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
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy not of the people This one would think were a strange shift and yet 't is such a one as they are forced to fly unto But First Let it be considered how unlikely 't is that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament of so different natures and yet speak nothing of the use or the reason the benefit or the necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the mysterie nor distinguish the rite or the words but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world Secondly If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite spoken before the institution of the Chalice then doth not hoc facite signifie offerte sacrificium as the Trent Council that infallible interpreter of Scripture would have it and consequently cannot make them Priests that is in their language Sacrificers For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice Thirdly If the Apostles were thus made Priests and drank of the Chalice under that capacity then seeing this is a Command as we presently shall evince it ought to be followed at least so far and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice which because they do not in the Church of Rome it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients Thirdly Sect. 11 I say that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated This will sufficiently be made out if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements and that not temporary but reaching even to us Now the Trent Council tells us that hoe facite c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him Yea the Apostle Intimates to us that this is a standing Institution in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till â—e come Now it is evident that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ in that it is said Take eat this is my Body this do this which I bid you do what was that eat his Body But it is more clear concerning the Cup of which it is said this do as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse where the Apostle infers that we do this in remembrance of Christ because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lords deâ—th till he come Clearly intimating that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup Wherefore this being a Command it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 12 Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute In 1 Cor. 11. Quest 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given St. Augustine saith Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it By whom sure by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup Hom 4. de quadr practised by the Manichees sacrilegious simulation and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints Yea when at the general Council of Calcedon Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba Bishop of Edessa that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine and that corrupt and sowre provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people that Bishop was severely taxed Whereby it appears that at the time of this Councill the Administring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it De Consecrat dist 2. comperimus c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable as you find them in Gratian We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood which because they do out of I know not what superstition we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them In Psa 6. poen because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge Thus a Pope è Cathedra And Saint Gregory cries out Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed De C rp Sang. Domini c. 15. 19. by the perception of which the Church his Body pascitur potatur I will conclude with Paschasius who tells us That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated And expounding the words of Christ saith He alone it is that breaks this Bread and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers saying Take drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander and * De Eccles l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius Papists and to Doctor Featly who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions We pass on now to the Fourth Section Sect. 13 wherein we are told Mâ— C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind in the fore-mentioned cases did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one onely But First How came he acquainted with their Mind Hath hiâ— Guardian Angel told him so Secondly In the fore-mentioned cases which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind if there be any such we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both yea from spiritual Communion as corâ—oreal or by the Elements when this latter way cannot be had but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent But he tells us farther Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread Ibid. and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh c. Now not to require a proof of him that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected and
Carthage Sect. 13 for that which he calls the second was indeed the seventh which thus he gives us Can. 2. it was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons As you may see in Calixtus de con Cler. p. 286. Mr. C. p. 215. and such who dispense Sacraments should be observers of chastity and abstain even from their own Wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep Answ Now here again Est quidem alia lectio secundum quam quod unus Faustiâ—us dixit universis Episcopis tribuitur sed eam mendosam esse cum resipsa tum Graecus codex evincit Quomodo enim ab universis dictum est quod mox Universi mutarunt alitur extulerunt Calix ibid. he is somewhat dis-ingenuous and takes some part of the sentence of Aurelius and joyns it to the proposal of Faustinus And 2. Taking advantage of a spurious lection makes that to be agreed upon by all the Bishops which was onely the proposal of one Faustinus a legate of the Roman Church to which the Synod doth not assent I will faithfully transcribe the whole matter that you may see the truth of what I say Aurelius then speaks thus It pleased the Bishops Priests and Deacons to be continent in all things which sure they may be in marriage as it behoveth Bishops Priests and Levites or those who serve at the Holy Sacraments that so they may obtain what they aske of God and that what the Apostle taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time 1 Tim. 3. 1 Cor. 7.5 that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer and Antiquity observed in abstaining from those lawful pleasures at such times of fasting and prayer and ingagement in Divine Service Vide Can. 3. 4. We also may keep Thus Aurelius Next comes Faustinus and proposeth that Bishops Priests and Deacons and all who handle the Holy Sacraments should abstain even from their own Wives to which the Synod answereth onely thus It pleaseth us that those who wait at the Altar should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve chastity And therefore it doth not at all appear that they consented to his proposal seeing chastity may bee preserved in lawful Wedlock as the Carthaginian Bishops in the third Synod do acknowledge The like prevarication we meet with Sect. 14 in your citation of the 28. Can. of the Afric Coun. which in brief runs thus Aurelius the Bishop said Uxores nisi eustodita pudicitia duxerint lectores legere non sinantur Can. 19 Vide Calix edit Helm p. 397. See Mr. C. p. 215. I add Reverend Brethren that which hath been confirmed in divers Synods in their relations or consultations about the temperance not intemperance as Mr. C. of Clerks with their own Wives and chiefly Readers That Bishops Priests Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the Holy Mysteries in their proper turns of service words which our Author thought good to change should be Continent even from their Wives and be as if they had them not which if they do not c. Indeed the Canon as it is in latine agrees with his interpretation as far as it extends but that wee should rather follow the Greek version appears from this that the Canon in its full extent is no where extant in latin and now for the sense of it that it intends the prohibition only in propriis viois suae temporibus appears 1. From the very words which determine and prescribe this Continence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according not to former decrees but to the proper terms of their attendance 2. Balsamon upon the Canon tells us that this was the very mind of the Councel nec prohibuit eis Synodus cum ipsis consuetudinem nisi in propriis terminis i. e. in prestitutis uniuscujusque vicis dieâ—us Yea the general Councel at Trullo Can. 13. doth evidently declare for this interpretation their words are these Wee know that those who met at Carthage being carefull of the holiness of Priests decreed that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the holy Mysterys should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of the Greek Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words do not only evidence this sense and tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are proper turns of administration or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also evidently explain the meaning of that clause in the former Canon that so what the Apostle taught and Antiquity observed to be the very same which I have imitated from what hath been said I thus argue they which limited this abstinence to a certain time did not intend that it should be perpetual seeing regula firmat in non exceptis but thus did these Synods Ergo. Thus have we returned answer to his Synods Sect. 15 it follows now that we produce our Synods against him And 1. I will begin with the Nicene Councel the History of which wee have related by Gelasius Cyzicenus and in that this passage It seemed good to some Bishops in the City to introduce a new law or custome into the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to define that Bishops Presbyters Deacons Sub-Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other sacred Persons ought not to use those Wives as Companions of their Bed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being Laicks they had married these things being thus determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paphnutius rose up and cryed with a loud voice Oh do not make grievous the yoke of Priests for Marriage is honourable amongst all and the bed undefiled least by too much exactness or severity you rather bring detriment to the Church then good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither are all sufficient to exercise this Apathy thus to restrain their sensual appetite nor will any I suppose be kept in chastity if women should be thus deprived of their husbands Moreover I affirm that the affording due benevolence by any man to his lawful wife is honest chastity wherefore her whom God hath joyned or whom any being yet a Lectorer or Singer or Laick hath married do not you separate Soz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which the whole Synod assented and left every man to his freedome to abstain or not This history we have in Suidas Verb. Paphn in Gratian C. Nicaena dist 31. In M. Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 1. c. 14. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. Now there is scarce any thing asserted in this chapter which is not contradicted by the decree of this Nicene Councel doth he tell us that a matrimonial use of Wives to the formerly married Mr. C. p. 215. Cujusque arbitrio abstinentiam ab uxoris consuetudine permittentes Soc. Mr. C. Ib. Mr. C. p. 206. was forbidden the Story tells us that it was left free by the Synod to abstain or not Will he cite some
did not beget children though others did if throughout all Aegypt it had been unlawful for a Bishop to have had a wife or beget children in that condition For that he is so to be understood is evident because he tells him how he might live in the condition of a Bishop nor did it concern Dracontius at all what lives the Bishops lead before their instalments but what they used to bee when they ascended the Episcopal Chair 3. Why doth St. Jerom though dealing with one by Nation a Spaniard and inhabiting in France fly to Aegypt and the East but that he knew there was no such matter observed in Spain France and other places of the Western Church St. Jerom is so far from shewing that this severity obtained in the East that he rather evidenceth by this that it obtained not generally in the West but onely in the Roman Diocesses or the Suburbicarian Churches The second place produced from St. Jerom runs thus Epist ad Pammachium All Bishops Priests and Deacons and the whole Sacerdotal and Levitical Chore know they cannot offer sacrifice if they use the Act of Marriage Answ True if they use it at the time of Sacrificing or when their turn of attendance upon the Altar comes or 2. This must be understood onely of the Clergy of the Church of Rome of which he was a member as also Pammachius to whom he writeth in this Apology or else there can be nothing of truth in it Mr. C. p. 214. it being so evident that our Author is even forced to grant it that the Eastern Bishops did generally allow themselves a liberty in this Next you produce the empty name of Origen to whom you have a sufficient answer in Calixtus and tell us M. C. P. 159. 160. that Eusebius saith somewhat which you durst not produce P. 227. 228 229. To. 3. l. 17. c. 9. sect 11.12 13 14 15. Haer. 59. because haply you knew that it was evidently impertinent as you might have seen in Calixtus and Chamier Epiphanius you introduce to inform us that a Bishop Priest Deacon Sub-Deacon that is the husband of one Wife and begets children is not admitted in the Church Sect. 21 especially where the Canons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very exact and severe which was not in many places then he objects that in some places the Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons beget children To which he answers Ibid. that this is against the Canon viz. the exact Canon he before spake of and to be imputed to the minds of men so quickly languishing 2. Haply he speaks onely of the Church of Cyprus and Salamis where he was Bishop or some parts adjacent For what shall we think of the Canons of the Nicene Councel and of Gangra were they not sufficiently exact From the Western Church he produceth onely the testimony of two Fathers Sect. 22 The first is l. 1. de officiis c. ult St. Ambrose whose testimony makes the Marriage of Priests impure corrupt a stain and violation of marriage which Mr. C. dares not approve of 2. He tells us that not in certain as Mr. C. but in most places more obscure then Mediolanum the Priests did beget children Ep. 82. Non quo excludat ex sortem conjâ—gii sed ut conjugali eastimonia servet ablationis suae gratiam Lib. de adult conjug c. 20. Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 3. c. 4. p. 348. 3. The same Ambross elsewhere tells us that the Apostle when he commands viz. the Bishop to be the Husband of one wife doth it not to exclude the unmarried but that hee viz. who had not the gift of Continence but lay under the danger of fornication should keep the grace of his Baptism by using this remedy of Wedlock The second Father is St. Austin who saith onely this that the continence of those Clerks who were snatched as it were into the ministery and violently compelled against their will as it was with Austin himself with Pinianus ordained against his will and the tears of his Wife with Panlinianus whose mouth was stopped that he might not deny it was proposed by him as an example to others and they are said to bee taken ad eam sarcinam subeundam because they were hastned to the Ministery before ordination and after that time the Church permitted them not the use of marriage But yet here is nothing of an Ecclesiastical Law much less a Divine but onely an irregular action which as matters then stood laid a necessity upon persons thus abused to be single Nor can it be imagined that such men ever made a vow of single life as the Popish Priests do or that these were fiting circumstances for a vow Thus have we gone over the Fathers produced by him Sect. 23 as clearly as the matter will well bear I shall be very sparing in confronting Fathers to him referring you for the triumphant evidence of Antiquity to Calixtus Chamier and Bishop Hall 1. Then Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing to Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus who as it seems would have brought his Clergy into this snare exhorts him Euseb l. 4. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee would not put this heavy Yoke of Continence this burthensome purity upon his Brethren but would have respect to the infirmity of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Const Apost l. 6. c. 17. Si male intelligatur non solum libidinem sacerdotum Graecorum defendat sed Latinis quoque ad petendam quod concedi non potest aditum praeparet muniat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athenug apol ad Anton. Philos Had there been any Apostolical sanction or Ecclesiastical constitution in this case how durst Dionysius have disswaded the exercise of it or called it a grievous Yoke not to bee imposed on the Brethren why doth hee speak particularly to Pinytus yea why doth not Pinytus in his Answer minde him of it and defend himself with it but only tell him that they should not perpetually be fed with milk but at last come to more solid meat 2. The Author of the Apostolick constitutions vulgarly attributed to St. Clemens tells us that Bishops Priests and Deacons if at Ordination they bee married must not bee joyned to others but content themselves with her whom at their Ordination they enjoyed words very pregnant and emphatical which Turrianus himself acknowledgeth and therefore contends for another Lection viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which hee is sufficiently confuted by Chamier to 3. l. 16. c. 7. sect 11 12 13 14 15. 3. When Athenagoras and Justin Martyr to whom you may add Irenaeus Tatianus Theophilus Antiochenus come to answer what was objected against the Christians concerning Promiscuous Mixtures they tell them among other things that they are so far from such uncleanness that there might be found amongst them many Ante medium both Men and Women that were unmarried even to old age the like hath
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
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
I ask whether the Scriptures Thus Bellarmine lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory appears from these words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3. He shall c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire and this he puts among the thing in which all agree upon which especially they build their Purgatory be not such as these They shall be saved yet so as by fire some sins are forgiven in this world some in the world to come And as for the Tradition of the Fathers is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins Well then if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented or something analogous thereunto 2. It must needs follow that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins 3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit that Purgatory is a place under the Earth in the lower regions of it wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings and in their Sermons ad populum And being so I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of If it be not then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught And if so either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge and so they live continually in a wilful sin or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church and then must our Author say that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops If it be then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Again are these things tending to Edification or not if not then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught contrary to the Council If they be then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of Again De Puigatorio Their Bellarmine will tell us l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned and prove it from the second of the Acts solutis doloribus inferni the pains of Hell being loosed which Saint Augustine saith he understands of Purgatory and that hence it is that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell and the deep Lake Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni de profundo lacu Yea secondly He will tell you from the venerable Beda That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell And thirdly that omnes fere Theologi almost all their Divines assert that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place and tormented with the same fire as the damned are Well then first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal de profundo lacu then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held Sess ult doc de Purg. Again I suppose your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it That if true penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission by fruits of repentance their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ or his Saints to the dead So then out of these things so deduced we have all that usually we charge you with First That there are some sins venial such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment Secondly That you hold that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it This is clear from the Council of Florence and these two Bellarmine joyns together De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins which are the hay and stubble mentioned 1 Cor. 3. and again for those that depart with the guilt of punishment the fault being formerly remitted Thirdly That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory to satisfie for these venial sins or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned Fourthly That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer however they may differ for Degree and Space Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead Sect. 5 And first whereas you say De Satisfac page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them here Dally telling you That of the custome of praying for the Dead Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age do make no mention so that it is credible it came in after that Age for Causes we shall hereafter mention Sect. 6 But to pass on to your proofs p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite by Confession of Protestants lived within the second Century after the Apostles when as even Bishop Forbs upon the Question tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century and it is clear that he speaks of Monks which had no being till the third Century of Temples and Altars which Origen and Arnobius who flourished in the third Century have told us the Christians never had And therefore whereas he sayes that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles his Divine Teachers this lye can sure avail you nothing but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand But as he is
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
prayer should be interpreting the Churches Prayer or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read 2. Doth the Apostle require that onely some part of the Prayer should be interpreted is there not equall reason for the whole especially when he adds let all be done for edification 3. Were this done frequently yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected though more rarely His 2 Ans I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. It follows Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays that is v. 14. the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me thus Chrysostome Theodoret Photius I know the Rhemists by Spirit understand affections and make the sence run thus in this case my heart and affections pray albeit I understand not what I say But were this the truth that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself Then 1. We must acknowledge that when the Apostles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues they understood not what they said which will not easily be granted Secondly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Chapter ordinarily imports the gift of tongues and therefore most probably it doth so here Thirdly The Fathers generally do thus interpret it besides the three already cited Saint Hierom Basil Oecumenius are clearly for this sence and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it But 4. The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us he that speaks with tongues edifies himself vers 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edifie vers 15 16. Fiftly In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit we should adde praying with the Understanding also so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit yet must you pray so also as to be understood well then our Exposition must take place It follows but my mind is unfruitful that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer viz. because although our spiritual gift perform it's work the mind becomes unfruitfull now here by mind some understand the Intellect some as the Reverend Bishop Morton the matter of the prayer which is the effect of the mind and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of Gods Church c. But this is not material in our dispute this mind is said to be unfruitful not to our selves as the foregoing arguments evince but to the hearer thus Saint Jerome mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti In loeum and Saint Basil In locum when they that are present understand the prayer then he that prayeth hath fruit to wit the edification of those that are helped by his prayer now to be unfruitful in this sence what is it but to be such whereby the Auditour reaps no benefit the Church is not edifyed others are not instructed as the 19. verse doth clearly intimate where we have these words in the Church I had rather speak five words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with my mind understood that I may instruct others then ten thousand in an unknown tongue now hence I argue That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition but the expressing of publick prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer Vers 15. Sect. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what therefore is the result of this even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in prayer that the Church may understand us that this or somewhat like it must be the sence of orabo mente is evident as from the precedent verse which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vol sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to understand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ridiculous inference after this manner if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitfull unto others therefore pray so as to understand your self or that your mind may be employed Nay it is further evident from the next verse which tells us that otherwise the Ideot cannot say Amen Now surely my understanding my own mind will nothing contribute unto the Ideot or make him more able to say Amen Well then to pray with the mind or understanding is to pray so as that the Congregation made up of learned and unlearned may comprehend the import of our words and so this verse affords us a third Argument If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation made up of literate and illiterate persons Ideots then must we not pray in an unknown tongue but in the publick service of the Church we should thus pray according to the mind of our Apostle Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit which is a part of prayer how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks for he understandeth not what thou sayest still the Apostle speaks of Thanks-giving which is a part of prayer and must be concluded with Amen Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Clerk say some Papists but surely they themselves are Ideots for 't is very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle yea See Du Plessis ubi supra a great while after their Martyrdome as Justine Martyr Clom Alexand and others do inform us did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour Well then t is an Hebrew Idiotism and signifies no more then he that is an Ideot for as Moses Egypt informes me More Nevoc part 1. c. 8. and Bux lex Talm. p. 2001. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended to note estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re and they use to say N est in tali loco in hac vel illâ re and such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth patrissare So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is an Ideot And thus the Fathers generally interpret it Chrysostome and Oecumenius indoctum and Plebium Jerome and Theodoret laicum Ambrose imperitum Sedulius Anselme Haymo and Thomas Aquinas propriam linguam tantum modò scientem all in locum Well then this Ideot is he that understands not the learned Tongues and the Congregation is divided into two parts see Acts 4.13 the literate and the unlearned and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them and the reason given because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue Whence we infer First That 't
would have wives should procure them before their Ordination yea the Synod tells us in the preface that they despised the married Presbyters and would not touch the Sacraments administred by them Now against these Eustathians the fourth Canon thus decrees If any one separate himself from a conjugated Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though hee ought not to participate of the offering administred by him let him be Anathema From whence we gather that according to the sentence of these Bishops in this Synod yea and the whole world embracing their decrees that a Presbyter ought not to be deposed for being married or reserving of his wife Here First They quarrel at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were to be rendred who hath had a wife not who hath at present but 1. Balsamon tells us that the Canon Anathematizeth those who would not indifferently communicate in the holy things of married persons that have wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with him Gratian consents Distinc 28. and whereas the Synod and Sozomen have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea when 't is said they refused to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it credible that they would not pray in the houses of such as had once been married though afterwards they rejected that estate 2. 'T is evident that the word bears this sense ordinarily 1 Cor. 7.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To those that are married speak not I but the Lord let not the woman be separated from her Husband See Chamier l. 16. de cael c. 8. Calixtus p. 208. Secondly They tell us that Eustathius and his Disciples thought marriage absolutely evil Answ What is that to the purpose seeing it is also evident that the Synod thought the marryed state consistent with the Priest-hood 2. Wee grant they did so and this is condemned Canon the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man condemn Marriage or detest it and criminate a faithful and religious Woman giving due benevolence to her Husband as if she could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven let him be accursed Lastly Perhaps they will say the Synod determines that it is lawful for a Presbyter to have a Wife and not to use her Answ 1. Can any imagine that the Eustathians could think a Presbyter so defiled by having once marryed a Wife when a Lay-man though he now rejected her from his bed 2. The Synod and Socrates inform us that many women upon their perswasions left their Husbands and being not able to contain they polluted themselves with Adultery and this grievance they came to redress which they do by requiring due benevolence and surely this being the onely case according to the antient Law Paph speaks of in which Priests marriage was permitted that they professed their inability to contain or else entered upon that state before they came to Ordination as finding in themselves a defect of Continence the Councel could not think it unlawful for them to enjoy this remedy of their incontinence A third Synod is that convened in Trullo Sect. 18 and called Quinisexta Can. 13. seeing we have heard say the Fathers that in the Roman Church it is delivered as a Canon that whosoever are to be ordained Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters should profess that they would not henceforward use their Wives we following the Antient Canon of the exact Apostolick constitution declare our pleasure that the cohabitation of Sacred Persons according to the Laws be from henceforward firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. copulam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lat Mutua consuetudine and established no way dissolving their conjunction with their Wives or depriving them of giving due benevolence to each other at times convenient and therefore who ever is found worthy of the order of a Sub-Deacon Deacon or Priest let him not bee prohibited from this degree because he cohabits with his lawful Wife least by so doing we should be compelled to bring an ignominy upon that Wedlock which God hath instituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 19.6 the Gospel in the mean time crying out What God hath joyned let no man separate and the Apostle Marriage is honourable and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 and further art thou bound to a Wife seek not to bee loosed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any therefore rising up against the Apostles Canons dares to deprive any Consecrated Presbyter or Deacon of the commerce of his lawful Wife let him be deposed Now here let it be observed I That in this Synod or rather supplement of the two former Synods Paul of Constant Peter of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Praefat. 6. Syn. Totius Synodi Romanae Ecclesiae vicem gerentes Anastasius of Jerusalem George of Antioch all Patriarches were present and the rest of the Bishops out of every Province and Region as the sub-scription hath it and as Balsamon tells us hee found in the subscriptions Basilius a Metropolitan of Gortina in Creet and a certain Bishop of Ravenna were there to represent the Roman Church and besides as legates of the Pope were present the Bishops of Thessaly Sardis Heraclea and Corinth 2. Act. 2. quod in sâ—xtae Synodi divine legaliter predicatis Canon c. Act. 4. 7. That albeit Sergius did not acquiesce in his subscription to this Synod yet did Hadrian the first receive the Synod and its Canons and that as rightly and divinely decreed as you may see in an Epistle of his extant in this second Nicene Councel Yea farther in this second Nicene Councel the Roman Legates not at all contradicting it they are cited under the names of the Canons of the Holy Oecumenical sixth Synod 3. That this is done in perfect opposition to the Roman Church and therefore they little dream'd of its infalibility or any submission due unto it 4. That they affirm that this depriving Presbyters c. of the use of their Wives or the Marriage Bed is a flat contradiction to two aphorismes of the Apostles a separating what God hath joyned and a casting ignominy upon the Gospel and consequently that in the judgement of this Synod the Roman Church her practise then and judgement at this present are justly charged with all this 5. That all this is done in compliance with the Apostles Canon which allows and approves according to their judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure is a little more then providing for their Wives or cohabitation without the use of the Marriage bed and the words of the Apostolick Canon do infer it For they do not onely say that it is unlawful for a Bishop to put away his wife but that hee must not do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under a pretence of piety now how could they under a pretence of piety refuse to provide for their own flesh Apud Grat. causae 3. q. 2. c.
the plaguy Lutheran Heresie Lastly Mr. C. ibid. hee adds that the Doctrines of this Council are now actually embraced by all Catholick congregations i.e. all Papists wherefore by the Arch Bishops concessions viz. that when the decisions of a General Council are embraced by the universal Church spread throughout the world they are infallible they are to be esteemed infallibly true Which Argument is built upon this supposition that the Arch-Bishop even when defending the reformed Churches against the imputations of the Church of Rome should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God CHAP. XXII Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils sect 1. The Reason of it sect 2 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it Answered sect 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us sect 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men sect 6. The reasons of it sect 7 8. THe sixth Proposition shall be this Sect. 1 That we are not obliged to yeild obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils 6 Proposition but may reject them when ever they contradict the word of God For the eviction of this which is the main Pillar of our Authors Fabrick I will premise 1. That such Councils are not infallible this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superiour to the Pope that of Lateran the contrary the second Council of Nice decreed for Images the Council of Constantinople contradicted that from the evident errours determined by them thus the corporiety of Angels by that of Nice the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum Seleucia and elsewhere from the want of any promise of infallibility from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power and many other things 2. That such conventions of men thus fallible Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions and unlawful practises upon the Churches which are members of that Patriarchate seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others their decrees which by reason of their fallibility may bee Heretical and unjust Yea further the decrees of one Patriarchical Council may be contradictory to another and consequently if the National Churches of these Patriarchates bee bound to assent unto them they must bee bound to bee Schismaticks even in the judgement of the Church of Rome thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kinde celibacy of Priests the worship of God in an unknown tongue the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and other of the Eastern Church assemble such a Council would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these and then according to Mr. C's own rule must not all the National Churches under them be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council and consequently to be Schismaticks yea if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions must they not lye under a necessity of asserting any errour or practising what ever they define though never so contradictory to the law of God Once more it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia were at least Patriarchical or equivalent to such and will you add that therefore every Province from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations You will say no because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice Ans True but doth not your Rule assure us that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow and were not the Bishops at Ariminum more numerous then those at Nice 2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox VVas there any impossibility but it might have been so He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph might have done it if he pleased in the former Centuries Lastly Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should bee Orthodox and the greater Schismatical and erronious and sticklers for that which God hath contradicted in his Word In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will encline and must the Orthodox party then bee necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod and to assent to their determinations and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word Thus in the Trent Council matters stood and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresie as they called it of the Lutherans By these things wee may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 237. viz. That if any law custome or doctrine in any Diocesse bee discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province or any Provincial law what is in force in the Patriarchate such a law ought not to be made or being made ought to be repealed Now apply these former instances to the Rule and it will follow that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and decree Communion in one kind legitimate c. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome Thus again under the Old Testament when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God more yet to decree it to be so and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ and held him the Messias that was to come had they given him the veneration due unto him yea decreed it should be so all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim The onely Argument which hee useth to uphold this fundamental Rule as hee is pleased to call it Mr. C. p. 246. is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we professe in our Creed unam Catholicam Which Syllogistically runs thus if there bee one Catholick Church then must a National Synod bee subject to a Patriarchal But the first is true the sequel depends upon this assertion that without such subjection there could not be one Catholick Church Answ This is manifestly untrue For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful but such may be the submission of a National Church to the decrees of a Patriarchal as our instances sufficiently declare Again
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not