represented as such by our Historian The third Proposition therefore carries something of prevarication in it So those Advocates which would betray the causes of their Clients propose a wrong state of the Case the vanity whereof being once discovered renders the Plaintiff contemptible in the sight of all men and reduces him to a necessity of complying with the injured Defendant There is a great deal of ignorance and intricateness the Consequent thereof in the Proposition of our Author as it is by him worded for Infallibility and a sovereign Dominion over our Faith are not equipollent Termes nor termes indifferently used No Papist did ever ascribe unto the Bishop of Rome except some Parasitical Canonist whose Credit is little in that Church a sovereign dominion over our Faith He that is Sovereign knows not any Superior nor any coercive Law but his will the objects about which his power is conversant are liable to what alterations he pleaseth and he rules by the Lex Regia but what Divine did ever ascribe such a power to the Pope in matter of Faith Place the Chair where and how you will none of that Church ever assumed so much nor did that Church ever attribute so much to the Bishop of Rome There have been those that have taught that if by way of supposal it could be imagined that all the Pastors of the Church Catholick should erre in a Decree of Faith the Laiety were bound to submit thereunto but such a Sovereignty in matters of faith none except some Iesuits and Parasites ascribe unto the Pope's person his Briefs and Decretals have not that credit amongst the Romanists as to authenticate such Assertions nor is the belief thereof a necessary condition to communicate with that Church upon If we look upon the contests in Germany that introduced Protestancy at first we find the erroneous doctrine about Indulgences to be the primary occasion there In Switzerland and in France and Holland abuses and Idolatrous practises or false Doctrines are the first subjects of Disputes and occasion the Reformation there Transubstantiation Communion in one kind the propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse Image-worship praying to Saints and such like Controversies are the first and most fiercely debated In England under Henry the VIII the Pope's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes and appeals to Rome c. give the the first occasions of discontent and that change which was afterwards carried on to a total Reformation of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England then came in question the power of the Bishop of Rome the nature of his Primacy the Authority and Fallibility of General Councels the power of National and provincial Churches to reforme themselves during the interval of Councels or without dependance thereon whether the Scripture were the sole rule of faith how obligatory were Traditions the interest and influence of the Civil Magistrate in ruling Ecclesiastical Affairs these came next into agitation The usurpation of Infallibility and a pretended Sovereignty in matters of faith to be lodged in the Pope was neither the occasion of the Protestant separation nor a material part of the first controversies though perhaps some Italianated persons and Canonists might assert some such thing and since the growth of the Iesuites tenets of that nature have been much advanced thereby to justifie their Vow of blind obedience to the Papal commands The memory of the Councils of Basil and Constance was fresh in the minds of men and the superiority of a Council above the Pope a common and authorized tenet in that Church The personal infallibility and the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome had of old received too great a check in the cases of Vigilius and Honorius and in the declared sentences of the Councils of Pisa Constance Basil and of the Universities of Paris Loven Colen Vienna and Cracovia not to mention particular Writers to be the occasion of that rupture The Sorbone to this day continues its former judgment and even the present King of France hath asserted the liberties of the Gallick Church in that point See Arrest de la Cour de Parliament portant que les propositions contenues en la declaration de la Faculte de Theologie de Paris c. Da. 30. May. 1663. And Declaration du Roy pour l' Enregistrement des six propositions de la Faculte de Sorbonne c. A Paris 4. d' Aoust 1663. What the Popish Church now holds and requires amounts not to any such Authority as our Author asserts if you will believe Cardinal Perron before our Virtuoso Scribis de Romano Pontifice nolle te verba facere quum vel mediocriter in Historiâ Ecclesiasticâ versatis compertum sit primorum seculorum Patres Concilia Imperatores Christianos primas illi semper detulisse praecellentis dignitatis praerogativam in omnibus negotiis ad religionem aut Ecclesiam spectantibus atque hoc solum exigere Ecclesiam vestram pro articulo fidei credendum ab iis qui communioni suae se adjungunt If this Cardinal understand any thing the Romish Church demands no more of her Members then that they own the Pope's primacy not Supremacy or Infallibility nor have the the books of such as derogate from the excessive greatnesse of the Papal power been ever called in or censured in that Church or communion denied to the Assertors of the infallibility of Oral Tradition or of General Councils in opposition to the personal Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome It was and is still a common opinion amongst the Papists that the Pope may be an Heretick I learn'd it from Franciscus Victoria in his Relections Haereticus potest esse non solum Presbiter sed Pontifex etiam summus ergo caput Ecclesiae And Bellarmine himself doth not assert the Infallibility of the Pope no not though He be assisted with a provincial Council In libr. 2. de concil c. 5. fatetur hanc propositionem scilicet Concilia particularia à summo Pontifice confirmata in fide moribus errare possunt non esse fide Catholicâ tenendam ejus tamen contradictoriam temerariam erroneam pronunciat Nay the same Writer in his solemn Lectures at Rome teacheth that it is true the Pope maybe an Heretick But it is probable and godly to be thought that he cannot be an Heretick In the conference betwixt Dr. Raynolds and Hart I find this passage Raynolds The Pope may not onely erre in doctrine but also be an Heretick which I hope you will not say that Peter might Hart. Neither by my good will that the Pope may Raynolds But you must no remedy It is a ruled case Your Schoolmen and Canonists Ockam Hostiensis Turrecremata Zabarella Cusanus Antoninus Alphonsus Canus Sanders Bellarmine and others yea the Canon Law it self yea a Council a Roman Council confirm'd by the Pope
Scripturae It belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense of holy Scripture Dr Holdens booke is Licensed and highly commended by the French Divines and he himselfe a Doctor of the Sorbonne and he thus delivers himselfe Statuendum est quod quicquid à Theologis Catholicis in utramque partem etiam cum maximâ acerbitate disseritur ac disputatur dum vel propriis suis adhaerent nimis Sacrarum Scripturarum interpretationibus vel patronorum suorum opinionibus vel tandem consecutionibus deductis ex fidei principiis certissimum est neutrum contentionis seu concertationis extremum posse Divinae Catholicae Fidei rationem habere Quo sequâ—tur Summum Pontificem nullatenus posse in suâ solâ personâ disceptatas hujusmodi quaestiones ita decernere ut vi solius sui decreti pars definita sit fidei divinae Catholicae articulus Disputant siquidem Theologi an si quando Summi Pontifices hujusâ—emodi argumenta in Scholis utrinque agitata definiverint sintne eorum decreta ex institutione Christi ab omni errere libera Imò an Decretum aliquod à solo Pontifice Summo emanans sit ex hoc tantùm capite divinitùs infallibile Haec inquam in utramque partem ventilata videmus à piissimis quamplurimis doctissimus Catholicis Autoribus tam antiquioribus quà m recentioribus quorum neutram partem audivimus unquam fuisse Censuris aliquibus authenticis prohibitam aut improbatam Quapropter evidentissimè constat Catholicum neminem astringi aut huic aut alteri part adhaerere tanquam Fidei Catholicae divinae articulo tametsi Summorum Pontificum definitionibus debitum obsequium sit praestandum Out of all this precedent discourse 't is manifest that Infallibility and Sovereigne dominion over our faith usurped by the Bishops of Rome neither was nor could be upon Catholique principles and amongst men of common understanding the cause of Separation betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Romanists since neither the one nor other branch of that assertion is defined in that Church or so censured as not to be held upon paine of Excommunication The fourth Proposition as it is conjunctive or copulative to which it is necessary that both parts be true must admit of a distinction before it be censured To assert that we may hold coÌ„munion with any one that is account him of the same Church in generall with us and joyne with him in the celebration of the same Church worship and participation of Sacraments 't is necessary that we consider what it is He professeth and what it is wherein he and we communicate and what relation we stand in in relation to the Actings of our Superiour Governours that may have influence upon the case As for Example if the King by an Act of Parliament shall forbid us exteriour Communion with the Pope whatever charitable opinion I might be induced to have otherwise of him yet I should not thinke fitting to do it or that such my procedure were Schismaticall Thus Obadiah and the seven thousand incorrupt Iewes together with Elijah and Elisha did not resort to the Temple-worship at Ierusalem by reason of the prohibition by Ieroboam 1 Kings 12. Thus the English Papists complyed in England with the Actions of H. 8. Now 't is notorious that by our Laws the English are forbid in England to be present at any other rites or communion then what are authorised by the Church of this Nation and that upon penalties very great upon 5. and 6. Edward 6. and 23. Eliz. 1. so that in reference to this particular the Assertion of our Virtuoso is contrary to the Lawes of our Land charges them with injustice tends to seduce the Kings Subjects from their obedience If we abstract froÌ„ this consideration and reflect upon the persons to be communicated with and the things wherein the communion is held I say it is a difficult thing to determine what those tenets are which cut a man off from the generall communion of Christians provided that the matters wherein the communion consists be innocent and blamelesse I finde the Apostles to communicate with the Iewes in the Temple-worship and in their Synagogue-worship I finde the Communion not interrupted by the Assertions that the Observation of the Leviticall Law was necessary to a Christian Act. 21.20 Thus though S. Paul found very enormous errours and such as would now be called Fundamentall a ground for Anathema's in the Churches of Corinth Galatia and Colossi yet did he speake honourably of them calls them Churches communicates with them but not with their errours and heresies I finde the Arians and the Orthodox to communicate together at first in the same worship scarce to be distinguished one from another till the Gloria Patri came to be said and after the determinations of Nice when the Arians had gained the advantage at Ariminum though there were some Catholiques so scrupulous that they would have no communion with such as received the Council of Ariminum yet S. Hilary thought it best to converse with them and to call them to such Councils as were frequently held in France upon such occasions And where this sort of communion is to be carried on and when to be interrupted I am not learned enough to understand out of Antiquity It appeares to mee that the bare pretense of an Infallibility is not enough to cut off Communion if the Infallibility be restrained to some limitations and explications for as the naturall man may say he is sometimes infallibly assured of sensible objects and consequently be so farre infallible so the Spirituall man may be in many things infallibly assord certitudine fidei cuÌ„i non potest subesse falsum by the grace of God and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost so as that he is so farre infallible Rom. 8.16 1 Iohn 5.13 Iohn 14 20. 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Cor. 2.11 12. And this circumstantiate Limited infallibility if it extend it selfe to some things past whether of a morall or spirituall nature is not alwaies blame worthy much lesse a sufficient ground for to rescind Exterior Communion It remaines then that we inquire into the nature of the pretended infallibility what it proceeds upon and what it interferes with For any man to assume to himselfe an absolute and essentiall and unconditionate infallibility is blasphemy if not madnesse in an humane creature and undoubtedly rescinds all communion if it do not rather entitle to Bedlam For any man to assert that he is by the particular favour and promise of God infallible either in omnibus quaestionibus tam facti quam juris which some Iesuites avow of the Pope or in matters of faith only however that tenet be explicated either in relation to the determining of what hath been taught by the Church of Christ or as to additionall decisions that the profession of such infallibility provided it do not extend to the preaching of any knowne fundamentall errour
nor impose on the communicants the beliefe of and assent unto the reality of such infallibility perhaps it is not enough to breake off an Exterior communion But if such infallibility be made use of to the establishing of or introducing impious blaspemous and Idolatrous practises if it frustrate the tenure of the Gospel and render the Word of God as suspended upon that Authority of none effect as to being the rule of our faith and the finall Iudge of controversies I do thinke that although the errours and Idolatries were no part of the Church Service nor imposed on the Communicants to hold yet were all Communion exteriour to be avoided with such a person and his adherents so that none ought to resort to their assemblies after sufficient due detection of that Antichristian monster But agreeably to the practice of the Church of England our indulgent mother I do think that the resort of such men to our Church-worship Communion ought to be allowed not scrupled at Thus our Lawes enacted in Parliament which with the assent of Convocation is the Supreme Judge here on earth of Heresies consequently of Legal Non-cōmunion punish Recusants for not cōmunicating with us in the Church-service yet enjoynes them not to relinquish their opinions But in case such Infallibility in matters of faith be pretended to by any or owned as introduceth Blaspemy Idolatry errour and superstition into the publique Offices of Divine Service a Protestant cannot lawfully and with any good Conscience joyne with Him or Them in such worship viz No Protestant can out of Devotion which is requisite to Prayer joyne with the Papists in the blaspemies and Idolatries of the Masse as any man knowes that hath but lightly inspected their Missall or receive the Sacrament in one kind contrary to the divine institution as an Expiatory sacrifice availing the quick and the dead which is repugnant to the primary intention of Christ and this paying a religious veneration to the grosse elements and breaden god This judgement I am much confirmed in by Mr Chillingworth where he sayes that the causes of our separation from Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry impiety and most cruell tyranny both upon the bodies and soules of men you mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally for your errours and corruptions for the true reason is not so much because you maintaine errours and corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but such as will hold them with you and have so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing Thus much may suffice for that part of the Proposition that notwithstanding the usurped Infallibilitie of the Bishop of Rome yet ought we to hold exteriour Communion with that ancient and famous Church For supposing the case to be as I agreeably to the Church of England have stated it the Antiquity Grandeur and Fame of the Church of Rome are too extrinsecall and weake Arguments to sway us into an impious Communion Nor is the imputation of Schisme so horrid nor exteriour communion so amiable and inviting that to pursue that we should either abandon or endanger the truth So King Iames in his reply Neque ignorat Rex multa saepè veteris Ecclesiae patres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecisse pro bono pacis ut loquebantur id est studio conservandae unitatis ac mutuae communionis abrumpendae metu Quorum exemplum se quoque paratum esse profitetur aemulari sectantium pacem vestigia persequi ad aras usque hoc est quantum in hodierno statu Ecclesiae per conscientiae integritatem licet Nemini enim se mortalium cedere aut in dolore quem capit gravissimum é membrorum Ecclesiae distractione quam pii patres tantoperè sunt abominati aut in cupiditate qua tenetur communicationem habendi cum omnibus si possit fieri qui membra sunt mystici corporis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Haec quum ita sint existimat nihiloseciùs Rex justissimam habere se causam cur ab iis dissentiat qui simpliciter sine ulla penitus distinctione aut exceptione hanc communionem sine fine urgent Inter proprias Ecclesiae notas hanc fatetur esse cum primis necessariam non esse tamen autumat veram ipsam Ecclesiae formam quod Philosophus appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Didicit Rex é lectione Sacrae Scripturae neque aliter Patres olim sentiebant ad unum omnes veram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae formam esse ut audiant Oves Christi vocem sui Pastoris ut Sacramenta administrentur ritè legitimè quomodo videlicet Apostoli praeiverunt qui illos proximè secuti sunt Quae hac ratione sunt institutae Ecclesiae necesse est ipsas multiplici communione inter sese esse devinctas Uniuntur in capite suo Christo qui est fons vitae in quo vivunt omnes quos pater elegit pretioso sanguine ipsius redimendos vitâ aeternâ gratis donandos Uniuntur unitate fidei doctrinae in iis utique capitibus quae sunt ad salutem necessaria unica enim salutaris doctrina unica in coelos via Vniuntur conjunctione animorum verâ charitate charitatisque officiis maximè autem precum mutuarum Uniuntur denique spei ejusdem communione promissae haereditatis expectatione gnari se ante jacta mundi fundamenta praedestinatos esse de electis loquor ut sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod divinitus ait Apostolus Sed addit Rex eandem tamen Ecclesiam si aliquod ejus membrum discedat à regula fidei pluris facturam amorem veritatis quà m amorem unitatis Scit supremam legem esse in domo Dei doctrinae coelestis sinceritatem quam si quis relinquat Christum relinquit qui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam relinquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atque eo ipso ad corpus Christi desinit pertinere Cum hujusmodi desertoribus nec vult nec potest verè Catholicus communicare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fugiet igitur horum communionem Ecclesia dicet cum Gregorio Nazianzeno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nec dubitabit cum eodem beato Patre si opus fuerit pronuntiare esse quendam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod autem in Ecclesia futura esset aliquando necessaria hujusmodi separatio cùm aliis sacrae paginae locis clarè docemur tum illa apertè declarat Spiritus sancti admonitio non temerè profectò Ecclesiae facta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquientis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaenam sit illa Babylon unde exire populus Dei jubetur non quaerit hoc loco Rex neque super eo quidquam