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
referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art 5. in relat ad Caelestin But he might as well have cited Aristotle for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus but there say they we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering albeit we might justly have done it or he would justly have suffered it yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him viz. by his Legates in the Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But t is the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem not of Rome which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by Well then this John of Antioch being a Patriarch and Cyrill being his enemy they did well to stay their sentence against him till they knew the mind and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome who was Prime of the Patriarchs But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem albeit Binnius was his warrant for it Add to this that even this fiction makes against them for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction and that from Christ why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ and sink down as low as custome why doth he particularize Antioch when not only that but all other Patriarchical Sees if we may believe our Adversaries were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome or by his Holiness We are told further Ibid Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope and this he did saith the Emperour Valentinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according the custom of Synods To this it is Answered by the same Author Review l. 4. c. 4. s 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear that it was not so For first It is plain from the Acts that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello without mentioning to whom 2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Emâ—epours tending to this offect that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council 3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus the head of it Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist ad Michael Imperat. that they being accusers could not be judges Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope to what end then had it been to appeal to him seeing he himself was condemned and was a Plaintiff Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope Ad Theodos in Praeamb Con. Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it appears to have been no otherwise then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the custome when contentions arose about the faith to Call Synods 2. What is said to be given to the Pope was only given to the Legates that so he might be acquainted with the business and know that he had appeall'd as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod and this Bishop Flavian given them a bill of Appeal we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect Mr. C. p. 59. s 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the process and appoint judges and when such a case happened till the Pope had determined the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place De Oec Pout l. 13. c. 7. But 1. Saith Chamier this Council was not Oecumenical but only made up of the Western Bishops For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree but severally set forth their Decrees and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils T is true as Sulpitius saith Sac. Hist l. 2. it was called from each part of the world but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis and these saith Socrates would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops but their conditions being denyed Confestim discedunt they presently depart 2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give 3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice acceptation and execution Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest besought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them 4. This Canon makes rather against them for by it all matters must be ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself but only to receive them when brought 2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and therefore a personal priviledge which was to cease on the death of Julius 3. That the very same thing viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon Caâ— 9.17 as you
council may erre and whether the Pope bee the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ are questions which extreamly trouble the Church of God You affirm all this the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Now that it should here bee necessary for all the Eastern Churches all the Churches of the Protestants upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions and embrace what you obtrude upon them when you shall bee able to demonstrate and I see it done I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being professedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority Mr. C. p. 229. and consequently the preferring of their own conduct or the conduct of particular Churches before the Vniversal authority of the Church For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church both Pastors and flocks as Heathens and Publicans it is so impertinent as nothing can bee more is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason p. 230. as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots but such as discourse of matters of Religion and passe their judgements on them Now here do you not suppose that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church which wee are not very likely to acknowledge 2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements to the most or not If not why do you trouble us with this Argument If so then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour and under the Old Testament when Idolatry prevailed they were obliged unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason to become Idolaters and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ but rejected him as a Blasphemer the people were bound to do so too these and a thousand such like absurdities are the very natural consequences of your positions But you have Fathers to produce Sect. 7 And 1. Ad Eph. Hom. 11. That of St. Chrysostome we consent unto in this sense viz. that wilfully to divide the unity of Christs Church doth inevitably infer damnation as surely as the piercing of Christs body but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferiour moment out of humane frailty doth inevitably do so 2. Ad Sympr cp 2. As for that of St. Pacian who tells us that Novatian was nor Crowned because hee died out of the Communion of the Church Wee Answ That in St. Pacians phrase to dye out of the Communion of the Church was to dye without charity to the members of it as it immediately there follows hear the Apostle if I have all faith and have not charity I am nothing 3. De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10. In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us for whereas St. Austin saith it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church quod credidit that he believed in Christ or professed Christianity or did so much good without respect to the chiefest good Mr. C. will have him to asser t that it doth nothing profit such a one Mr. C.p. 226. that hee is Orthodox in belief whereas St. Austin speaks of Hereticks and presently cries out hear this O yee Hereticks and again quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona and a third time O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas Now separation from the Church by Heresie we acknowledge to incurre damnation The passage of St. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. Denis is very true viz. That all things should be endured rather then we should consent to the division of Gods Church but this he speaks not of the evil of sin but of pain and misery and what of this Lastly Irenaeus doth no where say there cannot possibly be made any reformation c. but only they viz. Propter modicat quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62. who for crisling causes divide the body of Christ who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels such as these can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division which is altogether impertinent to the design for which it is produced but of these two last places see the incomparable Chilling p. 256 257. From what hath been said we may see the weakness of this Argument which we finde p. 296. viz. Salvation may bee had in the Church of Rome and therefore it cannot be schismatical Albeit you cannot be ignorant that we distinguish the quality of persons considering your Church either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their Schisme and continuance in your church and of such we pass the heaviest sentence or in regard of those who owe their Schisme to want of capacity or default of instruction or such like involuntary defects and these wee say may have salvation albeit they continue members of your Church CHAP. XX. General Councils are not infallible whether considered with the Pope sect 1. Or without the Pope sect 2. Their infallibility not concluded 1 From Scripture sect 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16 sect 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect 6. Nor 2 from reason sect 7. Mr. C's Arguments answered sect 7 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it sect 9 10.11 Nor lastly is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity sect 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius Optatus Vincentius Lirinensis and St. Austin produced against it sect 12 13 14 15. 4 Proposition GEneral Councils are not infallible Now touching the infallibility of General Councils Sect. 1 1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope or one without or before his confirmation if the confirmation of the Pope bee requisite then without it is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible and if so then either the judgment of the Pope is so too or not if the first then the whole General Council is fallible in it's determinations for it can have no other members but the Pope and others and if both these be fallible 't is evident that the Council is so if infallible then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope and cannot sit as Judges of the cause it being very right and equitable that fallible persons who of themselves may dangerously erre should submit to the judgement of him who cannot do
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
but from the Canons of Nice which yet were so far from justifying his pretensions no such Canon being found upon examination that if he could have thought that other pleadable he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it Adde to this 3. That other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Chalcedon of which anon where note 1. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs without mention of any others 2. That through the Epistles written on that occasion he deduceth not his Primacy from St. Peter 3. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Council but only to the Bishop of Alexandria Antioch and other Metropolitans 4. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that imperial City which was more then pretended by that Council was never so much as quarrelled at by the Popes Legates in that controversie which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter Adde 4. That solemn prohibition of Gregory to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ep. ex reg l. 7. indic 1. c. 30. enjoyning him not to call him universal Father that being derogatory to his brethren c. a manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him by the law of Christ for then 1. According to Christs own rule You call me Lord and Master Joh. 13.13 and you do well for so I am he had done well in giving him this title 2. It could not have been derogatory to his brethren 3. Reason could not have required the contrary as he saith it did 4. He could not have averted it with an absit recedant without even fighting against God much less could he have spoken those things of it which we have mentioned elsewhere Add fifthly The clear confession and manifest declaration of Pope Agatho in his letters sent to the Emperour concerning a General Council that his Primacy did extend only to the Bishops of the West and not to the East 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. p. 45. to 2. Con. And again p 47. he excuseth himself for sending so late 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergo beyond the Ocean then it was not 2. Because he hoped that Theodorus his fellow Bishop and Archbishop of the Great Island of Brittain with others there living would joyn with him the words run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a clear evidence 1. That the Patriarchate of Rome even in Agathos time extended no farther than the Ocean and so not to Brittain And 2. That Brittain was not numbred by him amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude of those who were under the inspection of the Pope or belonged to his Patriarchate which is a sufficient evidence that at that time the Bishops of Rome had no such universal Primacy CHAP. VI. The Law of the Emperour Valentinian considered Sect. 1. St. Basils testimony not concluding Sect. 2. The Ecclesiastical Canon interpreted Sect. 3. The Popes restoring Athanasius and others Sect. 4. The Argument from the Council of Ephesus Sect. 5. From the Council of Sardica Sect. 6 Of Arles Sect. 7. His negative Argument from St. Cyprian Sect. 8. His perswading the Pope to depose Marcianus Sect. 9. His Argument from his 68. Epistle not concluding Sect. 10. The example of Pope Victor Sect. 11. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae against them Sect. 12. St. Jeroms testimony of an Head constituted to avoid Schism Ibid. And St. Cyprians of the Chair of St. Peter no evidences of the Popes Supremacy Sect. 12 13. Nor that of Optatus Sect. 14. Nor that of St. Chrysostome Sect. 15. Nor that of St. Austin Sect. 16. We not members of the Roman Patriarchiate the invalidity of the inference thence Sect. 17. The conclusion of the Chapter Sect. 18. IN the seventh Chapter Mr. C. Sect. 1 confirms the supremacy of the Pope by a Law of the Emperour Valentinian which runs thus That whatever had been or should be established by the See Apostolick Mr. C. p 54. Novel Theo. of Tit. 24. should have the force of a Law to the Bishops of France and all others and that secundum veterem consuetudinem Yea further he adds That this Supremacy of the See Apostolick has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal society and by the dignity of the City and by the Sacred Authority of a Synod Ans 1. All this falls short of an universal Jurisdiction which Valentinian being only Emperour of the West could not be imagined to confer upon the Pope nor can his Edict be supposed to reach those Bishops which came not within the compass of his Empire 2. Consider who was it that made this Edict Valentinian a young Emperour and as yet sub potestate matris yea saith the great Salmasius De primatu Papae c. 17. it was procured a Principe intertissimo imbelli desidiaque ac luxurie perditissimo And further against whom was it framed even against pious and learned St. Hilary a man acquainted I presume with the antient customes of the Church as well as this young Emperour or his instructer Pope Leo. 3. This Law was got from him by the suggestion and false dealing of the Pope and that manifestly ambitious of and yawning after this Supremacy and hence it is that the Edict saith Hilary as we have found by the faithful relation of that venerable man the Pope of Rome vindicates his unjust ordination of Bishops used only out of temerity not consulting Pontificem Romanae Ecclesiae which is sufficient evidence saith Salmasius that this Edict was put forth by the arts and suggestions of the Roman Pontifex as also he gathers from another clause viz. Sola mansueti praesulis humanitas permittit Hilarium adhuc Episcopum nominari words that smell rank of a Pope and are exactly parallel to what Leo writes in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna that as for St. Hilary suae civitatis sacerdotium pro sedis Apostolicae pietate perceptio nostra servaverit 4. Saith he he restrains the authority of the Pope and will have it only acknowledged Si quid a quopiam contra veterem consuetudinem tentaeretur and in the beginning of his Edict ne quid praeter authoritatem sedis Romanae illicitum praesumptio adtentare nitatur and therefore the Pope hath nothing to do when all things are done rightly and according to ancient custom so that this Edict sends us only to look what that was 5. He sums up all and concludes that this Edict should not seem to have much authority if it be considered that it was suggested by a false relation viz. that St. Hilary did against right and the antient customs in ordaining Bishops without consulting the Pope which is very false that this
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
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
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of
Romish Doctrines NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OR A REPLY To what S.C. or Serenus Cressy A ROMAN CATHOLICK hath returned to Dr. PIERCES SERMON Preached before his MAJESTY at WHITEHALL Feb. 1. 1662. IN Vindication of Our CHURCH Against the NOVELTIES of ROME By DANIEL WHITBIE M.A. and Fellow of Trin. Coll. Oxon. 1 Jo. 2.24 Let that therefore abide in you which yee have heard from the beginning LONDON Printed by R. W. for Tho. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street and Ja. Magnes in Coven-Garden 1664. Imprimatur Nov. 6. 1663. Tho. Grig R. in Christo P.D. Humfr. Epis Lond. à Sac. Domesticis To the Right Reverend Father in God SETH Lord Bishop of Exeter My very good Lord BEing informed of a Book which passed the decretorial sentence against our Church and that it was written by an Author grave and sober whose reason was very keen and sharp one who was the Coryphaeus of the Roman Party and therefore from whom I might expect all that the matter could well bear one lastly who was once a professed son of the Church of England and therefore would not be so ungrateful to his Mother as to pass so heavy a doom upon her without the greatest evidence and conviction I first set upon perusing it big with expectations but finding my self miserably disappointed I was put into such a passion as vented it self into this Reply which humbly lies prostrate at your Lordships feet begging the favour and honour of your acceptance and that you would be pleased to take it into your protection And indeed what can be more proper then to commit a discourse of this nature to the protection of such a Father of the Church whose zeal for the Churches good is as ardent as her enemies rage and fury violent What therefore my former promises of tendering my first fruits unto your Lordship and the influence of your instructions and encouragement have made your own flies to the shelter of your goodness where leaving it I securely rest Your Lordships most humbly devoted Servant DANIEL WHITBIE TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Cannot but expect to be censured as a bold adventurer as one who hath puld upon himself a burthen not sufficiently considering Quid ferre recusant Quid valeant humeri In that I have dared to appear in a matter of such concernment as this I have undertaken you will happily cry out of an impar congressus betwixt one of yesterday and Father Cressy But notwithstanding this objection which lyes so fair in the view of all men I shall not despair of a milder censure if it be considered 1. That I did not presume to venture upon the Work till I had found that every citation produced from the Fathers by S.C. was already Answered to my hands by the Champions of our Cause so that when any matter of Antiquity is scanned by me know that I steared my course by the greatest lights our Nation or other reformed Churches would afford me that I speak the mind of an Hammond Field Salmasius or a Baron in the business of the Popes Supremacy of an Usher Fern and Dally in that of Purgatory of a Taylor and Featly in the business of Communion in one kind of a Crakanthorp and Dally in that of Images of an Usher Andrews and Crakanthorp in that of Invocation of Saints of an Hall Taylor and Calixtus touching Celibacy of Priests of a Chillingworth in the two great Controversies of the Infallibility of the Church and Schism of a Chamier and a Lord du Plessis in them all and if you will but acknowledge that Bellarmine hath been Answered and that it is not a thing impossible for such an one as I am to have seen those Answers and to be able to transcribe them you will consequently be obliged to grant that it was possible for me to have returned an Answer to this Epitomie of him which our Author hath produced And yet after all this I must say 2. That these collections for so I am content they should be called have not passed without the censure of some Critical eyes to whom I have wholly referr'd my self for the addition to or alteration of what ever seemed good unto them so to do and that I have moreover omitted many things of lesser moment wherein I had clearly the advantage of my Adversary that I might not be too much burthensome to the Readers patience Now if these things be impartially considered I hope the Objection which before appeared so considerable will vanish and this poor Treatise which intends only to tell the world that the advantage of our Cause is such as that the wisest of our Antagonists may be encountered by even the meanest sons of the Church of England that to plead for Popery is but to give us the trouble of transcribing the Answers of our learned Protestants may find a favourable acceptance from thee Farther I entreat thee not to be offended either with the breach of Pages which was necessary from the employment of divers Printers in this work or with some false Pointings which may easily be rectified or lastly with some few Marginal citations not very appositely placed which hoping thou wilt gratifie me in I bid thee farewell D. W. A Catalogue of some Books Printed for T. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street SCintilla Altaris or Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts of the Church the third Edition by E. Spark D.D. Dr. Collets Devotions for every day of the week The new Book of Common-Prayer with choice Cuts in Brass suited to all the Feasts and Fasts of the Church of England throughout the year in a Pocket volume ΛΟΓΙΚΗΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ The Reasonableness of Divine Service in Answer to the contrary pretentions of H. D. in a late Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer and Liturgies by Ir. Freeman M A. An exact Abridgement of all the Acts of Parliament in force and use since the 16. K Ch. 1. to this present by W. Hughes of Grayes-Inn Esquire A Synoptical Directory on the Canons of the Scripture by Ferdinando Parkhurst The Extravagant Shepherd an Anti-Romance in fol. ERRATA PAge 3. l. ult r. Morton p. 10. l. 26. r. abundantia p 20. l. 9. r. E Cathedra l. 15. r. secondly p. 33. l. 33. add to p 38. l. 8. r. now p. 46. l. 33. add illi l. 34. r. praeceptio p. 52. l. 22. r. or p 60. l. 8. r. it l. 27. r. his p. 67. l. 29. del S. 15. p. 76. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 84. l 27. dele not p. 94. l. 26. r. next query p. 106. l. 7. r. pâ—opositions l 33. r. can we p. 112. l. 34. add are p. 117. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 118. l. 20. add c. p. 172. l. 5. r. that p. 176. l. 4. r. not p. 182. l. 28. add the. p. 194. l. 32. r. they p 200. l. 14. dele Answ p. 201. l. 1. r. of p. 204. l. 31.
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
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
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
relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over Gods Heritage that this Edict was made St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself that it was extorted from a young Prince and ignorant of these things And lastly That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times for divers Councils a thing which contains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and which Leo for bad to Hilary were called without the authority of the Pope in divers parts and Cities of France to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline thus we find it in Synodis Agathensi prima Epaunensi Aureliensibus aliquot Turonensi Matisconensi Avernensi and many more all affirming that they came together Solo deo authore ac moderatore and by the permission or command of the Emperour whither he were Gothus Burgundus vel Francus and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum and so is mutable As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus Innocent and Siricius Mr. C. p. 56. so trivial and impertinent that he dares not transcribe them I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field Sutlivius Pag. 527. cont Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontif. Turon 11. Can. 20. and Chamier made to them long ago Nor will I trouble my self with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France or Spain and moreover this last saith only this That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop to contradict the determination of the Apostles See Can. 4. and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion tells us how that Leander Bishop of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed yet to avoid any symbolizing with Hereticks one simple immersion might be more convenient this now is called his Precept and this for the reason assigned by the Pope they agree to follow but yet that the Popes decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain neither do these citations prove nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us will do him little service Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57. for his words are only these It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to consider our affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give his advice or acquaint us with his mind and sentence not interpose the judgement of his decree as Mr. C. hath rendred it and because t is difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree that he using his own Authority which in the other case he could not have should chuse men fit to under go the trouble of the journey The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 534. and also able by their meekness and dexterity not by power delegated from the Pope to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us fitly tempering and dispensing their words and having all things with them that were done at Ariminum to the rescinding of what was there done or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded And had not Dr. Field cause to say That the alledging of this testimony sheweth they have very little conscience that alledge it for these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle whereof let the Reader judge Basil writing to Athanasius adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard and much reverence the credit of their multitude and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelyhood easily be obtained he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced to send some of good discretion and moderation who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the minds of men and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion that alledge it for he preferreth and rather wisheth a particular Council than this interposition of the Pope alone if there had been any hope of a Council besides those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the minds oâ— men and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Easteâ—n Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon Sect. 3 Mr C. p. 57 58. viz that no decrees should be established in the Church withouâ— not the assent as he would have it but the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice was argued of nutlâ—y which he confirms from Socrates Hist Eccles l. 2. caâ— 5. Athanas Apol. sec Sozom. Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 9. Valentinian c is fully answered by the Author of the review of the Trent Council Pag 155. who tells him that all that can be proved hence is That a General Council cannot be holden unless they viz. the Popes be called to it and this saith he appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it when he complains that he was not called to the Council of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned charging them for that with the breach of that Canon Lib. 2 â— 13. Julius saith Socrates in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church in that they called him not to the Council for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen saith Lib. 3. c. 9. that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch accusing them for seeking after novelties contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council and contrary to the Laws of the Church for not calling him to the Council forasmuch as by vertue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests all decrees viz. made in a General Council are invalid which are enacted without the opinion and advice of the Pope of Rome and of this Pope Julius had reason to complain considering that a Council cannot be termed General nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholick unless all those which ought to be present especially the Patriarchs be lawfully called
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
Christ ordained him Teacher or if you will Master not of any Throne but of the whole Werld as he did also the rest of the Apostles for which our Author hath it not of that See of Rome alone in which the fraud is manifest 't is true Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as the Interpreter hath done or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be added but then it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome well then if he would have this citation serviceable to him he must first shew that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Saviour 3. Which is the most difficult of all that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so There is one passage remaining of St. Austins who tells us Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in Africk Judicante Melchiade sedis Romanae Episcopo cum collegis suis quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator ibid. ep 162. Third def c. 2. s 4. Non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia c. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellanduÌ„ à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Reply p. 40. Where not to take notice of his interpreting de collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion 1. This was no Authoritative but only a brotherly decision 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists 3. By power delegated from the Emperour 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory is it not strangly absurd that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh without the least considerations of the returns that were made unto it Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for as well as the rest of the African Bishops is argued from this that in the Milevitan Council where he was present speaking of Appeals from their Bishops their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils or the Primates of their own Provinces and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine or forreign Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice and declare as much to Pope Celestine as you may see in the Reverend Dr. Hammond T is a common Proverb that the Devil will play at small game rather than stick out Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot be Universal Monarch he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confest that the power of Patriarchs is not of Divine but humane institution if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dream'd of his being Universal Monarch or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate yet would not this afford him any Authority over England Dr. Haâ— third def p. 124. Seeing the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any Authority over more then the Province or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to him as a Primate or Metropolitan and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate Just vinet c. p. 249 Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers 1. That the Brittish neither were nor ought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Vniversal Monarchy unconsistent with it forfeited by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdome And 3. That the power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by antient Canons so then t is superfluous to consider his Authorities only in short 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Hereticks by himself And secondly are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon Salmas de prâ—matu Papae c. ult 2. St. Basils calling the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West which title we can very well allow him Salmas 16. 3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath foâ—sted in the Western Church whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffered Martyrdom that is the Church of Rome it being searce ever heard that any one was said to have suffered Martyrdome in the West 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes Let them condemn me with the West that is with Damasus that he thought him Patriarch of all the West but his meaning is this Salmas ib. Let them condemn me with the most famous men and Churches in the World of which having mentioned two he leaves the rest to be understood Lastly 'T is objected that Justinian the Emperour affirms that the whole World was subject to five Partriarchs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Western Rome Constant Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Nevel 123 now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West to what Patriarch was France Spain Africa c. subject Ans 'T is true the Emperour reckoneth up five Patriarchs but doth he any where say that all the World was necessarily subject to them doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more or limit the Dominions of these did not he create de novo Carthage and Justiniana prima and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supream Priesthood Supream Honour and Dignity and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be given to them as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his â—ract of Schism Pag. 101 102 103. and then what service can you have from this his testimony Lastly Notwithstanding this there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Patriarchs I should now
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene Sect. 3 Ephesine Milevitan Council and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon An. Dom. 258. but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian which thus Decrees That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying seeing each Bishop hath his liberty and no one may judge another nor be judged of another but they must all be judged of God in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen who had stiled himself Bishop of Bishops and threatned excommunication to those that thought otherwise as even Baronius doth acknowledge Aâ— 258. Na. 42. An. â—41 in Câ—â—â—â— Afric c. 15. 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils Acts apud Biâ— p. 781. To. 1. Joct â—am cleriâ—atus accipiant c. 72. An. 416 in their letters to Pope Celastine yea the Council of Antioch decrees That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province shall by no means be juaged by others but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall remain firm unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more plâ—nary or General Council The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa if they go to communicate beyâ—nd the Seas they chiefly aim at the Roman Church shall lâ—se their Priesthood now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing is evidently to destroy his Supremacy Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present it was determined That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him and that for this reason because this was never derogated from the Africk Church by any definition of their forefathers and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans for they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the Grace of the Holy Ghost â—â—y they will not be wanting to each Province Let this equity therefore be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council of his Province or to a General Council unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Tryal into any one person or Pope and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs they Answered That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759. moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they determined That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first See Sect. 4 Again the second General Council determines That the Bishops that are without any Diocess Extra dioecesia shall not intermeddle with the Churches beyond their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but according to the Rules constituted viz. by the Nicene Synod the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern those only that are in Egypt the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again The Bishops uncalled shall not go beyond their Diocess to ordain Bishops or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes but shall observe the Rule above written de unaquaque dioecesi saith the Latine for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome is this nothing to the Church of Rome hath the Bishop of Rome no Province did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation Sect. 5 and it is this That when Austin proposed three things to the Brittish Clergy 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop whose very Name they were ignorant of at that time Bish Bra. Just vind p. 103 104. as appears from their language The man whom thou callest the Pope 2. That they should conform to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptism And lastly That they should joyn with him in preaching to the Saxons all the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon Spel. con an 601. Galt Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed his l. 2. c. 2. and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms these things being considered must not our Author well deserve the whetstone Pag. 53. when he so confidently affirms That there was never any received Council in Gods Church that excluded the Pope from an Vniversal jurisdiction when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation Def. Eccles CHAP. VIII St. Gregory against the Popes Supremacy Sect. 1. An objection answered Sect. 2. T is not safe to admit this Supremacy Sect. 3. The instance of the Kings of France considered Sect 4. An Answer to his Questions Sect 5. The Power we assign to Bishops is not contrary to any Acts of Parliament or the Oath of Supremacy Sect. 6. THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory who flyes out excessively against the very name of Universal Bishop calling it a wicked prophane and blasphemous title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand yea an imitation of the very Devil who despising the Legions of Angels socially created with him endeavoured to mount the top of singularity Ep ex Reg. l. 4. cp 38. It wasdone by Theodorus and Ischiron two distressed Deacons Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant sub Menna Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same General Council Act. 4. p. 437 438 440. and by Justinian Novel 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant in the sixth General Council Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council Act. 3. and that even by
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
appeared to him and shaking him by the ear took all the pain away He addeth further C. 16. that when he begun to be weary of writing this same Book she sits her down close by him smiles whilest she reads it shews her self wonderfully pleased with it and that it behoved him to finish it The like miracles we have related by Severus of one Martinus a Monk De vita B. Mart. S. 24. Ibid. S. 17. who could see the Devil though he remained in his own substance fright him with the sign of the Cross continually who putting his hand into the mouth of a Demoniack forced the Devil out at his posteriors Yea which is most wonderful of all that could by the smell of the body Hieron in Hilarione or the clothes know what Daemon tyrannized in such a body These were the miracles that helped forward the worshipping of Saints and the monkish superstitions Thirdly Because the old Daemons worship prevailed upon the world by the same means Thus Tertullian Apol. c. 51. Search therefore the Deity of Christ whether it be true or not if it be that by the knowledge whereof a man shall be reformed to good it follows then that the false be renounced especially that whole mysterie of Daemon-worship being discovered which under the names and images of the dead through Signes Miracles and Oracles obtaineth a Divinity And Chrysostome they the Gentile Daemons oftentimes by their skill cured diseases Orat. in Judaizantes and restored to health those that were sick what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity God forbid De Praep. Evan. l. 5. c. 2. And the like we have from Eusebius who informes us that the wicked Daemons counterfeited by working many miracles the Souls of them that were deceased and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service But Thirdly we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet p. 351. That after the true Doctrine is confirmed by divine miracles God may give the Devil power to work if not real miracles yet such as men cannot judge by the things themselves whether they be so or no and this for tryal whether we will forsake the true doctrine confirmed by greater miracles for the sake of such doctrines as are contrary there to and are confirmed by false Prophets by signes and wonders Now in this case our rule of tryal must not so much be the miracles considered in themselves whether real or no as the comparing them with the miracles wrought in confirmation of that doctrine which is contrary to this which these words tend to the proving of Therefore Gods people under the Law were to examine the drift and scope of the miracles and if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry what ever they were they are forbid to hearken to them as you may see most evidently Deut. 13.1 2 3. So now under the Gospel the worship of the true God through Jesus Christ and by the doctrine revealed by him is the standard whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders unto miracles so that let the miracles be what they will if they contradict that doctrine which Christ revealed to the world we are to look upon them as onely tryals of our faith in Christ to see whether we love him with our whole hearts or no and accordingly we look upon these miracles as tryals whether we will forsake the Head Christ Jesus give this worship of the Creator to the creature and the like and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault 2 Thes 2.9 by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with signes and lying wonders Fourthly We add that these miracles might have been done by God himself and that at these Martyrs Tombs but onely to confirm the faith they suffer'd for Now as for the testimony of Antiquity in this point Sect. 12 First Many of the places produced by him speak nothing of the Invocation of the Saints departed nor do they infer any thing but what we generally confess thus that of Saint Hillary tells us Ps 129. That our infirmity needs the intercession of Angels Answer Be it so we add that our infirmity needs the intercession of good men on earth yet we are not able to see this consequence that they must or may be invocated or prayed unto Again doth the Council of Chalcedon say let Flavian pray for us Act. 11. we say so too let all the Saints and Angels in Heaven all the men on earth pray for us we are willing to have the benefit of their intercessions or prayers for us Albeit to speak the truth this sentence looks quite anothery way the business was this there was a long contention betwixt Bassianuus and Stephanus for the Bishopprick of Ephesus Bassianus albeit not rightly ordained kept it for the space of four years and with him communicated Flavianus this was urged in the Synod by the favourers of Bassianus as an acknowledgment made by Flavian that Bassianus was lawful Bishop This Argument they thus enforce if you will not hearken to our reasons let Flavianus the Martyr entreat this of you he though dead judgeth the cause to Bassianus then after Cecropius had spoken in his behalf the Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople stand up and cry this is the truth viz. Flavianus was a favourer of Bassianus c. Flavian lives after death that is his judgement and his memory as afterward Flavian is here that is we have here his judgement for Bassianus let the Martyr entreat for us that is in this cause of Bassianus let him entreat the Council for us Haec vera genuina verborum mens est cui nisi pertinax aut imperitus refragari nemo potest saith our Crackanthorp Nor do we scruple to say with Austine Def. Eec Ang. c. 59. let Cyprian yea let Mr. C. help us as with his prayers onely let him remember that this is not vox invocantis sed optantis an indication of our willingnesse Sect. 13 not our petitions that it should be so Orat. in 40. Mart. Mr. C. p. 190. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let it here be noted that Mr. C. could scarce be ignorant of his forgery it being charged upon them by the Bishop of Ely and Forbs in those very Books which are cited by him in this Chapter Saint Basil is suborned to say whosoever is in any pressure let him fly to the assistance of these Martyrs and again whosoever is in a state of joy let him pray to them the former that he may be delivered from misery the later that he may be preserved in prosperity Answer Here we have a double corrupting of the Text an Artifice which our Author notwithstanding his solemn protestation to the contrary doth every where use Saint Basil saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth fly to them Mr. C. let him fly Saint Basil he doth run to them that is to their monuments Mr. C. let him pray
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
deny it with Grotius De sum Pot. c. 7. how miserable is our Authors proof who tells us that if there bee not spiritual laws and a spiritual director to them all what will become of unity Answ Why may they not have such laws and yet be independent is it necessary they should disagree 2. They may have diverse laws in circumstantials and yet preserve their unity seeing the unity of the Church is that of Communion not of apprehension and may stand with any difference of opinions in all matters that destroy not the foundation and Ruine not the being of a Church 3. They have spiritual laws and a spiritual director common to them all the Word of God Oh but they must have a General Council Rep. Why so good Sir Ans Because otherwise they will not obey the Rules of Scripture Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Oecumenical Council Ans They should obey them Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of Gods Word So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council what preservatives of unity will there bee and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one the remedy against Schism would bee as soveraign and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries God hath provided say they no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches but his Word yes say you a general Council or patriarchical no necessity of them say they to unity let men believe the foundations of Christianity and be charitable to their brethren bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters it is enough Now to this you learnedly aske how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity even say they by holding the foundations of Christianity so plain that they need no determination and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity And here comes in another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks and our reformation â—o bee illegal which runs thus That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority by Queen Elizabeth must bee illegal and Schismatical but such was the Reformation of the Church of England Now to make this good hee gives us an History of it and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen Mr. Cr. p. 274. unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion or more truely the superstitions restored by Queen Mary and then hee gives us what was done in this convocation viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendered to the Bishops who in the name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper Ans The businesse is onely this the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered or else Banished and persecuted out of the land when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown shee found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas yet did she not presently dispossesse the one and restore the other being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden but by degrees now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the blood-thirsty Bonner who had warmed himself at so many Bone-fires of our Bishops and learned Clergy without any other remorse then this that hee did not cut off root and branch Dr. Heylin Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 113. But such was their fear modesty or despair of doing any good to themselves and their cause that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all and not much more by the lower Clergy then a declaration of their judgement in some certain points mentioned here by Mr. C. which at that time were thought fit to bee commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy is his own addition it being onely a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy and whether it were so or no is not much material hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on and learned men of each party were elected to bee disputants of each side wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions that it was generally thought they were not able to defend their Doctrine Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104. in the points to be disputed But to proceed in the History of the Reformation after the Religion established by Queen Mary had continued un-interrupted for a month and somewhat more afterward it was tollerated withal required to have the Epistles Gospels the ten Commandments the Symbole the Lettany and the Lords-Prayer in the vulgar tongue Cambden p. 10 11. and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers who impatient of delay by the length of time which ranne and pass'd away in other matters desiring rather to run before good laws then to expect them in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christs true Doctrine Id. p. 33 34. first privately in houses and then openly in Churches On the 22th of March the Parliament being assembled the Order of Edward the sixth was re-established and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of publick prayers and administration of the Sacraments the Sacrifice of the Masse was abolished and the Liturgie in the English tongue more and more established In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops of which anon and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637. Now if it bee considered with Dr. Crakanthorp that what was here done by this most Religious Queen was not introductory of what was new that so it should bee necessary to discusse it in a Synod but onely restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters that Queen Elizabeth did onely justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated 2. â—ul Ch. Hist l. 9. p. 52. That this alteration of Religion was also enacted by the Parliament which repealed the laws of Queen Mary made against the Protestants and revived those of King Henry the 8 and King Edward the 6. in favour of them And 3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had desiring and advising her to these things yea and old Bishops also for whereas our Author tells us in effect that she had none to advise with p. 274. but such as were now ordained the rest being generally averse from her proceedings 'T is void of truth For what doth he think of William Barlow John Scory Miles Coverdale and John
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of