cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches Here then are Seven of the Doctor 's Novelties confessed by Protestants themselves to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory which the English here received with their Christianity which also sufficiently appears to those who are yet unsatisfied out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England written about an hundred years after St. Gregory of whom the same Oâ—iander also relates That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein saith he we dissent at this day from the Pope And for the Two others of the Doctor 's Points 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue And 2. Infallibility himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time For thus he The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable that any fallible Authority should assume to it self For surely upon this ground it is that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith though they have put none such in our Creeds 13. By which it appears that this Sermon and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it might as justly have been preach'd and executed against our first Apostles St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk as against us And if against them then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline And consequently if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since I might go higher but this is even too too much That man surely must have a prodigious courage who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament or the 39. Articles than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes And this shall be done by making some Concessions and proposing some other Considerations c. CHAP. XXIV Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation and the vanity of their Distinctions Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 1. FIrst As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism it is borrowed from the late Archbishop The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church the later to no body He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Augustin thus writing to the Donatists Si possit quod fieri non potest c. If any could have which really he cannot possibly a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World How do you know c. Aâ—d again in the same Epistle There is the Church where first that Separation was made which you after perfected if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness as you Donatists do but in the Divine Scriptures where he sees the Church really become as she was promised to be spread through all Nations a City on a Hill c. Hence it is that the same Saint though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists yet whensoever he treats of their Schism he never meddles with any of their Opinions but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture and Promises of Christ which are absolute and unconditional So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation for which there can be no just one is vain and fruitless And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants than it was against the Donatists because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was and alwayes will be unerrable in Fundamentals and this as she is a Guide And further that the Roman is either this Church or at least a true Member of it 2. But Secondly whatever becomes of this Distinction his concession is That really a Formal Schism there is between us nay more that the Protestants made the actual departure and indeed they must put out their eyes who see it not The visible Communion between the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken The same Publick Service of God which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over they refuse to joyn in for fear of incurring sin Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws every where formerly in force they have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches have made new they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body and especially the Supreme Pastor they judged to be a formal Act of Schism Lastly the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority Traditionary only ancient and Primitive Now they called Apostatical Novelties Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other but all of them more then demonstrate it A Schism then there is therefore one of the parties is guilty not of causing but of being Schismaticks properly formally Schismaticks Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience and declare once more at Court which of us two are properly Schismaticks It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland when she asked if she were a Catholick No Madam said she with a low curtesy if it please your Ladyship I thank God I am a Scismatick but withal his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English Reformed Church 3. That which is opposed to Schism is Catholick Communion We shew saith Saint Augustine by our Communion that we have the Catholick Church Therefore in discourse of Schism one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine or of making a secession from
looked after that is of burying their Friends in such sacred places whereby their pious affection may appear to their Friends I see not what advantages may accreâ— hereby to the dead except this that whilst they call to mind where the Bodies of those who are dear unto them are laid they with their Prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons that by them they may be helped with our Lord which also they might do although they could not inter them in such places Whensoever therefore the minde recounts where the body of some dear friend lies buried and streight the place occurs renown'd for the name of some Martyr the devotion of him who thus remembers and prayes forthwith commends this beloved soul to the same Martyr There was here in Hippo saith the same Father a certain old man called Florentius poor but pious and a Tailor by Trade He had lost his Cloak and had nothing wherewith to buy him another He prayed with a loud voice to the twenty Martyrs whose Monument here among us is very famous to reapparel him Some scoffing young men by chance being near hand over-heard him and at his going away followed him jeering him as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence to buy him clothes And afterward The Cook saith he cutting up the Fish found in the belly of it a gold ring which moved with pity and piety together he straightway delivered to the poor man saying See how the twenty Martyrs have furnished you with clothes De diversis Serm. 32. 33. unquestioned that I know of and which appear sufficiently to be S. Austins by comparing these with the conclusion of cap. 8. l. 22. de Civit. Dei A certain woman saith he there lost her son a sucking Infant being as yet a Catechumen only Full of faith she took the dead childe and ran to the memorial of the blessed Martyr Stephen and began of him to demand her son and to say Holy Martyr you see I have no comfort at all left me For I cannot so much as say that my son is gon before me to Bliss whom you know is utterly perished because dying unbaptized You see the cause of this my dessolate grief restore me my Son c. De Baptism l. 7. c. 1. and l. 5. c. 17. being compared This Father supposeth the Martyr Cyprian to know his affairs and in his handling that Controversie of Rebaptization contrary to St. Cyprians former judgment in which Point he presumes that Saint now fully illuminated yet hopes for his favour and requests the assistance to him herein of his Prayers Let him help us therefore saith he with his Prayers laboring here in in the mortality of this flesh as in a dark myst that by Gods help we may as much as we can imitate the good things that were in him 6. Upon these grounds Bishop Forbes grants that St. Austin doth allow Invocation of Martyrs commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging it and there also censures Bishop Andrews for denying it in these words The Bishop of Ely wrongfully affirms that St. Austin disallowed the Invocation of Saints the contrary whereof is apparent in his Bood De curâ pro mortuis c. And afterwards he adds Truly I am sorry that so just a cause is given to Iohn Barclay of exposâ—ulating with the most learned Bishop of Ely who speaks thus concerning him Here I have a desire to tell the King of Great Britain's Almoner The King believes him and so do many others and yet he is as oft in fault as he makes others to be so Let him therefore consider how erroniously he denies that St. Austin approves the Invocation of Martyrs Adde to Bishop Forbers and Bishop Montague the Testimony of Dr. Fulk long ago in his Rejoinder to Bristow I acknowledge saith he St. Ambrose St. Austin and St. Ierom held Invocation of Saints to be lawful which is an Error And the Testimony of the Bishop of Spalato who numbers this Father among many others that allowed Invocation of Saints The Fathers saies he without any hesitancy either Invocate Saints or grant they may be invocated the Latin Hilary Ambrose Ierom Paulinus Maximus Prudentius Augustinus And the Testimony of Chemnitius also who upon the former Quotation taken out of St. Austin de Baptismo l. 7. c. 1. sayes Thus St. Austin speaks without ground of Scripture yielding to the times and common custom Yet for all this a confident pronouncing that St. Austin knew nothing of this Doctrine or Practice serv'd the Preachers turn Many of his Auditors knew nothing to the contrary and therefore believ'd him and according to his desire detested Roman Catholics the more for this Novelty And that was enough then but what will it be when the Righteous Judge shall call that Sermon to a second account CHAP. XVII Celibacy of Priests Vowes of Chastity The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both Objections Answered 1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Noveltie is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders Which saies he is by some derived from the third Century by others from the eighth and in the rigour that now it is from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves 't is dated but from Pope Calixtus But saies he both in the old and new Testament Priests were permitted to have Wives The Apostles were married Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice And by one of the Apostolic Canons And the forbidding of Marriage with Saturninus and the Gnosticks is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of Devils 2. Indeed if the prohibition of Mariage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrin of Devils the Preacher has reason rather to seperate himself from a Church that enjoyns such a Diabolical vertue as Continence than from a wife that will not permit it and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest Though it is not only permitted him but esteem'd meritorious to blaspheme the Church of God yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle who in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrin of Devils forbids marriage to Widows who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service Younger Widows refuse says he for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will mary Having damnation because they have cast off their first Faith What means this phrase They have cast off their first Faith saith St. Augustin Voverunt non red did eâ—unt They vowed perpetual continence but they kept not their vow and therefore they have damnation This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrin and interpretation of that place of the Apostle as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Margin The same is taught by St. Epiphanius St.
do otherwise is not to observe the Canons but to follow our natural inclinations soon weary of such a burden And â—ow the Doctor may do well to consider what a Novelty he has found out to entertain his Auditors with especially since all the forecited Canons and Practices Which are within the time of the four first Councils were in force in England at the Reformation as England was a Member of the Western Patriarchat and therefore could not without a transgression of all Ecclesiastical Order be repealed by this single National Church much less could this Church without a criminal formal Schism make such a generally received practice a pretence for separation 16. His Allegation out of Clemens of Alexandria that some of the Apostles had wives is granted But did they after their executing their Office of Priesthood lie with them Did they leave any young Apostles behind them As for the Apostolick Canon which forbids Priests c. to cast off their Wives what would he infer from hence Does he think married persons are husbands and wives only in the night That which the Canon intended was that Ecclesiastical persons should not make their office a pretence to cast off the care of providing for their wives or to be divorced from them that is such as â—ere married and had wives before they entred into Orders who afterwards must not refuse cohabitation with them except when they officiate unless with their wives consent in the Eastern Câ—urches That the Priests under the Law were married cannot be denied since Priesthood necessarily descending by generation marriage was thereore necessary But sure he does not think such a carnal umbratick Priesthood is fit to be a Pattern for our Christian Priesthood wholly spiritual and withal Elective Yet he may take notice that even in that Legal Priesthood at the times when they solemnly attended on the Altar they had no Matrimonial Commerce with their wives They came not reeking out of their beds into Gods Sanctuary as may be gathered from 1 Sam. 2. 4. and the prohibition in Exod. 19. 15 22. Be ready the third day and cannot at your wives On which place St. Ambrose discourses thus Filios susceperunt id tanquam usu veteri defendunt There are Priests and Deacons in some secret places that defend their use of marriage by the Practice of old when the duty of sacrificing had its interval of dayes And yet then even the people were sanctified by abstaining from their wives two or three dayes before and washâ—d their garments that they might approach puâ—â— unto the Sacrifice Si tanta in figura observantiâ— quanta in veritate If the observation of châ—stity were so strict in the figure what ought iâ— to be in the truth Disce sacerdos atque Leviâ— quid sit lavare vestimenta tua â—t mundâ—m corpus 〈◊〉 lebr and is exhibeas Sacramentis 17. To conclude Celibacy to the Clergy being only injoyn'd by an Ecclesiastical Law as being a thing at the least no way repugnant to the Divine Law nay much recommended therein it is certainly lawful enough though from the beginning it had been otherwise For the Church hath liberty of making Laws concerning such things from time to time as she sees fit and her subjects are obliged to obey them CHAP. XVIII Of Divorce The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Preacher 1. THe Doctors last Novelty is the Church of Romes allowing Liberty of Divorce betwixt man and wife for many more causes then the cause of fornication contrary sayes he to the Will of our blessed Saviour revealed to us without a Parablâ— as if they meant nothing more then the opening a way to rebel against him A heavy charge But for the Legality of it he alledges in the Margin an express Canon of the Council of Trent which whether he reads à toto or à toro says nothing at all to his purpose proper Divorce being therein not so much as thought of And he himself saw and proved it made nothing to his purpose yet serv'd his turn because Chemnitius a malicious Lutheran said falsely and ridiculously That the Papal separation from Bed and Board 〈◊〉 in many ways a dissolution of the Conjugal Tie He would â—ain have Maldonate thought to speak on his side too but it is apparently otherwise 2. Truly this is a Quarrel so properly al' Alamand that one would think the Doctor took only an occasion thereby to let the Court see his critical diligence in observing the false and true Impressions of the Canons of the Council of Trent in some of which he has read â— toto which makes no sence and in others a toâ—o which only could be the Councils â—xpression But we hope an undiligent Prinâ—ter who for all that may be good Roman Catholic shall not make the Roman Church it self causally Schismatical and thereby excuse the Preachers separation 3. It is pitty to lose time about such a trifle which I think never before this Sermon was by any English Protestant reckon'd among the pretended Criminal Novelties of the Roman Church Yet I may be mistaken for there are a world of Sermons and Treatisâ—â— like his in intrinsic value which never had the fortune to be made so current Howe're left he should be angry if so materlal a part of his Sermon be neglected a little pains shall not break squares between us 4. He may therefore take notice that in the businesse of Marriage there are among Catholic Writers distinguish'd four sorts of Separations 1. A Iewish Divorce which in Latin we seldom call Divortium but Repudium 2. A Christian Divorce properly so called 3. A Separation a toro 4. A Separation both a toro cohabitatiore 5. Touching the first if we have regard to the direct intention of God and his Servant Moses it was no other nor ought to have been put in practice upon other grounds then the Christian Divorce allow'd by our Saviour that is for Fornication only But by the permission in the Old Law there might follow that Divorce a second Mariage by either of the parties whether innocent or guilty Yet not upon every cause aâ— the Iews practisâ—d it but besides Adultery only propter turpitudinem for some notorious uncleannesse extreamly distastful Now notwithstanding such permission which was meerly for the hardness of Iewish hearts their Divorce â—or any other cause and especially their second Marriage after it was not excused from sin but only from a legal punishment And the principal motive was left worse effects as poysoning or any other way of murdering c. should be practised by the discontented party in case a total separation might not be permitted This Supremest Degree of Jewish Separation or Repudium does not intirely dissolve the Matrimonial Contract which being consummate of its own nature iâ— indissoluble for the parties being by Matrimony become One flesh and one Principle of a new stock cannot by any following act or
accident but only Death become two again so as to be in the same capacity as they were before they were married And for this reason the Iews though permitted to marry afterward yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God Those whom God hath joyned let no man separate 6. Much lesse does the second species of Separation or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye The only lawful cause of which Separation is by our Savior allow'd and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornication that is indeed Adultery under which are likewise comprehended as our most learned Doctors say other more grievous sins of unnâ—tural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may not must cause such a perpetual separation is because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith By this separation whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party neither of them not the innocent party are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage for then they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage And here the Preacher may do well to consider what 〈◊〉 Patron he has betaken himself to which 〈◊〉 Chemnitius who against our Saviours Law as all Antiquity and the practice of the Englisâ— Reform'd Church interpret it contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party so teaching formal Adultery This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual that is the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies and are in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance whether or no to receive them again into their former condition Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery 7. The other two Separations not Divorces one whereof is only a toro from the Bed the other from Cohabitation also may be made for other causes besides fornication As for sâ—m very infectious diseases for almost irreconcileable quarrels for attempts of killing or wounding one another c. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces each of the parties being bound assoon as these impediments of conjugal conversation are removed to return as before to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspondence And till then I would ask the Doctor whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed or even his house a Serpent not only full of venom but ready and attempting to kill him with it Or if he have not this courage whether he will acknowledg such a separation so necessary even to the preservation of life to be a Divorce damnable because not for fornication What he will answer I know not But what he must if he go about to maintain his Assertion I am certain will be very irrational 8. Let him reflect on the practise of his own Church where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii à mensa toro these two are both allow'd in England now I ask the Doctor of which does our Saviour speak If he say of the first then clearly the Husband of an Adultresse may marry again which is contrary to the Law if he say of the second still â—e contradicts his own Law which every day allows a separation for other Causes besides that of Fornication Can we believe the Doctor never read the ordinary Cases wherein Diâ—orses are granted as Pre-contract Fear Frigidity Consanguinity c. all which dissolve the very Marriage it self and yet in all these the Marriage was valid till actual divorce and the children shall bear the Fathers name and inherit his lands if there never happen an actual divorce this the wise men of our Nation do and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ. Something like this for the second branch of the distinction St. Paul himself does and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour If says he the Vnbeliever depart let him depart a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases that is the Innocent may remain separate and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty which the Apostle allows to every private Person or why may not a General Council determin such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation Thus I conceive it clear'd that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent or Both guilty CHAP. XIX Of SCHISM The unpardonableness of that Crime acknowledged by Antiquity c. No cause or pretence can excuse it 1. HAving followed the Doctor through all his vainly pretended Novelties of Doctrine We are at last arrived to the most concerning Point of all Schism Most concerning certainly for there is not any one of the fore-mentioned Doctrines which in themselves considered would absolutely destroy Souls though they erred about them But Schism alone whatsoever Error of Doctrine yea though no Error of Doctrine were either indeed or pretended to be a cause of it will be inevitably damning to every Soul guilty of it which damnation neither rectitude of Faith nor any good Works nor even Martyrdom it self will be able to prevent For this cause sayes St. Augustine our Christian Creed concludes with the Articles touching the Church because if any one be found separated from her he shall be excluded out of the number of God's Children neither shall he have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his Mother It will nothing profit such an one that he hath been Orthodox in belief done so many good works c. 2. This is a Truth generally testified by the ancient Doctors of God's Church and not at all questioned by the more sober Writers of the English Church who have written of Schism c. They all are ready in words at least to say with St. Denys of Alexandria That we ought rather to endure any torments then consent to the division of God's Church since the Martyrdom to which we expose our selves by hindring a division of the Church is no less glorious then that which is suffer'd for refusing to sacrificâ— to Idols And with St. Pacian Though the Schismatick Novatian hath been put to death for the Faith yet he hath not been crown'd Why not crown'd Because he dy'd out of the peace concord and Communioâ— of the Church separated from that commâ—â— Mother of whom who ever will be a Marlyâ— must be a Member And with St. Irenâ—us There cannâ—t possibly be made any Reformation of such importance as the mischief 〈◊〉 Schism is pernicious c. 3. But I do not find that Protestant Doctors have endeavour'd to penetrate into the true grounds why above almost all other sins a Christian is capable of committing Schism that is the setting up an Altar against an Altar or the relinquishing the external Communion of the Church the making Collects or Assemblies without yea against the consent of Bishops or Church Governours c. should
These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.