delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
thereunto Ib s 5. Secondly He tells us this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils and this is the reason why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General because all the Patriarchs were not there however saith Balsamon In Com. ad Synod Constant 1. ad finem the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council because the other Patriarchs were not there yet it is greater than all other Synods and the Archbishop of that See was stiled Universal Patriarch For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered that he would so as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril who would not vouchsafe to stay for him that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril S. 7 and excommunicated him And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy who came somewhat tardy gave thanks to God at his coming because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council and made it most compleat Nay they were not only called to General Councils but the custom was for honours sake to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed So at the Council of Ephesus they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes Id. s 10. and seeing they came not took this ensuing resolution Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes and thus much for that Argument He comes now to add a few examples more viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople P 58. s 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s 69. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Marcellus Primate of Ancyra and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza the Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain restored to every one of them their own Church and he adds further that he commanded them who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give an account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunished if they would not cease from innovating all this he did saith Theodoret not by usurping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church Now to this we answer Lib. 4. c. 4. s 10. in the words of the same Author who replies to Bellarmin that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him For 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope for that was not then in use He saith indeed that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops which were in the East fled to Rome as to an Haven of refuge that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed received them into Communion restored them to their Churches and writ to the Eastern Bishops whom he rebuked for deposing them but we must alwaies remember that they were Arrians and Persecutors and that the Controversie was not between party and party If Bellarmine deny it or if he answer that he must look here only to the form of proceeding which was ordinary we will take him at his word and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author who saith that these Bishops so soon as they had received these letters fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats and confessed as he said that the Church of Rome was the principal as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there came first out of the East but they were displeased that he should think they were inferior to himself because his Church was of greater lustre though they excelled him in Virtue and Sanctity of life they objected also against him as a crime that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him as if it were by a Council so that what he did was by way of Usurpation and not by Right and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus That Athanasius foreseeing what designs were on foot against him fled to Rome to Pope Julius and those that were Eusebians sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard and put in his plea for himself bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations and shew that their proceedings were just and equal and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the deciding of the Case at which Athanasius was ready to appear but these lyars would not In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church that he required evidence of the fact before he renounc't his Communion but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances which we meet with in Sozomen much less say that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them and so much for that instance Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him for this was common to him not only with other Patriarchs but other Bishops as the Fathers everywhere speak I will cite Origen for them all who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah saith He that is call'd to a Bishoprick is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat which made him Prime in order of the Bishops Again Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed affirming that according to the ancient custome the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman whereupon the whole Council
the Messias that he was not from God but an Impostor Well then either these were Judges infallible or not if so then the absurdity foremention'd is not avoidable if not then let him tell us what other infallible Judge they had or acknowledge they had none and if so then I ask leave to inquire what necessity have we to think the people should have such a one under the Gospel when they were far more ignorant under the Law nor had such guidance of the Spirit to lead them into all truth and yet God did not then think it meet to constitute such a one Well Sect. 11 but our Adversary seems to triumph in an Argument from Scripture against the reading of this Sacred book Mr. C. 168. and it may thus be formed Certainly none of them whom we know to be apt to pervert the Scriptures should be permitted to read them 2 Pet. 3.16 But the unlearned and unstable are apt to do so therefore c. And for Confirmation of this we are told that the unlearned and unstable of England are 99 of each hundred therefore if they are not to be permitted to read the Scripture 99 of each hundred in England should not be permitted To this Argument we reply 1. That the major is false as is evident For tell me were not the Jews apt to pervert the Scripture who were yet commanded to be daily conversant in the same were not the Scribes and Pharisees apt to pervert Scripture And yet our Saviour bids the one search the Scripture tells the other that they erre not knowing the Scripture 2. Doth not Saint Peter 1 Epist chap. 1. prescribe attending to the word as a remedy to keep us from the deceptions of false prophets And if you will say with Stapleton we are bid indeed to attend to Scripture but as preach'd by the Pastours of the Church not read the contrary is evident for 't is a word of prophecy which holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and sure that is the Scripture 3. If this were true then were the fathers much to blame who call'd the Heretiques to Scripture bid them look to Scripture and see their Errours when it is notorious that they were made Hereticks by perverting Scripture Again to the minor I say that the Apostle doth not say that such are apt to pervert all Scripture but something hard and difficult in Saint Pauls Epistle and other Scripture and now the benefit we receive by the other places not so hard may recompence the danger 2. I say the unlearned are so if they proceed to judge of the scripture and will take things in their own sence without going to God for direction begging his Spirit and using the help of the guides set over them whence 't is well infer'd they should not read scripture without a sense of weakness and aptness to pervert it when they permit themselves to draw conclusions and decide controversies by it and therefore should not read it after such a manner but pray to God more for his Assistance in reading and have closer dependance on the guides that are given them and not dote upon questions which administer strife rather then edifying The second part of this Chapter is taken up in a miserable defence of their Churches prayers in an unknown tongue which cannot more effectually be confuted Sect. 12 then by an impartial consideration of those pitiful sophisms that uphold it And 1. he tells the Doctor Mr. C. p. 172. that he mistakes the Churches meaning as if one of it's positions were that Gods publick worship ought to be in an unknown tongue or as if it forbad the people to understand it And truly saith he if it were so we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 14.13 thus he Answ But where I pray you hath the Doctor one Iota from whence you can be able to make good this charge why did you not direct us to his words from whence this consequence could be infer'd but confidently tell him he mistakes when as 't is only your prevarication makes him do so did you peruse that paragraph or not if you did not then what unparallel'd boldness was it at all adventures to charge him with mistakes if you did what wilfull insincerity was it to charge him with that which you knew to be a palpable untruth Secondly Had he affirmed what you unjustly charge him with yet might he very easily be freed from a mistake for seeing your Trent Conventicle hath determined that 't is not expedient that the publick service should be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue it must have consequently determined that it ought not to be so seeing the Apostles rule requires that in things lawful in themselves we should be guided 1 Cor. 6.12 See Bishop Sanderson his Sermon In locum as to practise by expedience and consequently that if the vulgar tongue be not expedient in Gods publick service it ought not to be used and if so then sure a tongue not vulgar or unknown must necessarily take place Thirdly I affirm that if you could not reconcile her command to celebrate Gods publick service in an unknown tongue with that passage of S. Paul neither can you reconcile her practice it being notoriously evident that what S. Paul there speaks respects the practice not the commands of the Church of Corinth but only as the prohibition of the practice infers a prohibition of the commanding such a practice so that our Authors mouth sufficiently condemns him but to proceed He tells us Sect. 13 Sect. 9. That they generally acknowledge the service of God in the primitive times to have been performed in a tongue better understood then now it is but yet not for many places or countrys in their vulgar native or best known tongue for saith he 't is evident by Saint Augustine that in Africa it was in the Latine not in the Punick which yet was the only tongue the vulgar understood Ans If this be not related Punica fide let any indifferent man judge for do we not know that his Sermons ad populum were in Latine when as yet you generally acknowledge they ought to be in the vulgar tongue doth not he tell us in his retractions l. 1. c. 10. psalmum qui iis cantaretur per latinas literas feci De verbis Apost Ser. 16. In psal 50. ps 138. that being willing to have the cause of the Donatists known to the meanest of the vulgar that it might stick upon their memories he made a psalm which should be sung to them in Latine Letters Yea doth he not give them a Punick proverb in the Latine tongue and annex this reason quia Punice non omnes nostis did he not condescend to the use of barbarous words ossum for os sanguines and sanguina upon this account because it was better Gramarians should reprehend him
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend 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 Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter