the main purpose of the Reformation was to cut off the superstitious innovations of the Romish Church and stiâ—k to the Christian simplicity and gravity of the Primitive Apostolic Church This will appear evidently by comparing the present form of Ordination used in the Church of England with the most qualified of ancient formularies established in the fourth Council of Carthage celebrated by 214. Fathers whereof St. Augustine was one in the year 398. Honorius and Arcadius being Emperours of which Council Baronius gives this honorable Character Extitit hujusmodi Carthaginense Concilium veluti Ecclesiasticae promtuarium disciplinae non quidem recens inventae sedantiquioribus * Baron An. 393. n. 68. usu receptae atque ad pristinam consuetudinem revocatae This Council of Carthage was as it were a treasure of Ecclesiastic Discipline not newly invented but used by the ancient and restored to the former custom He adds that this Council was taken as a pattern by the other Churches both Eastern and Western I have perused carefully this Council and conferred it with our form of ordination set down in the Book of Common Praiers as also with the form of Ordination used in the Roman Church as contained in their latter Poâ—tifical published by Autority of Pope Clement the 8. printed at Rome in the year 1595. Clement complains of many errors crept into the former Pontificals and purposes to mend them in this latter according to the rule of ancient integrity for which purpose it seems no better rule could be taken then the foresaid Council of Carthage for the reasons aforesaid of Baronius Now if we shew that our form of Ordination is more agreeable to that of the Council of Carthage then the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical we shall prove that we stand for the most warrantable antiquity and consequently for right in this point I will not dispute now about those called inferiour Orders in the Roman Church both because none will pretend them to be essential to Church Discipline and the duties appropriated to them are performed in both Churches sometimes by persons constituted in no order and sometimes by those in sacred Orders I will therefore only treat of the three sacred orders proposed by Suarez out of Optatus Milevitanus as necessary to the constitution of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to wit Bishops Priests and Deacons And beginning with Deacons the said Council in the fourth chapter hath only these words Diaconus cum ordinatur solus Episcopus qui eum benedicit manum super caput illius ponat quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur When a Deacon is ordained only the Bishop who blesseth or ordaineth him is to lay his hand on his Head because he is not ordained to Priesthood but to ministery Here we have three things declared the Minister the matter the order the Minister is only the Bishop the matter or the exteriour sign is the imposition of hands the form is not described in particular but is included in the word benedicit for to bless here is nothing else but to pronounce the words by which the power of this order is conferred to the Person ordained all which is exactly performed in the Ordinationof Deacons by the Church of England as we have seen in the Chapter precedent Now touching the Ordination of Priests the Council decrees thus Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput illius tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manus Episcopi super Caput illius teneant When a Priest is ordained the Bishop blessing him and laying his hand on his Head the Priests present are likewise to lay their hands on his Head together with the Bishops hands Of this decree likewise the Church of England is as observant as the Roman is negligent for in their present Pontifical above mentioned of Clement the Eighth I see no mention made of what the Council decrees that the Priests present should lay their hands together with the Bishops hands upon the Head of him that is to be Priested and their practice goes accordingly But in lieu of this ceremony decreed by the Council of Carthage I find many others substituted in the foresaid Pontifical of which the Council makes no mention such as those about the amict albe girdle maniple stole cope candles crosses oil and the like And which is more remarkable the Council makes no mention of that great and chief ceremony used in the Roman Church and appointed in the aforesaid Ponâ—ifical and wherein some of their Authors will have the very essence of Priestly ordination to consist as we have seen above out of Bellarmin that the Bishop is to deliver to the person to be Priested after having anointed his hands with holy Oil the Chalice with wine and water and the Patin over it with the hoast or wafer saying Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam per defunctis Receive power to offer sacrifice unto God and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead If this ceremony were so essential or the power of sacrificing were so inherent to Priestly ordination as the present Church of Rome will have it to be certainly that grave and venerable Council of Carthage would not have passed it over with so deep a silence when it descended to particularize the duties and performances of inferiour Ministers not so necessary as those of Priests as may be seen in the ensuing Chapters of that Council from the fifth chapter forward Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops the aforesaid Council of Carthage has these words Episcopus cum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum Codicem super Caput cervicem ejus uno super eum fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis Caput ejus tangant When a Bishop is ordained let two Bishops put and hold the Book of the Gospels over his head and neck and one blessing him let all the other Bishops that are there present touch his Head with their hands Here three things are required the giving or placeing of the Book the imposition of hands and the blessing to be given whereof the placeing of the Book is no essential part as * Vasquez in 3. p. disp 240. w. 63. Vasquez declares and so both Churches deviate somthing from the form mentioned for if we are to believe Vasquez and the Pontifical he quotes the Book of the Gospel is put upon the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated not by the Bishops consecrating but by one of the Chaplains and he relates out of Pope Clement that anciently it was performed by the Deacons who are no Ministers of this Order Neither do I find by Mr. Mason that the Pontifical he saw do's contradict what Vasquez saies yet I find it otherwise in the Roman Pontifical forementioned of Clement the Eighth to be seen
you speak all being the Word of God tho not in the same degree of necessity to be explicitly believed by all men Therefore to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental is fallible is to say that the Word of God is fallible which without Controversy is a formal Blasphemy Poor Logician is this your Argument in Ferio for which you thought a solid Answer could not be found For a Syllogism in Feriâ— to be concluding the Premises must be allowed and will you have us allow your Premises when one of them is found to be a formal Blasphemy But it seems this horrible Blasphemy did not fall from him unawares it was with deliberation He goes to prove it and see how The Church can err and is fallible in Points not Fundamental therefore these Points are fallible This is another goodly piece of Logic which proves that Points Fundamental are likewise fallible Men can err and have erred in Points Fundamental therefore these also are fallible in your Dialect This is not to distinguish Subjective fallibility from the Objective to pass the imperfections of the faculty upon the object Mr. I. S. looks upon the Sun with squint or dim eies therefore the Sun is dim or squint The Pope can err and is fallible in declaring the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible Your brethren of Clermont Colledg who defended in their Theses mentioned chap. 6. that the Pope hath the same Infallibility which Christ had may think that consequence legal The Pope is fallible about the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible because the Pope hath the very same Infallibility which Christ the very Word of God hath But we that a low no such Equality of truth to men cannot take fallibility in the Word of God for a consequence of mans fallibility about it From the foresaid Position you proceed to the second grand Thesis prefixed to your Chapter That Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets This is sure a rare shew of your wit a product of your own invention never heard of before I confess to have never heard the like and thus you go to prove it Protestancy or the points wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is but a parcel of fallible doctrine but no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture therefore Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets Make of the Major what you please for the present what desperate Proposition is that of the Minor That no fallible doctrine may without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture By this all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church all Divines that alledg Scripture for their several opinions which they do not pretend to be infallible nor more then probable opinions are guilty of Blasphemy in your esteem But that this so much solemnized Argument may not be altogether useless I will retort it upon your self with more force and less cavil proving by it that your Church is not the Church of Christ And thus I argue for it in your own terms No Church is any further the Church of Christ then as it teacheth the doctrine of Christ but the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church or in as much as it differs from it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ The Minor Proposition That the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant Church doth not teach the doctrine of Christ I prove thus The doctrine which the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth teach is Popes Infallibility and Supremacy over all the Christian Church Transubstantiation Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Indulgences half Communion Liturgy in an unknown tongue prohibiting the people to read holy Scripture c. all which I have declared in my former discourse not to be the doctrine of Christ but all contrary to it and in this present Treatise will more fully declare the same Therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ and consequently is not the Church of Christ CHAP. XI A Refutation of several other Attemts of Mr. I. S. in that eighth Chapter YOU are prolix in pretending that Protestants have not unity of Faith with Papists God forbid they should agree in all with them spare bragging that they claim kindred with you It is a great piece of courtesy and charity in Protestants to admit kindred with you or allow you to be a part tho infected and corrupted of the Catholic Church a courtesy I say in some thing like that of Bellarmin in admitting even the most scandalously wicked of men Epicures in manners and Atheists in belief to the Communion of his Church provided they do but exteriourly own the Romish Religion and Obedience to the Pope tho but for temporal ends His kindness to his Lord the Pope and zeal for his grandeur makes him extend thus his courtesy Our love to our Lord Christ makes us admit kindred with you and to take you for Members of the Church Universal in as much as you confess with us tho but verbally the chief Articles of his doctrine contained in the Creed You proceed to exhort Protestants to an examen of their Belief whether they be in the right I wish your party did comply so well herein with their duty or were permitted to do it as Protestants do and are allowed Here they inquire dispute and read carefully Books for and against their Tenets They are permitted to do it and encouraged in it by their Instructors You will not allow your people to read dispute or doubt at all of your Tenets You say Protestants are obliged in conscience to doubt of their Religion while you tell your own people they are obliged in conscience not to doubt of theirs How came your Church by this Prerogative because 't is unerring and unerrable as the Title of your Book saies but the Book do's not prove as we are shewing Why are Protestants oblig'd to doubt of their Religion because it is new say you This was the Argument of Pagans to stop the preaching of the Gospel more improperly and with less ground used by you Our Religion is the Ancient and yours the New as we prove Where was our Religion say you before Luther A question which for one too old should be cast away We answer where yours never was in the Word of God and in the true Records of Primitive Christianity You conclude your heterogeneous Chapter and your first part of your Book with mentioning the Treatise or Paper I penned some years ago in favor of the Salvation of Protestants against your vulgar Teachers damning all to hell for Heretics without reserve or distinction You say the doctrine I delivered was true but it was indiscretion to declare it in
shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come therefore say they some sins are pardoned in the other world I denied the consequence because out of a Negative a Positive do's not follow as out of this Premise Joseph knew not his wife until she had brought forth her first born son This consequence follows not in opinion of good Christians therefore he knew her after Mr. I. S. answers this consequence follows according to the letter of the Text but the Autority of the Church obligeth to believe it was not so that 's to say the Church declares against the Text. If you were not tied to this other engagement you would deem such a saying to be a dis-respect to your Church but hard undertaking puts people to hard shifts Bellarmin was contented to infer the existence of Purgatory out of the foresaid Text of St. Matthew according to the Laws of Prudence tho not according to the rules of Logic. But Mr. I. S. as more stout will pretend it to be evident according to rules of Faith and Logic. The Text goes thus He that will speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him but he that will speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the future out of which words he argues thus The Text denies to a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost what it grants to a blasphemy against the Son of Man but what it denies to the former is remission in this life and the other therefore what it grants to the latter is remission in this life and the other I answer that the major Proposition is false for more is denied to the sin against the Holy Ghost then allowed to the sin against the Son of Man for to the former is expresly denied pardon relating to both worlds and to the latter pardon is promised only indeterminate and so may be verified with pardoning in one life tho not in the other And tho Major and Minor were true the Consequence do's not follow according to rules of Logic which declare that where all the Premises are particulars such are those of that Syllogism the Conclusion is not convincent as in this Syllogism A man speaketh Peter is a man therefore Peter speaketh Mr. I. S. produces another Argument upon the same Text of a strange contexture It s evident saies he out of this Text that as blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable so all other sins are pardonable but a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable in this world and in the future therefore other sins are pardonable in both The Major of this Syllogism is false first since it will have an adequate paritâ— in both cases relating to the places of pardon for which there is no ground in the Text as declared above touching the Major of the former Syllogism Secondly for saying that all other sins are pardonable for which neither is there any ground in the Text since from a particular Premise an Universal Conclusion may not be deduced from saying that a sin against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable it follows not by any rule of Faith or Logic that all other sins are pardonable for tho that occasion did require to speak only of a sin against the Holy Ghost possible it is that another sin may likewise be unpardonable And I can depose that I saw defended in a famous public Dispute wherein I had a share my self that a sin essentially unpardonable is possible and that distinct from a sin against the Holy Ghost But to make the matter clearer by an example I will let you see the frame and force of your Syllogism in another of the same Contexture thus As the King punisheth Rebels so he favoreth his loial Subjects he denies to every Rebel places of trust and honor in all his Dominions therefore he allows to every loial Subject places of trust and honor in all his Domimons If you do not think this consequence to be legal give us leave to think the same of your former consequence for they are both of the same frame But while you do not shew your doctrine of Purgatory to be built upon firmer grounds then such subtilties as these think not to force it upon us nor that for being possessors of it many years as you say we will judg you therefore to be bonae fidei possessores or that you possess it with a good conscience And whereas the fore-mentioned Text Matth. XII 32. is in so great repute with you for the present purpose that you say with Bellarmin it s the only Text wherewith St. Bernard did prove Purgatory I will declare further by a special doctrine of a great Father of the Church how inconsequent is the existence of Purgatory to the verity of that Text. The good reception you gave to a subtilty of Schole men I produced for solâ—ing your Argument out of the Book of Maccabees in the Chapter precedent doth encourage me to hope you may give the like reception to another subtilty of a learned and ancient Father of the Church for answering this other Argument out of Matth. XII In the 9th Chapter of the Book of Joshua we find that the Inhabitants of Gibeon hearing of victorious Joshua his approach and the rigor he used with the conquered places near them came into him as if they had bin Embassadors sent from forreign Countries to sollicit his amity they came in old cloathes with clouted shoes upon their feet their bread mouldy and wine bottles old and rent as if all did signifie the tediousness of the journy which they under-went and by this meens obtained from Joshua and the Princes of Israel a promise of safety and freedom But after three daies march the Israelites found those Gibeonites that seigned to have come from a forreign Country to be Inhabitants of that Land they were in complained to Josua of the fraud put upon them but he not to infringe the oath he made would not consent to destroy them but punished their cheat with a note of infamy ordaining they should be hewers of wood and drawers of water to all the Congregation Upon which passage Origin delivers this Gloss that Joshua being a type of our Saviour Christ and Palestine the promised Land a Symbol of Heavenly bliss to let people live in that Land with a note of infamy signifies that some may enter with some blemish into the joies of Heaven His words are remarkable as followeth * Origen hom in Josuam In domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt Joh. XIV 2. multae differentiae eorum quae ad salutem veniunt unde Gabaunitas arbitror portiunculam quandam corum esse qui salvandi sunt sed non sine nota alicujus infamiae In my Fathers house are many mansions Joh. XIV 2. many are the differences of them that come to be saved wherefore I conceive the Gibeonites to be a parcel