Apostacy Heresy or Schisme But first not by apostacy for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to christianity none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus But notwithstanding this the Doctor by a new definition of apostacy will prove she fell thus for saith he Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Profession which we have formerly made But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn ergo he proves the minor because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not Reply The minor is deny'd and the probation concerning particular Doctrines as Worshipping of Images invocation of Saints c. is likewise deny'd because assum'd without proof and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid because it confounds Apostacy with heresy but the other definition is good because it clearly distinguishes them and if so then the Dâ— hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie This done the paper proceeds to prove that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy and to effect this it puts the definition of heresy see it in the paper then it goes oâ— thus If the Church of Rome did eveâ— adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receiveâ— Doctrine of the Christian-world I pray satisfy me in these particulars viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her 3. By what authority was shâ— otherwise reproved Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues Certain Popes Bishops of the Church of Rome as Liberius Anastasius secundus and Honorius have fallen by heresie ergo the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie Reply The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ which is to be wav'd because the paper doth not meddle with it and I deny the consequence which he no wayes goes about to prove But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy let us see at least what he sayes to the Quaeries To the first then which demands By what generall Councell was she ever condemned he answers by the sixt Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts Reply This unlimmited power challenged by the Pope is his supremacy alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine institution and therefore onely said not prov'd in which he is stil like himself to be an Usurpation As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it to evince this we will cite the words of the Canon which the Dr. least they should discover his bold assertion untrue omitred the words are these Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt Lybia Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custome these last words because the Bâ—shop of Rome c. evince the thing to be aâ— I have said for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government to wit because as the Councell sayes it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West I reply that you speak against the Text because this not another thing but this here spoken off viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces this is accustomed and to whom to the Bishop of Rome it is his custome to have it so wherefore we like of it well and confirme it Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction but confirme it I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places to wit in the West Reply This is against the fence of the Canon for those words because the Bishop of Rome c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should governe the Churches here mentioned As for the Councell of Eliberis it being but a particular one and the Quaeries demanding a generall one we need not reply unto it Nay if it be look'd into it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church least that which is adored be painted on walls In which Decree these words that which is adored are manifestly against the Doctor for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures in those times of persecution to be painted on the Church-walls for fear the Infidells should deface them Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice Act 7. desining that we must exhibit to Pictures contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds Honorariam adorationens non veram â—atâ—iam An honorary adoration not true latria that is an inferiour adoration but not the supream due to Almighty God only Hethinks to evade by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those 300. Bishops there convened Reply It is barely said not prov'd that the Nicene Canons were not universally received but I expect proof as for the Councell of Frankford it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons but only defines that vera latria is not to be given to Images which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms If then these two Councells agree how could the Dr. truly say that the Frankford councell rejected the Nicene Thus you see that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome condemned by any generall Councell But since he cannot prove it by Authority he will by reason thus The want saith he of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists
Authority but of perpetuall infamy through all ages after in the Church because it established Arianisme What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop when the first Nicene Councell might be pleaded for the Catholiques as the Councell of Ariminum was for the Arrians that may I say in the present controversy as to the second Nicene and the Councell of Frankford (t) Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praedicaturus proferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris scripturarum authoritatibus non quorūque propriis sed utrique communibus testibus resi cum re causa cum caulâ ratio cum ratione concerter Aug. con Maxim Arian Episc lib. 3. p. 733. neither am I concluded with the Authority of this nor thou with that let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses proper to neither parties but common to both If then we appeale to the Scriptures what more clear then the voice of God on Mount Sinai Exo 28.48 Thou shalt not make unto thy selfe any graven image or any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them nor serve them c. This service God reserves to himselfe as we are taught Deut 6.13 exclusively to all creatures as we are informed by Christs recitation and weighty interpretation of the place Math 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Exo 34.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt worship no other God The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angells The Replyer may learn if he know not that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture aswell the septuagint in the Old as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testāent are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that these words are all us'd promiscuously as well for religious and divine as for civill worship even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for civill worship to man De 28.48 the septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 20.19 St. Paul is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappinesse of the Galathians that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we may see that Dulia if it be religious worship ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature but Divines should not contend about words the Catholiques agree and I think the Papists cannot deny it that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this that the one is religious and the other civill The first an Elicite Act of religion as the Schools speak the second an imperate flowing from it as the effect from the cause both of them species of Justice as Lactantius hath excellently observed (u) Primum justicize officiū est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum religio dicitur hoc secundum miscricordia vel humanitas dicitur Lactlib 6. c. 10. The first Office of Justice is to be joyned with God the second with man That first is called Religion this second Mercy or Humanity Well then admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria we scruple it not as long as those words are granted to be names of worship differing not only in degree but in kind or nature for seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object ought to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine Worship and Humane or Civil that there is between God and Man But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man and therefore neither ought there to be between Divine and Civill Worship (w) Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vita coluntur sancti Homines Dei quorum Corad talem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta ōnia superata quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faeliciore victores quám in ista adhuc pugnantes at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur latinè un◠verbo dici non potest cum fic quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus nec colimus nec colendum docemus nisi unu◠Deum August contr Faust Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. Et mox longè minoris est peccati ebrium redire à martyribus quà m vel je junum sacrificare martiribus dixi non sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur uni Deo debetur St. August therefore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia did not admit Dulia to be a religious Worship above civill worship such as is given to living men though he acknowledgd it an higher degree of Dulia that we give to the dead then what we give to the living because we honour them after their victory more securely But the Papists conceive thēselves under the notion of Dulia priviledg'd to consecrate Altars Temples Chappell 's to Saints all which St. August judged to appertaine to Latria and speaking of the excesse of Christians that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivalls of the Martyrs he blames the Luxurie of such as were guilty but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far lesse then the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed though even to the Martyrs themselves This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own destinction into Latria and Dulia and much more abhor'd the doctrine of (x) Aquin p. 3. quest 25 Art 3.4 Aquinas and other moderne Romanists Who teach that the Image and the Grosse of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himselfe id est with Latria in its full extent had he lived to to see it (y) Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat c. 5. apud Reynold de Idolat Ecclesiae Rom. lib. 1. c. 1. which veneration when Greg. de Valentia observed could not be attributed to a Creature without Idolatry he spake plainly that some kind of Idolatry was lawfull The Replyer grants that the Church of Rome were sufficiently condemned though not by a Generall Councell if the diffusive body of the Church did condemne her and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church which owned none of those doctrines that the Papists
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
these doctrines Let the Replyer deny them if he please we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the Romish-communion we need not prove what they deny not being indeed so farre obliged not to deny it as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons To assert a partiall apostacy is not to confound it with heresie the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed which heresie doth not he that never acknowledged the truth cannot apostatize from it but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith may be call'd an heretique though he were never Orthodox Rome is Apostaticall in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed 't is not her mistake only in the truth but her dereliction of it when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone but by workes also for this she believed not but the contrary when St. Paul wrote to her and taught her the right belief Rom 3.28 And when St. Clemens governed her as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians where he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. The next thing the Replyer conceiveth him selfe concerned in is to prove that thâ—s Enthymem or argument The Pope have fallen by heresie therefore the Church of Rome is no valid way of reasoning and withall an extravagant controversie leading to a new dispute coÌ„cerning the Popes infalibility ex Cathedrá the Replyer here is much mistaken so if it be demanded whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure t is no sin not to believe as the Pope believes except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies when he trifles and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence he hath answer'd my argument my reason is clear and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it Thus then I argue is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope or not if it be lawfull why are they censured that obey not his decrees if unlawfull why are they excused that erre not with him nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind and as Hart did in his coÌ„ference with Reynolds rather in despite of all evidence to to the contrary say the Pope cannot erre then plead that though he doth yet the Church is not bound to obey him and truly if it be obliged to obey him how it can stand when he falls I see not 'T is pretended also by the Replyer that the Church of Rome in ascribing universall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice and so not condemâ—ad by a Generall Councell to prove this he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath (c) De Roman Pontifice lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉 would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon so that if Bellarmine please the words in the Canon because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome shall import because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so id est as the Canon before speaketh that Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Concessions to that Bishop as to grant him Authority over those Provinces But why must the sence of Ruffinus be rejected who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasticall History saith that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt (g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised who give the same interpretation of the Canon The Replyer therefore is very bold when he saith that this sence of the Canon which I give is against the intention of it seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment and Learning have given of it before Moreover what a goodly account is given why this cannot be the Genuine sence of the Canon A Bishop governing Churches in the West saith the Replyer is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon No reason I Confesse efficient but yet a Morall reason it might be moving the Fathers assembled in the Councell to provide for the Unity of the Church by like expedient in the East as they saw it furnished with in the West Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation which may out of the Canon thus be framed The ancient Customes are to be retained but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is an Ancient Custome therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome who by the right of custome kept his Authority over the West the minor is evident by experience The Replyer I know likes not the major for he saith that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right Alwayes held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how did this word escape him I appeal to a competent Judge the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions whether Clemens Romanus or no I dispute not but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict in point of Fact for the age wherein he wrote doth not he in that forme of Supplication extant lib 8. cap 10. of the Constitutions sufficiently declare that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co. sâ—it lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray saith he for the Episcopacy of the whole world and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem and his Diocesse and for our Bishap Clement of Rome and his Diocesse and for Luod us of Antâ—och and his Diocess Let the Replyer heâ—e obseâ—ve that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World but as a Pastor over his own
and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there asseÌ„bled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the roman-Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illÃs de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimaÌ„ esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd tâ— this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canonâ— concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Franâ— of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus Aâ—astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofuâ—t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis daÌ„natur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at FraÌ„kford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeuâ— gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no
Province which was not of old and from the begiÌ„niÌ„ng under his power If any have entred anothers Province have by force subjected it unto himself let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed nor the pride of worldly Authority under pretence of the Hierarchy enter into the Church and by little and little before we are aware we loose that Liberty which the Lord Jesus Christ the deliverer of all men by his blood hath procured Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved inviolated and the customes which were from the beginning No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell and Binius having recited only six Canons of it pretend that in the Vatican and some other Copies there be no more Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome may easily think that the Vatican can scarce brook a CanoÌ„n so directly crossing the present claimes of that See But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evident that he could not but relà te it and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duely inferre Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth determine that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it and that it may be made to appear that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod no nor for yeares after Christ much lesse from the beginning exercis'd over the Britâ—nick Churches therefore Rome can pretend no right over BritaÌ„nie without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves This priviledge of our Brittish-Church upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus will appear the lesse disputable from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord as the Legats of the English Nation at the Councell of Constance contend pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France and Spaine as having received the faith before them preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the Roman-Church at that City â—ay not into Italy till the second year of Claudius the Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome and by the authority of the Councell of Ephesus ought to continue so as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop or Court or ecclesiastical jurisdiction Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter and the administration of Baptisme for 't is not credible that the whole Brittish Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop as their lawfull Patriarch see the Primates vindication p. 100. c When I say that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us he reply's as he useth when he hath nothing to say that this is no Answer to which I thinke I need say no more but that this is no reply Clemens according to the title of the 4 ch of his 6 booke of Constitut might have taught him (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique but hâ— that forsaketh the godly He will not yield that we were forced to forsake Rome But is it not notoriously evident They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith are clearly the Schismatiques but so have the Romanists done as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo Moreover if it be Schisme as it is for a particular church to withdraw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church Rome as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholick faith nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismaticall He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith and herein we are like Rebells that storme at their King that seeks to reduce them We are not so fond in espousing opinions but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them assoon as we shall be taught that they are not agreeable to the Catholique faith * Psal 141.5 If the righteâ—us smite us it shall be a Kindnesse and if they reprove us it shal be an excellent oyle which shall not break our head But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spirituall punishments forasmuch as they reach when the Pope hath power our very souls and spirits so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire sword Gun-powder and all the instruments of cruelty that wit and malice can contrive they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops rather then the sacred Scriptures though St. Augustine (t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hâ—c placet si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticuÌ„ saeviatur Aug cont Cresc Iram l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such as were truely Heretiques affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men that Heretiques should be put to death and though he saw good reason to change his opinion and that the Imperiall Lawes were by their severity advantagious unto Christianity yet it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholique Church which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholicke and that will be when they shall convince us that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force will never concerne us till the Popes Authority over us be made evident and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient when it shall be his Prerogative to give us Commands When I say the Church of Rome hath
Imprimatur Geo Parish S. T. P. Reverend ' in Christo Patri Archiepisc ' Ebor ' a sac ' Domest ' April 14. 1663. THE Church of ROME Not sufficiently defended from her Apostacy Heresie and Schisme As appears By an Answer to certain Quaeries Printed in a Book entituled Fiat Lux and sent transcribed as 't is suppos'd from thence by a Romanist to a Priest of the Church of England Whereunto are annexed The Romanist's Reply to the Protestant's Answer and the Protestant's Rejoynder to that Reply By P.S. D.D. Yorke Printed by A. Broade and are to be sold by R. Lambert at the Minster-Gates 1663. To the Right Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God JOHN Ld. Bishop Count Palatine of Duresme Right Reverend and my much Honoured Lord WHen I waited on your Lordship the last Summer at the time of your publique-Ordination I communicated to your Lordship the Papers that now are printed in this small Booke Your Lordship was pleased to give me incouragement to publish them and withall to advise me to forbear any future reciprocation of this Saw which some count their delight to draw and retort I should not have presumed to communicate these endeavours of mine in a contest so long managed by our learned Prelates and other worthy Men of our English Church but that I perceive that our ordinary sort of people have not the opportunity to procure nor leisure to peruse Books of larger Volumne and Reverend Bishop Jewel's Apology that might instruct them in the severall Questions in debate between the true and pretended Catholiques that is betwixt the Protestants and the Romanists is rarely perused by the people of this Age though it may possibly be found in some Churches What the Person is that sent me the Quaeries extant I perceive in the booke called Fiat Lux and who made the Reply to my Answer I know not but I perceived that the people might easily be amazed by them and disposed to judge the Church of Rome not at all changed from her primitive integrity and thereupon the better inclined to desert our Communion In the Parish where I live I perceive the Papists and there are severall Families there of the Romish-perswasion generally believe that we have set up a new Religion that we have no Priests amongst us and consequently no Sacrament except perhaps what their women in some cases by allowance do administer Baptisme What effect such opinions do produce is visible enough in the spreading of this error in this place within a few years by-past That we should do our best endeavours to acquaint the people that Rome is not such as sometimes she was that England is not a Church bearing date since Henry the eight's Reigne that our Divines are Priests duely ordained that we have no defects in our Discipline destructive to the being of a sound Church and that salvation may be obtained better amongst us than in any Church in the world is the common duty of all intrusted with the charge of souls What I am able to contribute to so good a work I adventure to shew by this ensuing Discourse and how Zealous both myselfe and all others ought to be to have it done the danger of such as are misled from our Assemblies doth abundantly demonstrate That by Gods blessing this Skirmish may confirme some that stand establish some that stagger and raise up some that are fallen amongst us I hope the rather for that I have been encouraged thereunto by your Lordship who being so well skilled in the excellent structure of our settlement which were our Discipline advanced to the purity that our Church in the commination professeth is to be wished for would fall but little short of the Primitive-constitution hath alway been ready to maintain that the pretensions of Rome so far as she condemns and dissents from us in the substantiall parts of Religion are destitute of a solid foundation Your Lordships ability to defend and resolution to suffer for the Cause of our Church both at home and abroad are so well known that to speak anything of either of them is superfluous I crave your Lordships candid acceptance of this small work and withall I humbly returne my thanks for your Lordships patience in perusing these Papers and readiness to impart your Lordships direction and advice in severall particulars and with my prayers that your Lordship may enjoy that measure of health and length of life in your Diocesse that may enable you to settle it according to the pious and grave designe of your Articles of Visitation and compleat your Reparations of those Ruines that sacrilegious hands have made upon the Fabriques belonging to your Bishoprick in accomplishing which good Enterprize I have been an eye-witnesse that your Lordship forgetting your private concernes spareth neither for cost nor paines I rest My Lord Your Lorships humble and much obliged servant Peter Samwaies To my worthy friend Walter Lyster Esquire Sir THough you live among some of the Roman Religion yet you are better satisfied with the Constitution of that Church wherein you receiv'd your Baptisme than by the Quaeries that you gave me to be shaken from the truth of that Catholick Christianity which we professe since the Reformation in England When I returned to you the short Answer which you see now made publick it was received you know with as much scorne and disparagement as those of the new Religion for such I call the present Profession of Rome use to entertain the Reasons that either they understand not or know not how to answer But yet that somewhat might be retorted I know not what Champion amongst them let him answer it to his Superiours if he did it without their leave sent as you can witnesse a Reply closing it with an Appeal to an indifferent Judge I have joyned issue with him upon his own Termes and hope that whatsoever they may judge that are engaged never to approve any thing that shall convince them to be mistaken yet an indifferent Reader will acknowledge upon his perusall of our severall pleas that whatsoever Rome was in her primitive purity and splendor yet when we were forced to withdraw our selves from her Communion she had forfeited all just claim to her first excellency and cannot be excused from Apostacy Heresy and Schisme If any thing that hath been written upon the occasion of that Challenge which you brought me may contribute something to your further confirmation in the truth espoused already by you I shall not think my labour lost but if it shall conduce also to the better establishment of others I have reason as in the first place to glorify God for making me serviceable in the defence of his truth so in the next to give you thanks for engaging me in this Contest who being perhaps too much inclined to peace had not marched into this field had I not as you can witnesse first been challenged Wishing you all that felicity that none of the
Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores iÌ„ mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi iÌ„ m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. GermancruÌ„ Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion helâ— with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstaÌ„ding you may hear the Lord making this coÌ„plaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-Communion Coâ—poâ—eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the romish-Romish-Church to acquit her selfe froÌ„ this charge til she can prove
Disciples of Christ St. Johâ— and the rest of the holy Apostles all oâ— with departure from the impure frateâ—nity of prophane and ungodly meâ— that pervert the truth and bring in 〈…〉 the Church damnable heresies Is one and the same thing to depart froâ— Moses and Aaron and to withdraw oâ— selves from Corah Dathan and the râ— of their Complices Is it not the eâ—presse admonition of God to his people to come out of Babylon Rev 18.4 * St. Paul exhorts us all to such an apostacy that reclaims us from out iniquity Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart froÌ„ iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did Jeremy depart from the wicked Israelites under the guilt of schisme if he had God would not have confirmed him in his separation saying Let them returne to thee but returne not thou to them It was not then the sin of the Orthodox to depart from the Arrians when if not the whole world as St. Hierome speaketh yet the whole face of the visible Church groaned under that burden and admired it selfe to have become Arrian 'T is true as Theodoret observeth the Arrians termed the Orthodox the authors fall division but how justly such as â—an judge may easily discerne When therefore the Replyer wonders that the Doctor did not see his contradiction in saying the Orthodox did depart the Doctor wonders that the Replyer should not see his own tergiversation trifling in finding a contradiction that none but himselfe can espy That the Drthodox should depart from the true Church were a contradiction indeed because the true Church consists of those that are such howbeit that the Orthodox should depart from the Synagogue of Satan is as far from being a contradiction as Rome present is different from Rome professing the purity of the Primitive faith and that is far enough to be sure 'T is evident the Replyer had little to say but was forced to cavill when he pretends that the Text produced out of Hosea 4.15 was impertinent For what could more directly prove our warrant for reforming our selves then to shew that it was Gods expresse command to Judah so to do when Israel did refuse it If Judah was forbidden to go to Bethaven that is Bethel the place of Jeroboams idolatry why should not England thinke her selfe engaged to depart from Rome infected with the same crime An evasion was but necessary when the Replyer saw the proceeding of our Church so fairly justified by this Scripture and therefore the text he pretends concerns not thâ— cause But if to say that a text alledged be impertinent is a sufficient Reply surely to say that such a Reply signifies nothing but the disability of the Replyer to make a better answer is a sufficient Rejoynder As to the other text out of Isa 1.21.22 the Replyer supposeth that also to be of little force because it proves he saith that the Church of Jerusalem fell into sin but what 's that to the Church of Romes falling into heresy And is not Heresie a sin Sir Replyer If Jerusalem might and did fall into sin you must shew her exemption from that sin or else why she might not fall as well into that as other sins I see no reason Did not Aaron so far comply with the idolatry of the Israelites as to make the Golden-calfe Let Moncaeus purge him as he can in his book called Aaron purgatus Moses I am sure chargeth him when he thus bespeaketh him What did this people unto thee that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them Exo 32.21 and he supposeth him to have offended when he saith that at that time he prayed for him Indeed as Moses affirmeth the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him and he useth to be angry with no man to his destruction but for sin Deut 9.20 Wherefore the Jewish Church might sin and that not only against the Second Table of the Law by morall impurities but against the first also by profane impieties by worshiping of Images by erroneous miscarriages in the Duties of Gods worship which they heretically held to be lawfull as the present Church of Rome now doth or else they would never have done what was so clearly and frequently forbidden unto them And that Jerusalem thus fell in the time of the Prophet Isaiah the Replyer might have learned from the first words of his Prophecy for the word of the Lord came unto him in the time of Ahaz his reigne and Ahaz liking an Alpar at Damascus sent the patterne of it tâ— Urian the Priest who buâ—lt it accordingly 2. Kings 16.10.11 Which was a direct violation of Gods institution Thus it is evident that the High priest himselfe erred in administring his Office And why the Church of Rome may not erre aswell as the Church of Jerusalem a better reason must bee assigned then this Replyer hath given before we believe her peculiar priviledge This Replyer hath the confidence to say that the instance of the Corinthians erring in the doctrine of the resurrection is to litle purpose because some not all did erre in that Church But he conceals the force of my argueing from the supposition of the establishment of that error by a prevailing party for in case that should have been done by the Bishop of that City and a prevalent faction in that Church it is evident that the Church of Corinth in respect of such a combination might have been said properly enough to have fallen by heresy But grant the worst of other Churches yet Rome is secured It was said saith the Replyer only to Peter and his successors and the Church whereof they were to be Pastors thou art Peter c. What was said to Peter we know but what was said to his pretended successors at Rome and the Church whereof they were to bee Pastors we know not St. Mathew teacheth us not Upon this rock I will build my Church concernes Rome no more then another particular Church especially if St. Peter did found it and build it up by his doctrine for though he suffered Martyrdome at Rome yet his teaching might have as much influence on other Churches as his blood had at Rome But super hanc Petram and any other advantage that the Replyer contends for out of the Syriack translation will stand him in little stead to prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome For should Christ call Peter a rock and in allusion to his name adde upon this rock I will build c. all this would no more conclude that the Pope could not erre did he succeed St. Peter by a better title then he can make good then it did secure St. Peter from diverting Christ from his passion whilst this confession that he made of Christ was warme from his mouth and afterwards from denying of Christ with perjury when he was under the temptation of fear to be apprehended as a malefactor should he have confessed him Which failings of the blessed
first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church Peter by his endeavours whil'st he lâ—ved and by his doctrine since his death together with the rest of the Apostles though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients but not Moderne church of Rome a secondary or subord note efficient faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice and the faithfull the materiall of the Temple of God When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language which imports a rock he follows indeed his Masters Baronius and Bellarmine but to little purpose Peter (m) non est à Petra Petrus sed ipse est Petra is not saith Baronius derived from Petra a rock but he himselfe is a rock But what would the Replyer get hereby first he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel as if they did not conveniently expresse the importance of Christs words secondly directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine (n) Petrus a Petrâl quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur Aug deverb Dom. Ser. 13. lib. Retract 1. c. 21. who saith Peter was called from a rocke as a Christian is called from Christ and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock the word rock shall be praedicated of them both univocally equivocally or denominativel as the Logicians speak The first kind of praedication cannot be admitted true of Christ and Peter without blasphemy for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ the Son of God and to the rock Simon son of Jonas Now Christ is a rock because he giveth life comfort and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly and bodily which none can do but God If Simon be such a rock it follows he must be God also which is such a blasphemy that I hope this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off It follows therefore that Peter be a rock equivocally or by denomination from the true rock and let him take which sense he will the same definition by the Lawes of Logick shal not be assign'd to Christ and Simon because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ and the rock Simon By reason of the severall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues as Causaubon hath noted Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally and in the other a rock by denomination because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters that the word is that signifies a rock Cepha denoteth both but in Greek with others which is required in denominations as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simplicius in Categ apud Casaub Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha Peter be also called Cepha or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference will consist only in the form of words but not in the importance of the sense we are not afraid to call Peter a rock or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles Ephe 2.20 Rev 21.14 and why should we deny it unto him whose name challengeth it by particular praerogative The question is in what sense he is so called We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him and his Successors and the whole world become his Diocesse as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds pag. 459 neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter the Pope might lay claime not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world Whereas now it is too manifest that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour as the Popes ambitious designes whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate before him Acts 10.26 then assume his false titles false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See as the Roman Usurper doth at the other T is evident enough that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolicall dignity and (p) Contrvers 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased when the Apostles dyed and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome (q) Annotat in Cyor. excus Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to affirme that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship viz in the charge of the whole world But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John after St. Peters decease to have discharged his Apostolick Office by constituting Churches and ordaining Bishops whereas he assigneth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome but the administration of his own Diocesse Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority as the Romanists now contend for not only all other Bishops but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Authority instituted imediatly by Christ to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes universall jurisdiction is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia Zenon Bishop of Curiun and Euagrius Bishop of Sela all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himselfe attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them contrary to the ancient Customes the Canons of the Apostles the decrees of the Nicene Councell upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon the last of the eight recited by Justellus wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of and moreover without the least reservation oâ— priviledge to the Bishop of Rome iâ— in this behalfe adde (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses in all Provinces every where that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another
Limitation This might further appear from the usage of the Primitive Church the Doctors whereof would not have so far forgotten theâ—r duty in acknowledging this Supremacy as to do actions that clearly evince that they conceived no such thing claimeable by any fair pretentions whatsoever much lesse by Divine institution if it had been alwayes claimed by the Church of Rome Would St. Cyprian have called Pope Sâ—ephen his Brother as he doth in his Epistle to Pompeius wherein he chargeth him though I confesse unjustly for favouring Heretiques had he esteemed him the Head of the Church in the sence that the later times understand the word in would Firmil arus the Bishop of Coesarea have spoken so liberally of the same Stephen and have charged him with Errors ignorance pride (j) Multa pro locoru nominum diversitate variantur neque ta men propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atq unirate discessum est quod Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens a dyer sum nos pacé quaÌ„ semper antecesseres ejus nobiscuÌ„ amore honore mutuo custodierunt Cypr. Epist 74.75 had this perswasion of the Pope's Supremacy been currant at that time would he have charg'd him with schism in that Epistle to Cyprian for denying that communion and concord with Cyprian which his Predecessors kept in reciprocall love and mutuall Honour which is not properly said of the respects between Superiors and Inferiors had he had any apprehension of such a Head-ship as the Romanists now challenge to the Pope no certainly the Pope was not then esteemed such as the latter Parasites have stiled him à corporall God in the world such doctrine may be learned from Cardinall Jacobasianus the Canon-law and other writings which the Fathers age understood not none durst then be so impious as to bespeak as an Arch-Bishop in his Sermon is said to have done the Pope with such words (k) Dr. Franc. White his Orthodox way justified p. 58. All power is given to thee both in heaven and earth neither knew the piety of the primitive Christianity the language of the Embassador of Panormum in Sicilly who kneeling before Pope Martin cryed unto him three times together Thou which takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us Indeed had they believed him infallible as some later Writers would perswade the world the Bishop of Rome is they might then easily have admitted his Supremacy in the high'st acknowledgment of excellency and honour but this vain conceit was a phansie that the good Bishops of Rome ne're dreamt off as may appear by Liberius his Epistato St. Athanafius for he requesteth to be farther confirmed in the Christian faith by the authority of his judgement that if what he professed were Catholique he might be the more secure by the knowledge of his consent thereunto The words are remarkable extant in the works of Athanasius printed 1600 ex officina Commeliniana p. 397. Having described the Tenor of his faith in the blessed Trinity in opposition to as well Sabellius as Arrius he adds in his Epist (*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou Brother Athanasius consentest with me in this confession which is the true faith in the holy Catholique and Apostolick Church as in the presence of Gods judgement and Christs I pray subscribe to it both that I may be more certain whether thou art of the same perswasion with my selfe and also that I may constantly observe thy commands Indeed this good Bishop of Rome as we noted in our first Answer to the Quaeries and could further prove out of Saint Athanasius his Epistle to those that lived solitary lives by sad experience found himselfe far enough from Infallibility when overcome with the terror and importunity of the Arrians he yeilded to a subscription to their Heresy The Replyer had better have said nothing to the judgement of the Councell of (l) Concilium Elibertinum imagines pingi vetuit nempe ut idolotriam hoc remedio extingâ—erit sixt senens Bib. lib. 5. annot 247. Eliberis then what he doth at least he might with greater advantage to his Cause have said that only which he begins his Reply with that the Councell being but a provinciall Assembly and not Oecumenicall the Canons of it did not conclude forraigne Churches for to pretend that the meaning of the Canon was to preserve reverence to the picture is as much as to say that the designe in taking the late Usurper and the rest of his Complices out of Westminster Abbey and hanging up their heads over the Parliament house was to advance their dignity T was a time of persecution pitty those precious advantages of piety should be defaced by the Heathen so pretends the Replyer This he learned perhaps from Binius or (m) Tunc periculum erat ne Gentiles existimarent nostios adorare lignum lapides Sand. apud Bellar. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9. Bellarmine or Nicholas Saunders quoted by the Cardinall who is not peremptory for this Interpretation neither but first gives another reason viz. least the Heathens should be scandalized at the Christians and suppose that they worshipped stocks and stones and concludes with this (n) Periculum crat in persecutionibus imagines fuissent contumelia affectae a persecutoribus there was danger lest in time of persecution the Images should have been abused by the Persecutors But well fare yet a little ingenuity at a dead lift the Cardinall overcome with the reason in the Canon confesseth that it doth not much concurre with this Exposition and therefore he supposeth that it was rather left the Walls mouldering away or coming to ruine the Saints honour should be eclipsed by suffering corruption But the truth is neither of these reasons are of much moment to reduce such Images into the Church as they banished out of it for we are still in perill of giving candall by Pictures and Image-worship to the Jew to the Turke and to many Christians and I thinke we are not attained yet to such a perfection of Church-building but that the walls may fail in the best Temples and therefore the reason continuing why is not the Canon obliging I suppose Bellarmine might lay the lesse weight on this reason when he cast his eye on the * Admonere placuit fideles ut quantum possint prohibeant ne idola in domibus suis habeant si vero vini metuunt servoruÌ„ velscripses puros conservent silnon secetint alieni ab Ecclesiâ habeantur Concil Elib Can. 41. 41 Canon of this very Councell where Images are forbidden to be used in private houses there the walls are not only better secured from the rudenesse of Persecutors but also from the neglect of reparation whereby publique buildings usually suffer no small decay And the close of this 41 Canon establisheth the rejection of all Idolls though the servants in the family might mutiny for their preservation But the authority was but slender a Provinciall Councell