exierunt i. e. ex Ecclesia exeunt And de Symb. Lib. 1. Haereses omnes de Ecclesia exierunt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice And in this Case the Rule of Optatus is very observable Videndum est quis in radice cum toto Orbe manserit quis for is exierit Lib. primo Now as for Luther and Calvin when they had voluntarily departed from the Roman Church they separated from all the Christian-Churches in the World and consequently from the Catholick Church for they did not adjoyn themselves in Communion of Sacraments to any Christian Church which was existent before their revolt from the Roman there being not one Church to be found upon Earth antecedent to their Apostacy to which they did apply themselves after their defection but they stood alone till they had acquir'd more Revolters out of the Roman Communion this is most clear and confess'd by themselves Luther in his Preface to King Henry says of himself Solus primo eram and Calvin to the same effect in his Epistle to Melancthon Absurdum est postquam discessionem a toto orbe facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab aliis dissilire So this New Church at the first was but one Person which by the accession of more Schismaticks grew numerous being protected by the Secular against the Spiritual Power But to prove your departure from the Roman Communion to be unvoluntary and consequently not Schismatical according to your definition of Schism you cite a saying which you say was King James's Non fugimus sed fugamur I must confess I never could be inform'd how the truth of these Words could be made out for Protestants before their Excommunication having made a wilful breach may be said to be Fugitivi rather than Fugati and accordingly their Expulsion may not so properly be term'd a driving them out of the Church as their Punishment for going out they having before deserted the Church of their own accord So she had too much reason to make use of her Spiritual Weapons for they by their Novel Doctrine and Schismatical Separation having first receded from her and by way of Anti-communion rais'd a new party of Pretended Reform'd Christians distinct from the general Body of the Catholick Church having instituted new Rites and moulded new Articles of Faith contrary not only to the Roman but to the Faith of all particular Churches then known immediately before they began their Separation and refusing to Communicate and joyn with her in Publick Liturgy and Participation of Sacraments disowning her Faith and Power to which they had submitted for above 900 Years and persisting obstinate in their Opinions and Separation the Church having with much patience attended their return and having try'd all Methods that might seem conducive to their amendment was enforc'd at last to proceed against them according to her Canons by a just Excommunication eliminating them from her Bosom for their Schism as St. Paul did the Infamous Corinthian for his Incest who by the heinous offence gave the first cause of his Excision So 't is manifest that the orignal departure was theirs and accordingly St. Hierom in his Comments Epistle to Titus avers Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo And Cyprian in his Fortieth Epistle Paenas quas meruerunt pependerent ut a nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent de Ecclesiâ se expellerent For the Church forsakes no Person neither doth she eject any but like a tender Mother cherishes her Children in her Vital and Fotive Breast unless such as wilfully separate themselves by their obstinate adhesion to Heretical Doctrines or by persevering in a Flagitious course of Life so as she is not now the hindrance of their Reunion so neither was she at first the occasion of their Separtion Protestants well knowing that their formal Schism can neither be deny'd nor maintain'd find themselves oblig'd to acknowledge the Matter of Fact but to blanch and candy their Crime pretend to have had a just Cause given them for their Separation and upon this supposition accuse the Church of Rome of causal Schism This is what I conceive Dr. Stillingfleet to mean when he says The Church of Rome imposing unlawful Conditions of Communion it was necessary not to Communicate with her Bishop Lawd is very clear herein The cause of Schism is yours says he for you thrust us from you because we call'd for Truth and Redress of Abuses As for Abuses if any were crept in they ought to have been redress'd and this is properly Reformation but to alter receiv'd Articles of Faith establish'd by Councils that is Heresie But I could not be satisfied what truth it was that the Bishop says they call'd for I am fully convinc'd that in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Reign our English Church did retain as a faithful depositary all those Sacred Truths which Gregory the Great convey'd unto us by St. Austin who I do fully believe did convert this Nation to the true Faith establishing his Doctrine with Miracles which Doctrine is still preserv'd unstain'd by the Catholicks of this Kingdom So I could not understand what the Bishop meant by calling for Truth neither could I tell when or by whom it was call'd for I must confess Henry the Eighth who open'd the Sluces to let in all the ensuing Mischief did call and that Vocally but not for Truth
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
things besides God are to be Adored as in August de Civit. Dei Lib. 10. c. 4. Homines si multum eis addatur etiam adorandi and Cyr. Alexand. Hom. de Deipara Crux adoratur toto orbe torrarum Accordingly Lactantius Flecte genu Lignumque Crucis venerabile adora And St. Hierom Epist 17. says Baptistae cineres adorate St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration on Theodosius praises the Empress Helena for setting the Cross upon the Crown of Kings that it might be ador'd in them Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit locavit ut Crux Christi in Regibus adoretur And St. Hierom in Epitaph Paulae reports of her that having at Hierusalem found out the Cross upon which Christ suffered she ador'd it as if she even had seen our Saviour hanging on it St. Chrysost is very clear herein in several places but more especially in his Hom. de Adorat Crucis That the Primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Cross may be prov'd out of Tertullian in his Apology where he acknowledges that the Heathens took notice of it and accus'd them as Crucis Religiosos This double acceptation of the word Adoration was well known to Mr. Thorndike who affirms the words Adoration Worship Respect and Reverence to be equivocal and the cause of this Equivocation to be for want of words to signify those conceptions which flow not from Common Sense and from this Equivocation in those words the greatest part of the difficulties which occur take their rise So you may see how deceitfully you deal by us herein always taking the words Adore Worship as importing Supreme Honor to God and then falsely accusing us of giving Gods Honor to a Creature or Image which we detest with a greater abhorrency than your self The other thing the Council took care in not to leave the least umbrage of suspition of Idolatry to any Rational Man is that they did disown any Virtue or Divinity to be in them that upon that account they should be respected or that they should be requested any thing or any trust reposed in them as the Gentiles did c. and this puts me in mind of what Gregory several hundred Years before the Council wrote in his Seventh Book of his Epistles to Secundinus who it seems had desired Gregory to send him some Pictures which he did and likewise instructs him in the right use of them agreeable to the Council Scio quidem quod Imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas sed ut ad recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas cujus te imaginem videre desideras nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur sed illum adoremus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed in Throno sedentem recordamur CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation THe next Point by which you would prove Rome guilty of Schism is Transubstantiation which you have lewdly abused and injuriously represented but I am afraid you are not so much offended at the word as at the meaning of it As to the word the Church was pleas'd to make use of it as fit and proper to declare the change of the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ Quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat As the Lateran Council says Canone Secundo And accordingly the Council of Trent Quae conversio convenienter proprie à S. Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellatur The Council defines not the word to be of Faith but makes use of it as a fit word expressive of their Sense so that if you can tell me a more proper one than this I shall not quarrel with you about it For names of words speaking in their rigour are not Objects of Faith as Athanasius shews in his Reconciliation of the Verbal Controversie of Person and Hypostasis but the Matter and Sense therein couch'd As to the newness of the word which is often objected tho' it was never in Latin publickly authoriz'd before the Council of Lateran yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be prov'd to be very antient and the thing thereby signify'd seems as old as Christs celebration of his Supper For a Point of Faith may be elder in it self than the Council that defines it The Consubstantiality of the Son and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost must be admitted to be elder than the Council of Nice and Constantinople that defin'd them The Conciliary Definition being generally occasion'd by the emergency of Heretical Opinions contrary to the Sense of the Church which had they not arose the Church had never been necessitated to a more Explicit Declaration Thus it happened here Sundry monstrous Opinions being broach'd about the Blessed Sacrament the Church was oblig'd to intervene with her unerring determinations establishing the Truth and dispelling Error Now tho' this Article was always in it self of the substance of Faith and tho' the thing signify'd by the new term was always held as a Divine Truth yet it was not obliging under that notion till the Solemn Declaration of the Church Quae veritas etsi prius erat de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata as Scotus says Now that the Church has power to coyn a new word for the Elucidating Truth and that she hath made use of this Power is clear by the Council of Nice which to declare Christs Consubstantiality with the Father found out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Council of Ephesus which to express the Mystery of Christs Divine Incarnation made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara That the Fathers long before the Council of Lateran and Trent did believe a Real change after the consecratory words is most evident and accordingly to express their belief of a Real Conversion they make use of Real Changes mention'd in Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent Water into Wine Hence the Greek Fathers call this mutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming after the Consecration the Symbols to be chang'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek words importing Transelementation Transfaction Transmutation Transfiguration Thus St. Ambrose Lib. 4. de fide Per Sacrae Orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur sanguinem and Lib. 4. de Sacramento Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod jam corpus est Christi ipse dixit factum est And again Sermo Christi qui poterit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant And accordingly George Nyssen in orat catechet Recte Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credo transmutari And Cyril Hieros in his Catech. Myst says Panis
Vinum Eucharistiae ante sacram invocationem adorandae Trinitatis Panis erat Vinum merum peractâ invocatione Panis fit corpus Christi Vinum Sanguis Christi And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread is chang'd into the very Body of Christ Now that we might not disbelieve this stupendous change because 't is supernatural he tells us how it is effected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread is chang'd into the Flesh of our Lord by arcane words by the Mystical Bendiction by the accession of the Holy Ghost on John 6. St. Chrysost in his 83 Hom. on Matt. says That this change is not a work of Human Power but Christ himself performs it He Sanctifies and Transmutes it That Christ who as soon as he will'd or spoke a thing by his Omnipotency effected it as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will the Leaper was cleans'd as soon as he said Lazare exi foris he caus'd and enabl'd him to come forth as soon as he Commanded the Devils to dislodge out of the Demoniacks he drave them out as soon as he ordered the Winds to hold their Breath he caus'd a Calm as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he rais'd the Virgin to Life The same Almighty Jesus at his last Supper having taken Bread into his Hands and having said Hoc est Corpus meum did by vertue and energy of those Operative Divine Words incomprehensively ineffably change and transelement it into his Body and the like concerning the Wine This adorable Mystery I shall not in the least question because I cannot comprehend it that is to incur Nicodemus his Error neither will I disbelieve it because 't is above the strength of Nature that was the weakness of Zaoharias but with the Blessed Virgin I will rely on the word of God who neither can deceive nor be deceiv'd Fiat secundum verbum tuum firmly without any diffidence by a generous and vivid Faith acquiescing in the veracity of Christ his words Cum Christus ipse affirmet ac dicat hoc est corpus meum quis deinceps audeat dubitare ac eodem dicente hic est Sanguis meus quis dubitet ac dicat non esse Sanguinem Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum quod est Sanguini propinquum non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutâsset Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus Sangninem sumamus nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus sub specie Vini Sanguis says St. Cyril in his Mystag Catechism Which words are as clear for Transubstantiation as any thing in the Council of Lateran or Trent Now as I do undoubtedly believe that when Christ spake these words they had their effect as soon as they were uttered and for this I have St. Chrysost Authority who affirms That Christ when he said this is my Body made it his Body So with the same Father I do believe when a lawful Priest of the Catholick Church pronounces the same Consecratory words that they have the same effect Sacra ipsa oblatio sive illum Petrus sive Paulus sive cujusvis meriti sacerdos offerat eadem est quam dedit Christus Discipulis quamque sacerdotes modo conficiunt nihil habet ista quam illa minus cur id quia non sanctificant homines sed Christus qui illam antea sacraverat in his 2. Hom. on 2 Epist Timothy I know this Doctrine is much oppos'd by our Adversaries and they fancy that we are sufficiently confuted by having it try'd at the Tribunal of our Senses but this is not at all prevalent with me for Christ never intended that this supernatural change should be subjected to our External Senses for had it been visible to them it could not have been matter of Faith which is properly argumentum rerum non apparentium It is observable that Christ before he wrought this invisible Miracle had done many visible ones to convince his Disciples of his Divine Power they having imbibed that belief could never rationally doubt of his Veracity or Ability in performance of what he had said knowing him to be Omnipotent Ipse Dominus testificatur nobis quod Corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem quid debemus de ejus fide testificatione dubitare says St. Ambrose Christ then willing to exercise their and our Faith in this Mystery and at the same time to free us from eating Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper Species which we naturally abhor was pleas'd to give us them Clothed Apparell'd under another Species of Bread and Wine Quod occulis apparet species sunt visibles panis vini quod sub speciebus iisdem fides nostra non sensus aut ratio comprehendit id verum Christi corpus And accordingly Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore God indulgently condescends to us and preserves the Species of Bread and Wine but transelements them into the strength of his Flesh and Blood There is no question but that the Fathers were Men of Sense and as acute and subtle Persons as any of our Adversaries yet in judging of this Mystery they admitted not their Senses as Umpires Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi absurdum esse videtur quod dicit superat sensum rationem nostram sermo ipsius verba Domini falsa esse nequeunt sensus noster saepe fallitur quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est Corpus meum nulla teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus says St. Chrysostom in his 60 Orat. ad Pop. Antioch and some of them advise us not to judge of this great Mystery either by our tast or by our sight being of an higher nature than to have such an inquest to sit on 't Non est panis etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod a nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse says St. Cyril in his Catech. St. Ambrose raiseth a Question for you but then he solves it Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem ut nullus horror sit cruoris Lib. 4. Sacrament And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But why do's it seem to us not to be Flesh but Bread that we should not loath the eating of it And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems unto us to be Bread but 't is Flesh indeed And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is chang'd by an ineffable energy tho' it seems to us to be Bread Now the high abuse you offer Catholicks in this Point is by representing our belief herein after a Gross Carnal Capharnaical meaning impressing those of your Party with the same false Ideas concerning us as the Heathens conceiv'd against the Primitive Christians as if we were a Barbarous Inhumane sort of Cannibals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
same place he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The firm Rock of the building the Foundation of the House of God In his Ancorat he says thus of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was assisted by the Father in laying a firm Foundation of Faith And in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all respects Faith was establish'd and confirm'd in him St. Cyril who in his 4th Book de Trinit says Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa firma Discipuli fides c. Do's not take his Faith apart from his Person but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan In Petro tanquam in Petra Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan Nec Simon fore nomen sed Petrum dixit vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam And on the First of St. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon him he destin'd to build his Church My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point whom I find Lib. de Incarnat Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church his words are these Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt sed confessio vincit Infernum These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine he triumphantly cries out Audin ' Jesuita Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered For first no Catholick do's affirm the Church to be built on Peters Flesh so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas do's the Heavens by virtue of a strong robust Back and a pair of broad Shoulders neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul but on his Person consisting of Body and Soul Next I shall prove out of Ambrose that altho ' he calls Faith the Foundation he do's not deny Peters Person to be so likewise as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae And in Lib 4. Lucae Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet turbatur illa quae Judam habet quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est Et de Incarn Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris imo prae caeteris ideo fundamentum dicitur And Lib. 4. De fide Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit St. Basil tho' he is pleas'd to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 2d Isaiae The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock because it is firmly rooted in Faith Yet do's he not offer to depose his Person as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peters Person St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te And in the same place Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata De bono patientiae Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia 52. Epist Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat super quem posuit fundavit Ecclesiam De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit c. Epist 70. Baptisma unum Spiritus Sanctus unus una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis ratione fundata in the same Epistle Tertullian who in his Book de Pudicitia says concerning Peter In ipso Ecclesia extructa is pleas'd to explain himself thus id est per ipsum In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peters Faith but on his Person Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter hoc Petro conferre super te inquit edificabo Ecclesiam meam tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresie of Montanus And in his Prescriptions Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae Petra dicitur And again in Monog Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum Monogamum praesumo per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles whom to lessen and extenuate St. Peters Glory you would equalize with him that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foundations I concede to you Oecomenius on the Apocalyps gives the reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they laid the first ground-work of Faith in Christ And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae They in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World In relation to their Doctrin they were equally Orthodox and Infallible And what concern'd their Writings they being directed and influenc'd by the same Spirit they were alike Canonical and what appertain'd to the Government of all other Christians they were equally Pastors Heads and Rectors And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo as St. Hierom says on all of them Now notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promis'd to build his Church which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever but even of the Apostles themselves If they were Foundations so was St. Peter and the Prophets if they were Foundations they were Sub Petro post Petrum whom our Savior to preserve Unity chose out of the Apostolick Colledge and with his own Hands laid next to himself as Theophyl affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church will appear evident if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the other Apostles till they had learn'd it of him were ignorant of this I have already prov'd Now what our