must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors but the Flock of Christ is but one which they are to feed with unanimous consent there is but one Body of the Church one Spirit one Hope of our Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God this unity all men must endeavour to keep especially Bishops that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power but this place most plainly overthroweth it for Cyprian teacheth that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church which He settled in that beginning with one from him he proceeded to the rest not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place which he had first and that they should receive the same Commission together with him into which he was put first that they might know him to be the first of their Company for it cannot consist saith he either with truth with the opinion of St. Cyprian or of our Adversaries themselves that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter and were subject to him as to an Head and absolute Commander over them seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was and equal to him both in honour and power and besides both in this book and in many other places he is wont to derive the original of Schisms and Heresies from the intrusion of men into places without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all Well then to the places objected upon that one viz. St. Peter he builds his Church we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding The Church was built upon St. Peter but yet true it is the same thing is done upon others and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts That among the twelve one was chosen Cont. Jovin l. 2. that an head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest Answ Not as to any thing of Authority for then St. Jerome would contradict himself when he saith that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve so that his meaning is that before the Apostles were sent over the World and whilst they made up one particular company for better orders sake he was chosen Head that so things might be done communi concilio and there might be no Schism between them 2. He tells us this was given to Peter quia Petrus crat senior which being but a personal advantage cannot be applyed to the benefit of the Romanist who is to prove the Popes Supremacy and not only the Primacy of St. Peter not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms but Jovinians and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis p. 238. And for the second citation from St. Cyprian Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded cannot think that he is in the Church Lib. 12 de Oec Pont. c. 5. s 3. He might have learned from Chamier that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text and not to be found in some Editions but if it could deserve an Answer the learned Dr. Field will inform him That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in but the joynt commission unity and consent of all Pastors which is and must be such as if they did all sit in one Chair which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem Lib. ep 8 where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome but to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity others may not be admitted and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont Sect. 14 This would have perfect truthâ— in it saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192 had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles the Chair of St. John in Asia c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles which the Donatists could not pretend to see him exactly scanning the whole place p. 190 192 193. Parmen l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his particular Chair And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth viz. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatickâ— for so doing and he proves it by this Argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Châ—ir erects another Vnderstand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it We pass on to St. Chrysostome from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope but to the first I return a Non est inventus after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him * In Act. Apost c. 1.4 I can find nothing like the words produced In the second is evident prevarication for having told us that these words Follow me shewed his special care he had of St. Peter he adds How then was it may some say that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this I Answer saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
Romish Doctrines NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OR A REPLY To what S.C. or Serenus Cressy A ROMAN CATHOLICK hath returned to Dr. PIERCES SERMON Preached before his MAJESTY at WHITEHALL Feb. 1. 1662. IN Vindication of Our CHURCH Against the NOVELTIES of ROME By DANIEL WHITBIE M.A. and Fellow of Trin. Coll. Oxon. 1 Jo. 2.24 Let that therefore abide in you which yee have heard from the beginning LONDON Printed by R. W. for Tho. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street and Ja. Magnes in Coven-Garden 1664. Imprimatur Nov. 6. 1663. Tho. Grig R. in Christo P.D. Humfr. Epis Lond. à Sac. Domesticis To the Right Reverend Father in God SETH Lord Bishop of Exeter My very good Lord BEing informed of a Book which passed the decretorial sentence against our Church and that it was written by an Author grave and sober whose reason was very keen and sharp one who was the Coryphaeus of the Roman Party and therefore from whom I might expect all that the matter could well bear one lastly who was once a professed son of the Church of England and therefore would not be so ungrateful to his Mother as to pass so heavy a doom upon her without the greatest evidence and conviction I first set upon perusing it big with expectations but finding my self miserably disappointed I was put into such a passion as vented it self into this Reply which humbly lies prostrate at your Lordships feet begging the favour and honour of your acceptance and that you would be pleased to take it into your protection And indeed what can be more proper then to commit a discourse of this nature to the protection of such a Father of the Church whose zeal for the Churches good is as ardent as her enemies rage and fury violent What therefore my former promises of tendering my first fruits unto your Lordship and the influence of your instructions and encouragement have made your own flies to the shelter of your goodness where leaving it I securely rest Your Lordships most humbly devoted Servant DANIEL WHITBIE TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Cannot but expect to be censured as a bold adventurer as one who hath puld upon himself a burthen not sufficiently considering Quid ferre recusant Quid valeant humeri In that I have dared to appear in a matter of such concernment as this I have undertaken you will happily cry out of an impar congressus betwixt one of yesterday and Father Cressy But notwithstanding this objection which lyes so fair in the view of all men I shall not despair of a milder censure if it be considered 1. That I did not presume to venture upon the Work till I had found that every citation produced from the Fathers by S.C. was already Answered to my hands by the Champions of our Cause so that when any matter of Antiquity is scanned by me know that I steared my course by the greatest lights our Nation or other reformed Churches would afford me that I speak the mind of an Hammond Field Salmasius or a Baron in the business of the Popes Supremacy of an Usher Fern and Dally in that of Purgatory of a Taylor and Featly in the business of Communion in one kind of a Crakanthorp and Dally in that of Images of an Usher Andrews and Crakanthorp in that of Invocation of Saints of an Hall Taylor and Calixtus touching Celibacy of Priests of a Chillingworth in the two great Controversies of the Infallibility of the Church and Schism of a Chamier and a Lord du Plessis in them all and if you will but acknowledge that Bellarmine hath been Answered and that it is not a thing impossible for such an one as I am to have seen those Answers and to be able to transcribe them you will consequently be obliged to grant that it was possible for me to have returned an Answer to this Epitomie of him which our Author hath produced And yet after all this I must say 2. That these collections for so I am content they should be called have not passed without the censure of some Critical eyes to whom I have wholly referr'd my self for the addition to or alteration of what ever seemed good unto them so to do and that I have moreover omitted many things of lesser moment wherein I had clearly the advantage of my Adversary that I might not be too much burthensome to the Readers patience Now if these things be impartially considered I hope the Objection which before appeared so considerable will vanish and this poor Treatise which intends only to tell the world that the advantage of our Cause is such as that the wisest of our Antagonists may be encountered by even the meanest sons of the Church of England that to plead for Popery is but to give us the trouble of transcribing the Answers of our learned Protestants may find a favourable acceptance from thee Farther I entreat thee not to be offended either with the breach of Pages which was necessary from the employment of divers Printers in this work or with some false Pointings which may easily be rectified or lastly with some few Marginal citations not very appositely placed which hoping thou wilt gratifie me in I bid thee farewell D. W. A Catalogue of some Books Printed for T. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street SCintilla Altaris or Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts of the Church the third Edition by E. Spark D.D. Dr. Collets Devotions for every day of the week The new Book of Common-Prayer with choice Cuts in Brass suited to all the Feasts and Fasts of the Church of England throughout the year in a Pocket volume ΛΟΓΙΚΗΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ The Reasonableness of Divine Service in Answer to the contrary pretentions of H. D. in a late Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer and Liturgies by Ir. Freeman M A. An exact Abridgement of all the Acts of Parliament in force and use since the 16. K Ch. 1. to this present by W. Hughes of Grayes-Inn Esquire A Synoptical Directory on the Canons of the Scripture by Ferdinando Parkhurst The Extravagant Shepherd an Anti-Romance in fol. ERRATA PAge 3. l. ult r. Morton p. 10. l. 26. r. abundantia p 20. l. 9. r. E Cathedra l. 15. r. secondly p. 33. l. 33. add to p 38. l. 8. r. now p. 46. l. 33. add illi l. 34. r. praeceptio p. 52. l. 22. r. or p 60. l. 8. r. it l. 27. r. his p. 67. l. 29. del S. 15. p. 76. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 84. l 27. dele not p. 94. l. 26. r. next query p. 106. l. 7. r. pâ—opositions l 33. r. can we p. 112. l. 34. add are p. 117. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 118. l. 20. add c. p. 172. l. 5. r. that p. 176. l. 4. r. not p. 182. l. 28. add the. p. 194. l. 32. r. they p 200. l. 14. dele Answ p. 201. l. 1. r. of p. 204. l. 31.
witness And he shall be intestate and not have power to make a Will nor come to succession of inheritance And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause but he shall be forced to answer others And if he be a Judge his sentence shall be invalid and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing If he be an advocate his Plea shall not be admitted If a Notary or Register the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void and damned with the damned Author And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed Thus the Council The Summ of which is that all the Pope calls Hereticks must be condemned and destroyed That all Kings Princes or Lords that will not execute his sentence and root them out must be dispossessed of their Dominions and the subjects absolved from fidelity whatever Oaths they had taken and all others that do but favour or receive them be utterly undone and exterminated Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth and we have this with the decernimus firmiter statuimus of a general Council this must be acknowledged to be so Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees Epist Monit ad Johannem Barclaium But against this Eudaemo-Johannes asks if the business were so Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Vnus quidem reclamavit cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire ausus sit Yea why is it so generally Extant in all Editions Coâ—t Barclaium 2. Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant omnibas consentientibus laudantibus to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place who all consented to and applauded the determination and by another at Rome under Paschal the second by one at Colen under Gelasius the second at Rhemes under Calixtus the second at Beneventum under Victor the third at Placentia under Vrbane the second and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy and as many in Spain fifteen in France twelve in Germany England and Scotland seven besides many others which unquestionably he had not read I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperours and deprive them of their Kingdoms if they be Hereticks and must it not thence follow that this Dominus fac totum this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King and exterminate all that do oppose them all that are Loyal to their Soveraigns doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them and may make insurrections against them without scruple and then not to add their Jesuites Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts CHAP. II. Why this Work was undertaken by the Author Sect. 1. M. C ' Protestation incredible Sect. 2. His Slur cast upon his Majesty Sect. 3. OCcasionally perusing this Author Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book that was not either disingenuously forged or fully and satisfactorily answered already by Protestant Divines and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I though I should profess no greater abilities then to write and read to evince this unto the world and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties but old and bafled arguments such as any man may Answer who can write and read And here I tremble to consider Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent to say no worse to call God to witness upon his soul Pag. 10. that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavilling distortions either of Text of Scripture or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called pâ—as fraudes corruptions of either And that he would alledge nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church Purgatory Invocation of Saints Celibacy of Priests but especially Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacy and if he do not find Scriptures miserably distorted Fathers not only wrested but corrupted I will forfeit presently my life And is it possible that any man should believe him perswaded that his proofs are unanswerable who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the famous Chillingworth and Reverend Dr. Hammond out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments He that considereth his Discourse upon the Churches practice of Praying in the Latine tongue will find it altogether unpossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God And Thirdly Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty Pag. 11. of transgressing his injunctions to his very face doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face CHAP. III. The Challenge of Bishop Jewel owned by us Sect. 1. M. C's malitious accusation of our Church Sect. 2. His mistake Sect. 3. Antiquity not acknowledged to run contrary to us Sect. 4. His abuse of Dr. Hammond ib. Not We but the Romanist self-condemned Sect. 5. This evidenced from their Indices expurgatorii Sect. 6. M. C's Mistake rendring his whole Book impertinent Sect. 7. An Answer to his Questions Sect. 9. Scripture not abused by the Doctor ib. IN this third Chapter You begin with a bold assertion Sect. 1 Defen Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s 3. Ecclesia illius temporis ad 600. annos sola nostra est nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum vide quae sequuntur Demonst of the Problem in fine Defence of the way c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church whereas we
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
therefore to the prevention of Schism t is meet they should have an Authority to bound them But now for a Metropolitan he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing out of his own Diocess in which he is a Bishop without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province though he be in order and honour the first so in like sort the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction but only a Primacy of Order and Honour there needs none over them especially with a power of Jurisdiction to prevent their Schisms so then saith Cham. De Oecum Pontis l 9. c. 14. s 12. here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike as if one should say T is convenient that there should be one Primate over Bishops but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates endued with full power of jurisdiction 3. The Fathers which are for one Bishop over Presbyters upon the account that Schism might be prevented yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end but redressed all Schism by calling Synods neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church or Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors conspiring and consenting together as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastour Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes Answ Nor is it needful for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn But if the Schism be very dangerous and betwixt Province and Province Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us not that we must run to him but that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod quam quidem donec consequamur expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei ac Christi ejus Domini nostri who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man till it can be proved and not Begged that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled will his Verdict put an end to their Schism that think him as fallible as themselves And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse till they had evidence of his infallibility or the Delegacy of his power from Christ and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope we come now to consider what he hath to return upon the Doctor And first Sect. 4 the Doctor saith he accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ Mark 10.42 43 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but so shall it not be among you Now 1. he will tell us Pag. 34. that not the affecting but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept that it is established by the Text for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief To this stale argument it hath been Answered that to argue from this Mark 10.44 Whosoever will be chief that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles is as ridiculous as from Luk. 9.48 He that is least among you the same shall be greatest to argue that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest or from Luk. 22.26 He that is Chief as he that doth serve that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest 2. He tells us that this is so evident in the next verse Ibid. that had the Doctor but rehearsed it he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture It seems the Doctor is very much to blame but let us hear the Objection which Bellarmine will lend him which is this that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation who surely had Authority yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church How then are they to imitate Christ in renouncing their Superiority did he himself do so No. Well then they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction Answ This Argument hath been answered several times by telling Bellarmine that t is true in Christ there was supream Authority as well as humility but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation thence therefore to infer that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his is as vain a Fancy as because he that Commanded them his humility thought it no roberry to be equal with God thence to infer that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer 2 Christ though he had this power yet never exercised it upon Earth but was in the form of a servant and this he propounds to their imitation 3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us The Apostles were Church rulers what inference can he make For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept If so he is more impudent then this opposition if not then is that spoken besides the purpose and without any Contradiction to the Doctor Well then What is it that is forbidden viz. Pag. 35. quoth he The exercising it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do Ambitious seeking of Authority and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage Now here he jumps with the Doctor whose words are For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Saviours precepts Now that the Pope affects this may be aâ—gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers and invading the rights of others he bandies for it and albeit he knows t is one great occasion of Schism and of the breach of the Churches peace yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it and excommunicates all who do not then which greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this Abalens in Math. quaest 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest which
St. Peter St. Ambrose saith he had primacy over the Gentiles parimodo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id in ch 1. ad Gal. in like manner as St. Peter over the Jews St. Chrysost That he showed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal honour with the best and chiefest of the Apostles and that he was equal to St. Peter and Oecumenius cryes out See how he makes himself equal to St. Peter to whom you may add St. Austin in c. 1. ep ad Gal. 3. Was it ever heard that a Prince should consent to the division of his Province betwixt himself and his inferior yea afford him the largest portion in this division as here St. Peter doth yea why was no special power exercised in this case by the Prince of the Apostles if he were such but the matter indifferently determined by all three 3. 'T is further argued that if St. Peter had been Prince of the Apostles St. Paul would not have had the confidence to resist him to the very face Bellarmine will tell us that an inferior may rebuke a superior Answ But let it be considered that this rebuke was publick and a resistance of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he charges him of not walking uprightly not agreeably to the truth of the Gospel but doing things for which he deserved to be rebuked by him and all this without the least shew of reverence and submission without any artificial preface begging the pardon or deprecating the anger and displeasure of his Superior which seems sufficiently to argue that he did not thus esteem him When St. Paul had rounded the High Priest and told him that God would smite him for judging and condemning him to be smitten contrary to the Law how presently doth he correct himself upon information given that he spake to the High Priest and when he takes up St. Peter in this manner might he not as truly have said I wist not that he was the High Priest the Prince of the Apostles Mr C. p. 75. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatum Now all the answer which is returned to this objection is that St. Austin saith The Superior was reproved of the Inferior Now here let it be considered 1. That this will do him little service unless he will be pleased to grant that the inter pretation of one single Father or two at the most is a sufficient evidence and ground of receiving such a sense of any Paragraph of the Word of God which I am confident he dareth not assert 2. I Answer that what he rendreth Inferiors is in St. Austin posteriores such as were made Apostles after him now the same Austin informeth us that ejus honorem implet clarificatio Domini Vbi supra c. 1. cp ad Gal. si quid habebat ordo temporis minus and as for his first citation That St. Peter being reprehended did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him and therefore he would not be reprehended by a novice and one that was posterior I answer That he hath gelded the place and made it look otherwise then indeed it doth Ib. l. 2. de Bapt. for the words of St. Austin are Nec Petrus sevindicavit aut arroganter aliquid aut insolenter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere Peter did not arrogantly and insolently take upon himself to say that the Primacy belonged to him which shews that to have challenged such a Primacy would have been insolence and arrogance in St. Peter according to the judgement of St. Austin The Doctor goes on to argue thus Sect. 7 If the Pope be head of the Catholick Church Mr C. p. 78. s 15. then when there is no Pope at all which is very often the Catholick Church must have no head Now here having told us that never did old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority which is very true because they were elder brothers to it He further answers That for all this Papacy is immortal and in some sense it may be said Mr C. p. 78. that Popes dye not because their Jurisdiction remains in the body of Electors And secondly When an Ecclesiastical Superior dies there remains by Christs ordination a vis generativa in the Church to constitute another in his place I answer There may be a vacancy not only by death but Heresie Paganisme things incident to Popes as may be seen in Mr. Pag. 22 23 24. Baxters Key for Catholicks and yet the power doth not devolve it self upon the Electors and if it doth what if they also prove Hereticks as 't is sure they may and ten to one but they did in the time of Liberius when none were suffered to be in publick places but such as were Arrians then sure he must grant a vacarcy Again when antiently the people were Electors did the power devolve it self upon them in a word either the Pope is an essential head or an accidental if the last then may the Church subsist without him and the being of a Pope is not necessary to the being of a Church seeing accidents potest abesse sine subjecti interitu the contrary to which you above assert and thence conclude the necessity of a Pope If the first then 1. May the Church be unholy because an essential part of the Church may be so unless you will have the confidence to assert that all the Popes that have been or shall be must necessarily be holy Then 2. must the Pope be head when a general Council is convened and consequently be superiour to that seeing an essential head can never cease to be so And 3. He that doth not acknowledge the Pope can be no member of the Church as not being united to this visible essential head and so God must necessarily damn all those righteous souls that live not in communion with him both in all the reformed Churches and all the other parts of the world a thing so contrary to the goodness of God that none but Papists can believe it and a thousand such absurdities as you may see them reckoned up if you please in Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks Part the second The Doctors second inference was Sect. 8 That when there were many Popes there would be many Heads and so the Church would become a Monster To this he Answereth That as when after the death of the King Mr. C. p. 79. s 16. several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one Legitimate Successor and all the rest are Tyrants yea and their adherents rebels so likewise when such a Schism hapneth he that is Legitimately elected is the right head all the rest are Schismaticks Rep. And so must their Adherents also so then in the time of the Schism from Vrban the sixth to Martin the fifth which lasted forty years The Schism betwixt Alexander the third and four Schismaticks which lasted seventeen years the Schism betwixt Benedict the ninth and
latitude as it was delegated to him if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him as he saith they do But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too as will be seen throughout In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage toâ—plead for that Title which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patriarch And he tells us Mr. C. p. 48. indic Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches Answ True we acknowledge with the Council of Chalcedon that being the Emperours Seat it had a Primacy of order confered upon it but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony His second citation as it is frivolous and already answered Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Vtopian Edition A third is very unsutable to his protestation P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious as Protestants do generally thence conclude claps in John Bishop of Constantinople L. 2. indic 10. Ep 37 Ibid. a very palpable deceit His next quotations will afford us as he reads it this that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act as the person he complains of did such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia and who knows not that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals L. 7. ind 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours Another of his testimonies speaks thus When any fault is found in any Bishop I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome but in the Latine tis subjectus sit may not be subject to the See of Rome viz. may not be subject if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case and if the Pope himself had been found faulty he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople L. 5. indic 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed that which brings up the rear is this that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick Ibid. and that the cause was determined by his sentence Now to this the same Doctor Answers That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople tells him what was to be done in this matter according to the rules of justice accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of And where he talks of the Canons of the Church the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons a device which sometimes Popes made use of Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him but was found a falsifier as you may see in the learned Chamier and what wonder if his successors were in this his followers 2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes what his duty was and intercede in the Priests behalf might not this be done without an universal Pastorship but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher for they pretend that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 50. as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican ex vetusto codice Vaticano saith Binius and what false ware he hath brought us thence who can be ignorant this Epistle I am sure smels rank of forgery Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident 1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolick Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth to which he might have added that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian 2. Saith he the Epistle tells another lye L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor and as Socrates saith Vir valde pius eximius and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy See 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it and 1. Pope Julius Dr. Ham. 3. def c. 2. s 4. who was willing enough not only to defend but take advantage to exalt his power doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius Ep. Jul. p. 741 753. defend the right of his act by an antient custome especially and by the Canon of Nice which yet t is plain would not justifie it and not by pretence of any Divine Authority or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretension that from St. Peter this belonged unto him which sure he would have done and thereby have silenced all Catholick opposers if thus it had then been believed by them or even by himself to have belonged to him 2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present and the Popes pretensions were disputed and his power in their Churches denyed he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter
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
thereunto Ib s 5. Secondly He tells us this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils and this is the reason why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General because all the Patriarchs were not there however saith Balsamon In Com. ad Synod Constant 1. ad finem the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council because the other Patriarchs were not there yet it is greater than all other Synods and the Archbishop of that See was stiled Universal Patriarch For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered that he would so as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril who would not vouchsafe to stay for him that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril S. 7 and excommunicated him And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy who came somewhat tardy gave thanks to God at his coming because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council and made it most compleat Nay they were not only called to General Councils but the custom was for honours sake to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed So at the Council of Ephesus they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes Id. s 10. and seeing they came not took this ensuing resolution Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes and thus much for that Argument He comes now to add a few examples more viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople P 58. s 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s 69. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Marcellus Primate of Ancyra and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza the Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain restored to every one of them their own Church and he adds further that he commanded them who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give an account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunished if they would not cease from innovating all this he did saith Theodoret not by usurping but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church Now to this we answer Lib. 4. c. 4. s 10. in the words of the same Author who replies to Bellarmin that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him For 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope for that was not then in use He saith indeed that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops which were in the East fled to Rome as to an Haven of refuge that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed received them into Communion restored them to their Churches and writ to the Eastern Bishops whom he rebuked for deposing them but we must alwaies remember that they were Arrians and Persecutors and that the Controversie was not between party and party If Bellarmine deny it or if he answer that he must look here only to the form of proceeding which was ordinary we will take him at his word and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author who saith that these Bishops so soon as they had received these letters fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats and confessed as he said that the Church of Rome was the principal as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there came first out of the East but they were displeased that he should think they were inferior to himself because his Church was of greater lustre though they excelled him in Virtue and Sanctity of life they objected also against him as a crime that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him as if it were by a Council so that what he did was by way of Usurpation and not by Right and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus That Athanasius foreseeing what designs were on foot against him fled to Rome to Pope Julius and those that were Eusebians sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard and put in his plea for himself bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations and shew that their proceedings were just and equal and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the deciding of the Case at which Athanasius was ready to appear but these lyars would not In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church that he required evidence of the fact before he renounc't his Communion but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances which we meet with in Sozomen much less say that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them and so much for that instance Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him for this was common to him not only with other Patriarchs but other Bishops as the Fathers everywhere speak I will cite Origen for them all who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah saith He that is call'd to a Bishoprick is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat which made him Prime in order of the Bishops Again Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed affirming that according to the ancient custome the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman whereupon the whole Council
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
Christ ordained him Teacher or if you will Master not of any Throne but of the whole Werld as he did also the rest of the Apostles for which our Author hath it not of that See of Rome alone in which the fraud is manifest 't is true Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as the Interpreter hath done or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be added but then it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome well then if he would have this citation serviceable to him he must first shew that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Saviour 3. Which is the most difficult of all that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so There is one passage remaining of St. Austins who tells us Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in Africk Judicante Melchiade sedis Romanae Episcopo cum collegis suis quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator ibid. ep 162. Third def c. 2. s 4. Non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia c. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellanduÌ„ à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Reply p. 40. Where not to take notice of his interpreting de collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion 1. This was no Authoritative but only a brotherly decision 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists 3. By power delegated from the Emperour 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory is it not strangly absurd that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh without the least considerations of the returns that were made unto it Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for as well as the rest of the African Bishops is argued from this that in the Milevitan Council where he was present speaking of Appeals from their Bishops their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils or the Primates of their own Provinces and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine or forreign Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice and declare as much to Pope Celestine as you may see in the Reverend Dr. Hammond T is a common Proverb that the Devil will play at small game rather than stick out Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot be Universal Monarch he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confest that the power of Patriarchs is not of Divine but humane institution if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dream'd of his being Universal Monarch or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate yet would not this afford him any Authority over England Dr. Haâ— third def p. 124. Seeing the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any Authority over more then the Province or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to him as a Primate or Metropolitan and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate Just vinet c. p. 249 Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers 1. That the Brittish neither were nor ought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Vniversal Monarchy unconsistent with it forfeited by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdome And 3. That the power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by antient Canons so then t is superfluous to consider his Authorities only in short 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Hereticks by himself And secondly are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon Salmas de prâ—matu Papae c. ult 2. St. Basils calling the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West which title we can very well allow him Salmas 16. 3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath foâ—sted in the Western Church whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffered Martyrdom that is the Church of Rome it being searce ever heard that any one was said to have suffered Martyrdome in the West 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes Let them condemn me with the West that is with Damasus that he thought him Patriarch of all the West but his meaning is this Salmas ib. Let them condemn me with the most famous men and Churches in the World of which having mentioned two he leaves the rest to be understood Lastly 'T is objected that Justinian the Emperour affirms that the whole World was subject to five Partriarchs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Western Rome Constant Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Nevel 123 now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West to what Patriarch was France Spain Africa c. subject Ans 'T is true the Emperour reckoneth up five Patriarchs but doth he any where say that all the World was necessarily subject to them doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more or limit the Dominions of these did not he create de novo Carthage and Justiniana prima and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supream Priesthood Supream Honour and Dignity and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be given to them as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his â—ract of Schism Pag. 101 102 103. and then what service can you have from this his testimony Lastly Notwithstanding this there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Patriarchs I should now
Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions now to this he Answers Mr. C. p. 64. That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God which in that time was not in being but only as to his custome and practice of calling Synods correcting manners making ordinations according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction for not only Patriarchical which Salmasius tells us was not then hatcht but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon so that it signifies no more then this that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches and therefore so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis Now 1. We Answer Were this Canon to be limited to ordination the custome of calling Synods c. seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission from him so must the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria and other Provinces hence it follows that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations no more then they have to do with his for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope unless they were supposed to consent to it would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith Rep. p. 193. all other rights of jurisdiction follow the right of ordination neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them 2. In the Canon t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est as in Alexandria and Rome so also in Antioch and other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the government Hes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principalities or dignities shall be preserved to the Churches and consequently it speaks not of ordination and power of calling of Synods only but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province and comparing these with Rome and telling us that these prerogatives shall be allowed to the Provinces of Alexandria c. because the custome was such that the Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Provinces where he resided it seems to argue that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian Adriatick and Tyrrhenian Seas and towards France and Germany to the Alpes we mean that it is terminated there and extends it self no further and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperour so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Provinces it may consequently be argued that his power is limited to them and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch Alexandria c. And as when the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexandria even so here when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his we are to understand by the Bishops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently his Oecumenical power must be here denyed and indeed unless the Roman Diocess were limitted it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none which yet that it was besides the evidence of the words themselves is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no encrease on Rome Nicholas 1. Ep. 8. but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria Well then if at the making of the Nicene Canon Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops within and by themselves and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. his predecessours power that these bounds must be at all tiems observed which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See for hence t is evident that an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar p. 105 106 107. and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops or which is all one universal Pastorship 3. That the Antients understood it of government and not only as to the matter of ordination in the sense we plead for is apparent from their words thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches and Aristinus a Greek Author in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus Let the Bishop of Alexandria have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do exactly express Ruffinus's Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones yea the Arabick compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus T is decreed that the Bishop of Egypt the Alex. Patriarch should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it quia sic convenit for so t is meet seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it and likewise the Bishop of Antioch let him have power over that whole Province and the Paraphrase upon the Canon tells us that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him again Zonaras with whom consent Balsamon and Nilus saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Popes Legate shews as much Con. Chal. for thus it runs The Church of Rome alwayes had its Primacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Egypt have so also that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power of all under him because the Roman Bishop hath this custome likewise he that is constituted Bishop of Antioch and in other Provinces let the Church of larger Cities have the Primacy Doth he speak of Primacy of order which the Popes had over all the world then is it a ridiculous argument and a contradiction if of jurisdiction then was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them seeing they were all to have 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene Sect. 3 Ephesine Milevitan Council and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon An. Dom. 258. but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian which thus Decrees That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying seeing each Bishop hath his liberty and no one may judge another nor be judged of another but they must all be judged of God in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen who had stiled himself Bishop of Bishops and threatned excommunication to those that thought otherwise as even Baronius doth acknowledge Aâ— 258. Na. 42. An. â—41 in Câ—â—â—â— Afric c. 15. 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils Acts apud Biâ— p. 781. To. 1. Joct â—am cleriâ—atus accipiant c. 72. An. 416 in their letters to Pope Celastine yea the Council of Antioch decrees That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province shall by no means be juaged by others but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall remain firm unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more plâ—nary or General Council The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa if they go to communicate beyâ—nd the Seas they chiefly aim at the Roman Church shall lâ—se their Priesthood now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing is evidently to destroy his Supremacy Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present it was determined That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him and that for this reason because this was never derogated from the Africk Church by any definition of their forefathers and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans for they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the Grace of the Holy Ghost â—â—y they will not be wanting to each Province Let this equity therefore be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council of his Province or to a General Council unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Tryal into any one person or Pope and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs they Answered That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759. moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they determined That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first See Sect. 4 Again the second General Council determines That the Bishops that are without any Diocess Extra dioecesia shall not intermeddle with the Churches beyond their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but according to the Rules constituted viz. by the Nicene Synod the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern those only that are in Egypt the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again The Bishops uncalled shall not go beyond their Diocess to ordain Bishops or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes but shall observe the Rule above written de unaquaque dioecesi saith the Latine for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome is this nothing to the Church of Rome hath the Bishop of Rome no Province did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation Sect. 5 and it is this That when Austin proposed three things to the Brittish Clergy 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop whose very Name they were ignorant of at that time Bish Bra. Just vind p. 103 104. as appears from their language The man whom thou callest the Pope 2. That they should conform to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptism And lastly That they should joyn with him in preaching to the Saxons all the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon Spel. con an 601. Galt Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed his l. 2. c. 2. and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms these things being considered must not our Author well deserve the whetstone Pag. 53. when he so confidently affirms That there was never any received Council in Gods Church that excluded the Pope from an Vniversal jurisdiction when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation Def. Eccles CHAP. VIII St. Gregory against the Popes Supremacy Sect. 1. An objection answered Sect. 2. T is not safe to admit this Supremacy Sect. 3. The instance of the Kings of France considered Sect 4. An Answer to his Questions Sect 5. The Power we assign to Bishops is not contrary to any Acts of Parliament or the Oath of Supremacy Sect. 6. THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory who flyes out excessively against the very name of Universal Bishop calling it a wicked prophane and blasphemous title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand yea an imitation of the very Devil who despising the Legions of Angels socially created with him endeavoured to mount the top of singularity Ep ex Reg. l. 4. cp 38. It wasdone by Theodorus and Ischiron two distressed Deacons Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant sub Menna Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same General Council Act. 4. p. 437 438 440. and by Justinian Novel 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant in the sixth General Council Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council Act. 3. and that even by
Hadrian the Pope as well as other Bishops of the East that he might seem to be under none sed solus praeesse videretur to this we are 1. Told by him p. 38. That this very title was given to Pope Leo by the Council of Chalcedon attributing that to a General Council which was done by an inconsiderable part of the Popes flatterers but were this true as our Adversary pretends this title was attributed to others also and therefore is no fit medium to conclude the Universal Supremacy of any Patriarch rather then of all to whom it was given especially seeing it is supposed to have been given to the Pope by that very Council which determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal prerogatives with him to whom this title was allowed 2 He tells us That John of Constantinople * Ibid. whilst he took this title still acknowledged the Popes Superiority not only of place but Authority over him Ans This affirmation is an immodest fiction to say no worse built upon a forgery which he hath used in foisting John into the place of Eusebius as before is shewed At last he comes to the business and tells us Sect. P. 39. s 4. That Gregory did not so much combat Johns present intention as the probable consequences of such a title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church for if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would fellow that all others were only Bishops in Name and by their Character had no other office but as his substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself Ans This is a profound Argument which Gregory I am confident would have been ashamed of for if the Pope be Universal Bishop whether we stile him so or not is not the whole World his Diocess hath he not Authority to exercise the functions of a General Bishop in the whole World and then doth it not follow with the same evidence of reason that all the Bishops of the World are only titular 2. He manifestly opposeth receiving a right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ and a receiving it from an Universal Bishop when he saith The Bishops the Successors of the Apostle would never acknowledge the receiving of their Episcopal right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ himself not from an Universal Bishop as the words preceding manifestly shew and yet he presently gives a reason which shews these two to be most consistent for saith he Though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan c. or Pope himself might he not have said or Universal Bishop and his Jurisdiction be given him by them they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to conveigh his Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him by whose means I pray you supposing him ordained by the Pope is it not by the means of the Universal Bishop 3. 'T is plain and evident that Gregory speaks against this title as that which argued the subjection of all other Bishops and Patriarchs to him as appears from these passages L 4 Ep. 30. Quae superviendo se caeteris praepomit Ep. 34. He that claimeth this title i◠a forerunner of Antichrist because in making himself proud he setteth himself before others from the comparison of him with the Devil who in the singularity of his pride despised the equality of joy among the Angels saying I will advance my Throne above the Stars of Heaven And again What Answer wilt thou make to Christ the Head of the whole Church Ep. 38. Cuncta ejus membra tibi supponere Ep. 34. Ut omnibus dignior esse videatur Ep. 36. Christi membra sibi subjugare Ep. 18 Ut nulli subesse solus omnibus par esse videretur lb. Semet ipsum praeponere cosque sub se premere Ep. 32. Sine aliorum imminutione ep 38. Restat ut ob vos Episcopi non sitis who goest about under the name of Vniversal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee The like complaint he hath to the Empress Constantia That John desired he might seem worthier than all others To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria that he studied by the haughtiness of a pompous title to subject under him Christs members and to John himself That he did affect that title that he might be subject to none and seem only to be over all that he desired thereby to set himself before all other Bishops and to press them under him and wisheth that this title might be attributed to one without the lessening of all others implying that in his judgment it could not be so But you will say Sect. 2 he evidently infers that if this title be allowed it remaineth that then others are no Bishops and tell sus that he only endeavoureth to be called Bishop Solus conetur Episcopus appellari Ibid. Answ Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui comparatione calcare Ibid. Sacerdotum omnis honor adimitur dum al 's uno universalis super omnes authoritas arrogatur ep 32. And again Prisantur honore debito universi dum quod aliis commune est ut privatum uni tribuitur and a third time Coercendus ille qui corde tumet honori imperii caeterorum se per privatum vocabulum superponit Ibid. Ep 32. ad Mauritium He sufficiently explains himself that he means this comparatively not absolutely as if he should have said You are indeed Bishops but in comparison of him you are none for when the title of Universal is admitted whereby one may be above another and depress the rest they fall from the antient right of Bishops by which right they are of one merit and Priesthood neither doth the potency of Rome make an higher Bishop nor the poverty of Eugubium a lower all are deprived of this due honour if any thing private be given to one and they in comparison of him are not to be dignified with the name of Bishops 2. He saith it because as he argued if there should be any such Universal Head upon the failing of him the whole Church and consequently all the Bishops of it must necessarily fail and the same Argument we have in that Epistle of Pelagius cited by our Author where having told us That if the Supream Patriarch should be called Vniversal the title would be taken from the rest they being no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but under the dominion of another He adds If John therefore be permitted to take this title the honour of all Patriarchs is denyed and probably he who is called Vniversal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the State of Truth so little was Papal Infallibility dreamd of in in those dayes Thus Dr. Hammond As for Patriarchs 't is manifest that the Vniversal Pastorship of one
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
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
Christ be thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor his Sacred Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Nicene Council thus decreed and what else you could design I am not able to imagine And have you not a good stock of confidence Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope one bafled Sophisme and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour can challenge the consent of all antiquity whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule and guide whereby we are to judge of Doctrines as you may see evinced as elsewhere so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion from p. 299 to 372. but especially from p. 357 to the end Lastly How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reverend Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infallibility because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council seeing they also promise and so doth every regular son of the Church of England to submit to the determinatious of the Church of England and acquiesce in them without the least manner of opposition and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them Yea 2. The places cited speak only of a General Council which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused See Dr. H. Her s 13. nu 2. s 9. nu 1. 3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Roman Church whose infallibility the Doctor questioned and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done against her tyranny and superstitions To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie He tells us 1. Mr. C. p. 105. That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith unless you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled and then repented Answ Can this be affirmed with any truth when as that saying was almost Proverbial Athanasius opposed the world and the world Athanasius Theod. His l 2. when Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him Answered There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong Ep. 48 ad VincentiuÌ„ When the Professors of error as St. Austin confesseth surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven When the Author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world Iâ— vita Naz. Iâ— Orat. con Artan pâ—oâ—se ipso Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out Where are they that reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by her multitude and despise the little flock they have the people but we the faith Yea lastly When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents Her c. 6. Did you never read Vincentius Lirin complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis partim vi partim fraude dece tis calgio quaedam mentibus effunderetur Orâ—t in Athanas Nor that of Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a very few which either because of their vertue resisted or by reason of their obscurity were contemned all obâ—yed the times i. e. became Arrians differing only in this that some did it earlier some later some were ring-leaders in that impiety of Arianisme some were in the second place either by fear or gain flattery or ignorance circumvented and drawn in which ignorance will not saith he excuse them it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith Nor that of Basil We may now say that we have neither Princeps Basil ep 71. Propheta nor Praeses left us in so much that he cryes out Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches is it the last hour doth the defection now take place by which the son of perdition is to be revealed but if all these must be overlooked must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes telling you that tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est ingemuit tot us orbis c. doth St. Jerome here tell you that no Bishops changed the profession of the Nicene Faith or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field who informs us that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundness of the Faith only Athanasius excepted and some few Confessors that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians His second Answer is Ibid. That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth that presently after being at liberty themselves and all the rest renounced what they had subscribed to Answ We grant that when the Council was first called the major part were Orthodox Socrat. His Ec. l. 42. c. 29. as their Epistle to the Emperour Constantius shews but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East who tells them That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum Apud Soâ— l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpitius l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim imbecillitate ingenii partim taedio peregrinationis evicti dedere se adversariis sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus that is till 400 came to 20. see c. 5 6. Soz. His Ecc. l. 7. c. 2. and which either compelled by force or enticed by deceits à fide tum quidem desciverant yet now they were returned to a sound mind subscribed to the Nicene Faith and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema So then all these Bishops of the West as well as the whole East Jerusalem excepted did à fide deficere and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme yet confessedly for sometimes they yeilded to it And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council why did the
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
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
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
be multitudes little sensible of Religion and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body albeit some of them may haply vomit him som spit him out again some throw him to the Dogs c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground then devoured by wicked men Secondly Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church Mr. C. p. 142. Ans But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth and here our Authour leaves Divining though some of his brethren adde that should the Laity have the Cup then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards some might be ejected with their spittle and if I may be permitted to adde my Symbol some of them may be poisoned by the cup the Romanist knows how to play such pranks Oh Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had seeing the Trent conventicle or the General Council of fifty Bishops hath referred this matter to the Pope Ans Very good but with these provisoes 1. That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith doctrine and manners of the Roman Church and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod Secondly That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law unless the Church decree the contrary and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks that is she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless Thirdly That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing with other the like stuff and after all these things 't is but videtur posse concedi it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation But were it as he would have it seeing we openly declare this as one ground of our separation that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion but also to profess that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God is it possible that the Schisme should be on our part who proclaim our selves willing to close with her if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us CHAP. XIII The state of the Question Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice Sect. 2. Preaching call'd a Sacrifice and the Testimony of Saint Austine considered Ibid. Almes call'd a Sacrifice and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered Sect. 4. In some sence propitiatory Sacrifice and the testimony of Saint Chrysostome considered Mr. C. saith no more then our Church doth Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice Sect. 7. THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice Sect. 1 and that propitiatory This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist and we are now to consider whether Scripture Reason or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it 1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. Collor in Lovit l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2◠De Civ Dei c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice Rom. 15.16 where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice the Gospel of God Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel and Cyril of Alexandria that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome and others and hither we refer that of Saint Austine cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps They shall be Priests with God and Christ and shall reign with him 1000. years he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church but is to be extended to all Christians so stiled as being members of their high Priest So that he saith they are Priests properly so called not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them of which no mention at all was made but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders Seipsum obtulit ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice is extremely evident in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments they could not be so Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves even as saith he after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body Secundùm quendam modum and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood which therefore according to Saint Austine are such only by way of similitude or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signified and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account And hence it is that elsewhere he saith L. 10. Cont. Faust c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione perticipatione corporis sanguit is Christi That which by all is called a true sacrifice is the sign of a true sacrifice and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance or the remembrance of a sacrifice § 3. Secondly Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God Philip. 4.14 and Victims Heb. 13.16 * l.
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
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
and justice here from his Domestick Servants 'T is pitie that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint that Abraham was ignorant of her It would have taught her better divinity 2. 'T is no Demonstration sure God would not hide from Abraham the thing he was to do which concern'd so much his Brother Lot albeit he never revealed afterwards to any of his dearest servants that we read of unless his Prophets any such thing therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the praiers that are made to them by any person whatsoever By what hath been said I may be bold to infer that the invocation of Saints is very foolish and if so that the Church of Rome is not infallible But our Authour claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all Sect. 10 to prove I know not what and albeit they have been answered an 150. times he shall not bate me a single unite Yet doth he bolt them forth without any notice of the answers given We read saith he not only an Angel but every one of the four and twentie Elders to have in their hands golden Censers and Vials full of Odours Rev. 8.3.5.8 which are the prayers of the Saints that is of their Brethren upon Earth Now to take these two places in their Order 1. Revel 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood before the Altar having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints upon the Golden Altar which was before the Throne and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand Now 1. Let it be granted that to one Angel was this given to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints How doth it follow that they are to be invocated or that he knows when any particular person praies to him or any other Saint May not he offer up his incense continually as knowing onely this that praiers are made continually 2. If one Angel do this How will it follow that all do it or that all Saints 3. If this be a created Angel is there not a fine round of Praiers 1. They are carried by an Angel or revealed by God to the Saints then he pteseuts them to the Angel the Angel to Christ and Christ to the Father 2. This Angel is said to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints which surely is to do somwhat which may make them more acceptable to God and will they say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint or that any Created Angel offers somwhat to God which makes her praier more acceptable Well but we denie it to have been a created Angel but say it was the Angel of the Covenant who by the incense of his merits and intercessions offers the praiers of all Saints to God and makes them more acceptable unto him For 't is manifest that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Golden Altar whilest the people in the Court put up their praiers to God Luk. 1.10 Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the prayers of the Saints Now the Levitical Priest who offered incense was a type of Christ not of the Angels and this is that which the Apostle intimates that Christ the Angel of the Covenant Typified by the Levitical Priest offers up the praiers and sighes of his members groaning under the Tyrannie of wicked men and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8 where we are told That twenty foure Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands which are the prayers of the Saints Answ 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ and gathered from the Nations also he sheweth in what Heaven they are saying they shall reign upon the Earth And so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps and Haimo 2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical praiers not petitory and the four and twenty Elders onely intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven did render continuall Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on and that is taken from the miraculous effects not onely of prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints but also directed to the Saints themselves Now to this I answer First By denyal that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to shall be answered anon Secondly I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions and that upon several accounts First From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders in the three first ages albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions seems incredible and that which cannot easily be admitted by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil Secondly from the nature of them which rendreth them very ridiculous Basilius Selutensis l. 2. c. 10. Thus of Saint Thecla we are told that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her driving a fiery Chariot in the aire and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the scituation that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian C. 24. forsaken by the Physitians what he ailed and he had replied upon her in that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou knowest why should I tell it thee that knowest all things the Martyr being delighted partly with the man and partly with the verse for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory C. 21. 24. and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth with the touch whereof he was presently healed Yea the same Basil tells us how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extream pain in his ear C. 27. that the Auditory was like to be quite disappointed But that the Martyr the same night
Arrians they must acknowledge that Saints i. e. Christians do not pray to any created being to be their helper elsewhere adds Or. 2. Cont. Ar. sub finem De incar verbi p. 528. that if they worship the Lord Christ because the Word of God inhabited in him they might as well worship the Saints because God dwells in them CHAP. XVII The Question stated by Mr. C. sect 1. A short Paraphrase upon 1 Cor. 7. ver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. sect 2. Arguments evincing this gift not to bee attainable by all sect 3. Mr. C's Evasions confuted sect 4. His own Argument not answered by himself sect 5. His Arguments against our Thesis Answered sect 6. His Question touching the late Marriage of some Ministers Answered sect 7. His Evasions further confuted sect 8. The Vow of Celibacy unlawfull sect 9. The Drs. Argument defended sect 10. 1 Tim. 5.11 12. explained sect 11. The Councel of Eliberis concludes nothing against us sect 12. Nor that of Carthage sect 13. Nor the African Councel sect 14. The Nicene Councel stands for us sect 15. Why after Ordination the Antients required abstinence from Marriage sect 16. The Synod of Gangra for us sect 17. As also that convened in Trullo sect 18. The Eastern Church permitted Marriage to her Priests and that after Ordination sect 19. The Testimonies of St. Jerome to the contrary considered sect 20. And of Epiphanius sect 21. Of Ambrose and St. Austin sect 22. The Testimony of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth St. Clemens Athanagoras and Justin Martyr Origen and Tertullian against the Romanists sect 23. Marryed Priests in the Primitive Church sect 24. Scripture interpreted by the Fathers in favour of us sect 25. Particularly 1 Tim. 3.2 sect 26. Heb. 13.4 sect 27. And Mat. 19.12 sect 28. IN the seventeenth chapter Sect. 1 touching the Celibacy of Priests hee states the matter thus The question must bee Sect. 4. p. 204. whether a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all Carnal lusts may lawfully by Priests be made the matter of a vow and tells us that we condemn the practise at least consider'd as extending it self generally to any whole order or state of men and especially any obligation imposed on them to this practise On the contrary he tells us that the Church of Rome enjoins Celibacy to Priests and holds that 't is such a gift that is denied to none that rightly seek it and therefore may bee made the matter of a vow Agreeably to their Trent Council which tells us Deus id recte petentibus non deneget Now here to omit his stating the question of Carnal lusts are two differences betwixt us 1 They say all may have this gift of Continence who rightly seek it 2 That it is lawful to impose such an obligation of perpetual Celibacy upon their Priests both which we deny And first Sect. 2 that this is not a gift to bee attained by every man appears abundantly from the 7. chap. of the 1 Ep. Cor. In which the first Question moved is Whether a Christian should embrace a Conjugal estate To this 't is Answered V. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman That as the case stood then 't was very commendable for a man so to moderate his affections and get such a noble victory over the flesh as not to need this remedy 't is good for a man not to touch a Wife Nevertheless seeing the condition by reason of the rareness of the gift of Continency will lay you open to the danger of Fornication V. 2. To avoid Fornication let every one have his own wife V. 3. Let the Husband render to the wife due benevolence V. 4 The wife hath not power over her own body V. 5. Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer come together again lest Satantempt you for your incontinency V. 6. I speak this by permission and not of command V. 7. I would that all men were even as I but every one hath his proper gift V. 8. I say therfore to the unmarryed and widdows it is good for them if they abide even as I. V. 9. But if they cannot contain let them marry for the avoiding of the same let every man to whom this special gift is not vouchsafed either procure himself a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or retain her if he hath procured her and every woman her proper Husband or if she be a Virgin submit to the bond of Matrimony and when the Conjugal knot shall once be tyed and they be under this relation of Man and Wife since avoiding Fornication was the cheif motive to this condition let due benevolence be mutually given for the woman not having any longer power over her own body cannot without open fraud deny it when moderately desired And in prosecution of the ends of Marriage which reason equally concerns the Husbands body unless it be by the interceding of some such Cautions as these 1 That it be with the mutual consent of both 2 That it bee in some rare and extraordinary case viz. in time of Fasting or being importunate with God in Prayer 3 Thatsuchseparation be not long And these cautions are necessary to be observed least Satan who will neglect no opportunity do ensnare you and by reason of your deficiency in this gift of Continence prevail upon you and kindle the flames of unclean desires Yet would I not here seem to enjoyn all married state or a continual use of the marriage bed neither do I speak this as a precept to all but advice to the incontinent For verily I could be glad that the Divine bounty if it were his pleasure would afford this gift of Continence he hath given me to every Christian but seeing his infinite wisdome hath thought meet that it should be otherwise and that this gift as others which according to his pleasure are distributed should be peculiar to some my decision is that 't were more commodious for Widdows and Virgins if they could contain to live in Celibacy as I do But if they finde it otherwise then doth a necessity lye upon them either to enter into the state of Matrimony or to burn and therefore to extinguish these flames they must use this means to prevent it which God hath appointed for this end This Paraphrase is clear and evident yet will I further evince what ever can be denied in it by the obstinate Do they tell us in answer to the 2 verse that the Apostle speaks of persons already married I assent do they tell us it is a counsel I say so also only minding them that thence according to their doctrine unavoidably it will follow that it is of greater virtue and merit for every one to have his own wife then not Will Bellarm. add that the Apostle speaks of Fornication not ustions I must minde him that the Apostle determines very
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
passages to perswade us 't is an Apostolical decree the Story will inform us 't was an innovation will he say that all may contain Paphnutius tells him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all cannot Fourthly The reasons which Paphnutius useth are these 1. That this would be a burthen too heavy for the Priests to bear sect 9 2. That scarce any Wives thus separated would be kept Chaste 3. That all Priests are not sufficient for such Continence 4. That it would tend to the detriment of the Church 5. That Marriage was honourable even in Priests 6. That this separation would bee a divorcing of them whom God had joyned So that the Romanists by the practise and allowance of such divorces must bee guilty of all this Fifthly The Synod assented to all this saith Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Synod was perswaded by his words yea they applauded his advice Synodus laudavit sententiam ejus saith Gratian and Sozom. and that upon these accounts thus mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Gelasius all which being put together will yeeld us sufficient advantage against the Romanists innovation in this matter Well Sect. 16 but he returns upon us that Socrates and Sozomen relate Mr. C. p. 214. that it was consonant to the antient Tradition of the Church that those who had entred into Holy Orders before they had Married Wives should afterwards forbear from Marrying Answ The Romanist will get but little advantage hence if it bee considered 1. That Gratian and Gelasius who tells us that he compiled his relation from the very acts of the Nicene Synod then extant as in his Proem you may see have no such thing and that Sozom. and Socrates from whom this is cited See Cham. de coel l. 16. c. 10. Bell. l. 1. de Cler. c. 20. Baron an 325. are generally excepted against by our Adversaries in this very matter 2. That albeit it were an Antient custome yet can it not be proved to have been derived from the Apostles as is fully evinced by Calixtus de conjugio clericorum 3. That they admitted antiently no Presbyter under 30 Can. 11. Novel 123. c. 13. P. 206. as the Synod at Neocaesarea decreed or 35 as Justinian nor a Deacon under 25. now even according to Mr. C. if a man can contain so long he may very well be supposed able to contain the residue of his life 4. The Antients thought it somewhat unfit for a Minister to be imployed in wooing and courting Mistresses this they esteemed a thing below the gravity of a Priest Synod Agath c. 39. as likewise to interfair with the Marriage Festival whence they were forbidden to be present there Novel 3. this is intimated by Leo the Emperour in his Novels when he saith Whereas the Ecclesiastical Orders had constituted Per omnē vitam caelibatum voveant that they who were ordained Priests should promise perpetual Celibacy if they trusted they should not falsifie their promise or if they thought themselves unable to contain should first Contract lawful Matrimony and then take upon them the Ministry The custome which at present obtaineth is that they may first bee made Priests and after two years Marry which because it seems undecent indecorum we require that the antient prescript bee observed for 't is an unworthy thing that they who have ascended unto spiritual things should again slide down to carnal but contrariwise they should go from carnal to spiritual 5. To add no more they had their choise when they came to be Ordained whether they would Marry or not they had their liberty to Marry before they came to Ordination Now here is nothing which can well be quarreld with seeing men may well be supposed sufficiently acquainted with their abilities at thirty and consequently as they finde themselves may either then Marry or promise to abstain To this purpose is that of the excellent Bishop Taylor Duc. dub l. 3. c. The Primitive Church commonly chose her Priests and Bishops of great age of known virtue and holiness they were designed to a publick and dangerous employment for some whole ages they were under persecution and the way of the cross was a great delatory to flesh and blood and therefore they might the rather require it of them whom in those dispositions they found fit to bee taken into an employment which would require a whole man all his time and all his affections now if wee consider that the married Priests were commanded to retain their wives and the unmarried had been tried to be of a known and experienced Continence they might with much reason and great advantage require that they should remain so that is they might ask their consent and trust their promise for here was liberty and but little danger the Priests were few and the unmarried much fewer and their age commonly such as was past danger and the publick affairs of the Church required it and the men were willing and then all was right and then as for the practise of the Church hee shews that it was the custome of the whole Greek Clergy to marry after holy Orders yea gives examples of it in the Latine Church But now the Canons of the Church of Rome afford no such liberty but make all vow perpetual Abstinence or else refuse to admit them to the sacred Ministry and so reject many thousand persons for that which is honourable in all and which is permitted by the Apostle Can. 10. even to a Bishop and as for Deacons the Counsel of Ancyra permits them Marriage after Ordination if at the time of their Ordination they declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they must Marry being not able to contain because the Bishop say they hath granted them a Licence or dispensation what other exceptions are made against this Counsel you may see largely refuted in Chamier and especially Calixtus if you do but consult their Indexes Our next Synod shall be that of Gangra Sect. 17 a City of Paphlagonia Ann. 339. which though it was but a particular Councel yet hath it the authority of a general for as much as the Canons of it were unanimously approved by the whole Eastern and Western Churches yea alwaies received amongst her rules insomuch that Baronius pronounceth from the words of Pope An. 361 Nu. 44. Symmachus Canones Gangrenses Apostolica authoritate conditos esse This Synod was convened against Eustathius and his disciples who as Sozomen informs us Lib. 3. c. 13. were reputed as men accusing Marriage refusing to pray in the houses of married persons and despising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 married Presbyters And Socrates saith that they did decline tanquam scelus the benediction and Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Presbyter having a wife which whilst a Laick he had Married as the custome was or according to the law viz. that those among the Clergy who
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.
3. and therefore Pope Nicholaus himself interprets it of separation from the Bed for speaking of that matter he saith nullius religionis pretextu debet conjux dimittere conjugem And Zonaras upon the Canon tells us that this casts an obloquy upon marriage making that impure Extat C. 8 to 1. Juris insit de clericis uxores suas ejicientibus which the Scripture entitleth honourable and the Novel of Alexander Comnenus rejecting the Apostolical Canon adds this was established by the Gospel that no man should put away his VVife pro libitu for this seems to cast a snare upon marriage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again 6. They acknowledge this constitution of the Apostles to be a sincere exquisite and orderly constitution and ratifie this liberty for ever 7. They give charge that no man by the cohabitation with his lawful VVife be hindered from ascending to the highest degree of holy orders 8. That in the time of their Ordination it be not so much as required of them to abstain from the lawful accompanying their Wives 9. That if any man shall presume so far as to offer to debarre any Priest Deacon or Sub-Deacon from the conjunction or society with his lawful wife he shall be deposed or if any Priest or Deacon shall voluntarily cast off his wife upon pretence of Religion that hee shall be suspended and if he go on deposed I shall not add the suffrage of other councils but content my self with the moderation which our Author useth Sect. 19 We pass now to the consideration of his Fathers And 1. Hee saith enough to render his whole discourse impertinent and ineffectual in that he acknowledgeth the Eastern Priests to have had liberty to marry M. C. p. 214. in which confession hee yeilds no more then what Pope Stephen had granted long ago in telling us the tradition of the Eastern Churches is otherwise then that of the Roman Church whose Priests Distinct 31. c. aliter Deacons and Sub-Deacons are joyned in Matrimony For hence it followeth that he can produce no evidence of the Universal practise of the Church of God and consequently Mr. C. p. 217. Just vindic nothing that lays any obligation upon us for what hee adds of our subjection to the VVestern Patriarch is exploded and refuted by Bishop Bramhal beyond all possible reply And therefore he did well to allay this liberal concession 1. By telling us that no Canon of either Church Ibid. can bee produced permitting Priests to contract marriage after Ordination Answ Now to this I have returned many things already to which I add that albeit the Antient Canons did generally injoyn their Clergy not to Marry after Orders for before Orders they might yet this thing did not prevail but Deacons Priests and Bishops good men and orderly did after Ordination use their liberty The words of Athanasius to him are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. So that the Bishops did not only marry but beget children as is evident from the words and the opposition included in them Athan. ep ad Dracontium Tripart hist l. 6. c. 14. as they found it necessary or expedient This is evident from the Epistle of Athanasius to Dracontius a Monk of Alexandria who refused to bee made a Bishop because hee impertinently thought it was not so spiritual an estate as that of Monks since hee saw the Bishops married men and full of secular affairs where he is told that he might be Bishop and yet retain his asketick course of life he had engaged in and was informed moreover that all Bishops did not enter into the married state nor all Monks abstain now if none did such an answer to Dracontius had been more full and would not have been omitted And Cassiodorus gives an instance of Eupsychius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia that took a wife but a little before his Martyrdome he was first indeed a Priest and afterwards a Bishop and having newly married a wife was Crowned with Martyrdome Yea the gloss upon the 31. distinction tells us That the Greeks in their ordinations did promise Continence neither explicitely nor tacitly and if that be true there is no peradventure but many of them married after their Consecrations Yea amongst the Greeks we finde that for almost two hundred years together after the Synod in Trullo the Greek Priests had after their Ordination two years time for probation whether they could bear the yoke of single life and if they could not they had leave to Marry Now this being the custome of the whole Greek Church in which the Bishops because of the Ordination were engaged it is evident that it was not illegal nor irregular but an approved custome of the Church though after upon a very trivial reason prohibited by an Imperial law 2. Vide supra p. 393. He tells us That even among the Grecians a co-habitation with their Wives Sect. 20 was forbidden to their Priests who attended at the Altar Ibid. Answ True even as it is thought to have been to the married Priests and Levites under the Old Testament in their weekly courses but how impertinent is this to the continual Celibacy of the Roman Clergy 3. Therefore he recollects himself and adds that even in many of the Eastern Churches a greater strictness was observed Mr. C. p. 216. Lib. cont Vigil which 1. He evidenceth from the testimony of St. Jerome to Vigilantius which speaks thus If none but married Deacons must be admitted Priests no Clerks but such whose Wives are pregnant what shall the Churches of the East do who admit so many to Ordination that are unmarried what shall the Churches of Egypt do and of the See Apostolick all which receive Clerks either such as are Virgins or Continent or if they have wives cease to be husbands to them not refusing them upon any of these accounts Answ These words thus explicated by me need no further Answer 2. As for the Eastern Church that they did many of them oppose this Celibacy which the Papists intrude upon their Clergy is sufficiently evident as from the Councels of Gangra and Nice the testimony of Pope Stephen and others l. 5. c. 22. so also from Socrates who tells us that albeit this custome obtained in Thessaly Thessalonica Macedonia and Hellas in Achaia and that introduced by Theodorus a Priest of Triva yet all the famous Priests throughout the Eastern parts of the world and the Bishops also refrained the company of their wives at their own choice without law or compulsion for many of them notwithstanding their Bishopricks did beget children also on their lawful Wives So that either St. Jerom must be understood as my parenthesis doth explicate him or at the furthest of those few Eastern Churches mentioned by Socrates 2. What he saith of Egypt must not be taken generally as is evidenced from the instance of Dracontius the Alexandrian Monk for why should Athanasius tell him that some Bishops
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
Justine in his Apology to Antonius Pius 4. Lib. 7. Consonant to this is that of Origen against Celsus who tells him That amongst the Christians there were men which needed not Hemlock as the Athenian Pontifex to keep them Chaste but the Word of God was sufficient for them Now had there been any sanction of the Apostles any custome of the Church which enjoyned this Celibacy to the Clergy could it be imagined that this amongst other things should not have been mentioned by any of these Champions of the Christians But that their apologies should run so generally as they do in the places mentioned Could it reasonably be thought that Origen would have said so crudely there wants not men amongst us if he could have instanced in the Clergy would he not rather have opposed our pontifices to theirs 5. That Tertullian was married his books written to his Wife do sufficiently assure us that he did not separate from his wife is evident from the seventh Chapter of his first Book quare facultatemcontinentiae c. where speaking of Continence he saith quod in matrimonio non valemus inviduitate sectemur that which our matrimonial condition will not bear viz. the former abstinence in Widdow-hood let us follow after embracing the occasion which hath took away what necessity viz. that of the married state required C. 3. delendis conjunctionibus c. Yea in the same Book he saith Christ came not to separate marriages or to dis-joyn those that were made one and chap. the first he exhorts her that after his decease with as much Continence as she could she would renounce marriage But if in respect of humane infirmity shee could not that she would marry to a Christian not an Heathen Would he have writ thus to her if she had already abstained from the embraces of her Husband from the time of his Ordination and already promised perpetual Continency 6. How many marryed Bishops Priests Deacons do we meet with in the Primitive Church Sect. 24 See them in Chamier and Calixtus reckoned up according to the Centuries they lived in To 3. lib. 16. c. 13. Now as to the answer usually given that these abstained from their wives it is very improbable if it be considered 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante medium propter quod conjugia copulâ—nda sunt de Hares C. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paeda g. l. 2. ab initio That they tell us procreation of children is the very end of Marriage Justin Martyr ubi supra wee saith hee do not marry at all but to get children St. Austin Without doubt they condemn marriage and as much as in them lyes forbid it when they forbid to beget children to which end the Marriage knot is to bee tyed And Clemens Alexandrinus the aime of the marryed parties is the procreation of Children 2. That the marriage of the Clergy was required to bee before Ordination onely upon this ground that the person professed hee either could or would not Contain and it is strange that they who marryed upon these accounts should not use the remedy which they thought necessary 3. That they who were Orthodox esteemed marriage honourable in all and the bed undefiled by this act as wee shall see hereafter And 4. That it is recorded of some of them that after their Ordination they did not abstain Car. de ejus vita as Gregorius Nazianzenus tells us that he had not lived so many years as his Father had spent in the Priest-hood To these testimonies we add the suffrage of Scripture by them interpreted Sect. 25 1. The Scripture tells us that St. Peter and St. Mrt. 8.14 Marck 1.30 Luke 8.18 1 Cor. 9.5 Philip with others of the Apostles were marryed Now here it is answered they begot no children no young Apostles Rep. Clem. Alex. tells us they did It is again answered that however after their Apostleship they ceased to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stro. 7. 1. Who told them so 2. It is evident they might have done it by their own rules seeing the marriage bed hath nothing of defilement in it we never read of their divorce nor it is permitted by our Saviour but in case of Adultery due benevolence is commanded to be given and the with-holding of it is styled fraud and therefore undoubtedly had it been required they would have given it 2. VVe produce the Apostles testimony Sect. 26 let a Bishop be blameless the husband of one Wife so that a Bishop may have one wife and yet bee blamelesse 1 Tim. 3.2 nor is the having of one wife sufficient to hinder a man from ascending the Episcopal chair but the having two Now here some give this answer The Apostle saith a Bishop may be ordained not who is but qui fuerit who hath been the Husband of one wife To which we reply 1. That Dominicus a Soto a great stickler for Celibacy sufficiently confutes this answer L. 7. de just jure qu. 6. Art 2. con 1. thus It doth not sufficiently clude this place to say the Apostle speaks of such as have been married but now are separated from their Wives for St. Pauls Text manifestly shews that he speaks of those that remained in the state of marriage for as much as unius uxoris vir is the same with uxorem habens and also because the Apostle requires amongst other vertues of the Bishop that he look well to his house c. 2. The very text is contradictory to this sence for the words in Timothy runs thus 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 2. It behoveth a Bishop to bee blamelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Epistle to Titus ordaining in every City Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Hee that had a Wife but now hath her not is not any longer unius uxoris vir but nullius and therefore a Widdower for these relata mutuo se ponunt tollunt 2. Others answer that he permits them to have a Wife but yet they must cease from the use of wedlock Answ Neither can this exposition hold good for in the Apostles times it was a thing unknown that a man should have a wife and yet no power to make use of her which all husbands from the Creation to those daies had seeing therefore he reiterates the phrase it is manifest he understands it in the common sense yea 2. It is contrary to the Apostles rule of not defrauding each other contrary to justice for the wife hath power over the husbands body contrary to the Apostles decree touching widdows that they should be permitted to marry and get children Now the widdows of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons could not do so without adultery by the Papists own tenent of the indissolubility of the knot of Matrimony 3. ad Oceanum in multis uxoribus liberos spargeâ—e The Fathers here are for us St.
I could sufficiently evince from many other topicks but that I am unwilling to be burthensome to the Readers patience whom therefore I refer to the reverend Bishop Bramhal Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon c. 8. and proceed to the consideration of those Arguments which hee useth to defend their Church from so great a guilt 1. Therefore saith he if our Church was Schismatical Sect. 9 either it was so before the reformation Mr. C. p. 395. or it began afterwards so to be Answ It was so before and afterwards it began to aggravate it's Schisme it was so before causally as doing that which gave sufficient cause for her members to separate it was so afterwards both causally and formally but he proceeds Ibid. ' If it was so before where was the Church from which we separated Answ 1. The Greek and other Churches of the East 2. Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 342. You have departed from the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome by introducing errours corruptions and abuses into it and this is a moral departure from a Church and truely schism 3. You have departed from the Catholick Church and this you have done by separating from you by your Censures three of four parts of the Christian World as Catholick yea more Catholick then your selves Lastly you separated from the purer part of your own Church which then as to the main was Orthodox Again might not the Arrians have argued thus See Dr. Fields Appen to his third part where is that Church from which we separate Are not all the famous Churches of the world of our communion will you say Gods Church hath failed or will you call a few inconsiderable people in Dens Caves Woods and Desarts the Church of God might not the Idolatrous Priests of Judah have argued after this very manner might they not have asked Elijah with greater confidence where was the Church from which they separated Again Ibid. saith he If wee become Schismatical after their separation then because the Professors in this nothing vary from the former Age may the Church remaining the same without any alteration at all be the true Church of Christ to day and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow Answ 1. It is not every Schism that turns the Church of Christ into a Synagogue of Satan but onely a Schism in fundamentals as we shall presently evince 2. Your Church was Schismatical before though not in such an high degree as after the Trent Council she hath been for before that time she required unlawful conditions of her Communion denounced Anathemaes against those that refused to obey them and the like but after the session of the Trent Council her unlawful conditions of communion have been more augmented Again saith hee no particular Church which is a member of the Catholick Church but hath a power to Excommunicate those that desert her Communion transgress her Laws Answ What whether her Laws be just or unjust Had the Eastern Church a power to excommunicate the Western because transgressing her Laws and deserting her Communion about the celebration of the Easter Festival Had the Churches of Asia a power to Excommunicate Pope Stephanus and others of the Western Church who deserted their Communion by reason of a difference touching the Re-Baptization of persons Baptized by Hereticks Hath not this been continually the custome of the Church of God yea even of Rome it self when any persons excommunicated by other Churches were found Orthodox to receive them into their Communion of which examples have been given above and hundreds more might be produced Well then in a word the Church of Rome hath a power to excommunicate those who desert her and transgresse her Laws even as the Magistrate hath a power to inflict a mulct or penalty upon such as transgress his laws and sanctions but then as the exertion of this power upon persons innocent or in prosecution of Laws which are manifestly unjust is a transgression of the bounds and limits of this power and criminal in the person that thus exerts it even so the excommunication used by the Church of Rome upon other Churches who are necessitated by the law of God to forsake her communion and only transgress her laws when inconsistent with the observance of the laws of Christ is a transgression of the bounds and limits of her power and criminal not in him that separates but in them that make this separation he being bound to obey God rather then man so that 't is impossible for you to justifie your Excommunications unless you can justifie your laws and tyrannical exactions upon the consciences of men The second sect of his twenty fourth chap. Sect. 10 is spent in telling us that once we were Papists and now are Protestants with the addition of some untruths to make the discourse more plausible The visible communion saith hee betwixt the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken Answ This is as true as that the Church of Italy hath no visible communion with Spain and France do not we communicate with them in their services when we have occasion and do not they mutually communicate with us do we not proclaim our selves their Brethren did we ever renounce their communion or were wee ever rejected by them do they differ in some opinions from us so do the Italian and French Catholick Churches But hee goes on The same publick service which our first reformers found in Gods Churches all the world over they refuse saith he to joyn in for fear of sin Answ As if the whole world at the time of our reformation had used the same Liturgy the publick service of the Graecians and other Eastern Churches had fully accorded with the service of the Western or could be different from it and yet the same and yet had this been so must we be necessarily Schismaticks in so doing would King Josiah or Hezekiah have joyned in the services of those Idoll Priests which at the time of their reformation were observed could they have sacrificed in the high places without sin or were they Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with their corruptions when Arrianisme prevailed in the Church of God when their Creeds and Doxologies were received and practised were the reformers that cast them out Schismatical and when that Prophesie that even all Nations shall worship and do homage to the beast shall be fulfil'd will a reformation afterwards be no better then a Schisme will it bee unlawful to alter what then shall be observed Again saith he most of the Ecclesiastical laws which were formerly inforce Ibid. wee have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches made new Answ We have abrogated none but such as were abrogated by Gods Law such as could never oblige us but by our consent and consequently can oblige no longer then we do consent such as were contrary to the doctrine of the Primitive Church
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
and by a certain faction so that the major part of those that were capable of being Members of the Council bee of a contrary opinion to the persons actually elected Why should wee believe them then For if the contrary faction should prevail their determinations would bee contradictory to the others and so the Articles of our faith must bee formed by chance and faction Again what if all the persons called come not will the Council be generall Why may not the greater part of the Council erre and yet the Church be infallible as well as the greatest part of its Members diffused erre and yet the diffused Church be infallible Especially seeing Gods promises must bee acknowledged to concern them both Shall they bee infallible whether they fast pray study and use means or not If so then to what purpose have they generally done so and why are there such debatings If not how shall wee so far distant from them be able to know how they acquit themselves in these things and consequently whether they bee infallible in their particular determinations Yea seeing the packing and fore-resolution of votes doth null their Decrees or else your Answer to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is perfectly vain in such a corrupt age as wee live in p. 51. sect 8. wherein if ever all may be said to seek their own how shall wee know whether all the Bishops of the Church of Rome come not as they did to the Trent Council with resolutions to condemn the Protestants right or wrong Furthermore who must call this Council Pope or Princes when they are met how shall wee know that they are fit Members when wee cannot know the legality of their Baptisme and Ordinations because wee cannot know the intentions of all the particular persons who Baptized and Ordained them VVhat if there can bee no general Council VVhat if Princes will not suffer Bishops within their Dominions to repair to it Must wee call general Councils to suppresse every novelty How shall wee know true Councils Have you not large Catalogues of reprobate and doubtful Councils Upon what uncontroulable grounds do you reject this and own that whence have you any infallible evidence that your charactarismes of a true Council are true ones Must this general Council bee made out of the whole Christian world or not If not how is it a general Council How can the promises made to the whole World bee applyed to it How is it a representative of the whole Church If it must be from all parts 1. 'T is evident wee never had a general Council For what Bishop came in the primitive times from India Aethiopia Persia Parthia Armenia what Brittish or Scottish Bishops were there And 2. A general Council is then a thing impossible for some Bishops bee in America and others in the East-Indies some dispersed through most of the Turkes Dominions and how long would it be before all these could have tydings of a Council How long would they bee in journying to the place appointed for convention How many of the most aged will dye by the way How many will be hindred by Infidel Princes VVho will provide for such a multitude when convened How will it bee possible for them to conferre by reason of the difference of their language Or to provide Interpreters for them all what will become of their Flocks at home while they spend so many years journey to a Council These and an hundred questions more of the persons appointed to call them of the place and the like might bee insisted on to shew that general Councils were never instituted by God for the Rule of our Faith But I am weary and therefore send you to Mr. Baxters key for Cath. pt 2. and others Nor can this infallibility of general Councils bee concluded either from Scripture reason the suffrage of Antiquity Sect. 3 or the concessions of the Sons of the Church of England Though all these Topicks are made use of to this purpose And. 1. To return answer to his evidence from Scripture that of Deut. 17. from the 8. to the 13. is very unserviceable to his design For not to tell him with Episcopius Mr. C. p. 258. sect 12. how inconsequent this deduction is from the Old-Testament wherin if wee may believe our Author wee have an expresse evidence from God of such an infallible convention to the New which affords us no such thing Wee answer further 1. It is not evident from the place that any mention is made of Religious causes for albeit there bee mention of cause and cause yet in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a cause before brought to the inferiour Judges V. 8. before whom the causes of Religion were not brought 2. That their judgement was not infallible is evident For 1. The Scripture affirms of these Priests who are here appointed to Judge that they departed out of the way caused many to stumble at the Law yea corrupted the covenant of Levi. Mal. 2.8.9 They accepted persons in that Law that is in judging the law was wrested by them in favour of persons whom they particularly affected yea further these Judges condemned the Prophets of the Lord Jer. 26.8 The priests Prophets and all the people condemn Jeremy to death and that for accusing the people and Priests of defection from the Lord to Idolatry from the Precepts of the Law to the most enormous sins Matth. 23.17 Yea they approved of false Prophets as is every where extant in the Old-Testament for that this was done by these Judges appears in that a Prophet was not to be Judged but by the Senate whence Christ saith Luke 13.33 It cannot bee that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem because it was the place where this Sanhedrim was 2. Had it been so why was it that so many sects were found among them of Sadduces Pharisees Essens Gaulonites and Herodians How is it that this infallible Judge never went about to interpose his sentence How is it that they never resorted to him for satisfaction but indeed these Sects were made up of the persons that were to judge and so no equal decision was like to bee made by such interested persons 3. Wee know that this Synod was made up of Sadduces and Pharisees the one of which denied the Resurrection the other by their traditions annihillated the Command of God Now these as wee may read in Josephus mutually prevailed in the Nation Now then had this Synod been to judge of the Resurrection when the Sadduces prevailed would they have been infallible in their Judgements Surely no more then the Arrian Councils And when the Pharisees would they not yea did they not determine such things which made void the Commandments of God but what need wee flick upon these arguments when wee have such an illustrious instance in their rejection of our Saviour and refusing to beleive on him would the Synagogue have judged him
dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible seeing therefore it is evident that most of the questions proposed by mee are variously maintained by men of learning and abilities and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them it seems apparent unto mee that he never intended a general Council as a Judge to whose decisions upon pain of damnation wee must assent and to which wee must necessarily submit our judgements if wee would avoid the ruine of the Church For sure it cannot bee that what is so necessary to the unity that is the being of the Church should bee left by an all-wise God at such infinite uncertainties And I appeal unto your self whether we who say the Scripture must bee Judge in fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation as that God is and that hee is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him that hee is holy just and good that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners dyed for us rose again will raise us up at the last day and bring us unto judgement that faith repentance and obedience or holinesse of life are necessary for our attainment unto happinesse are at such uncertainties Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity Are they not writ as with a Sun beam Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if shee doth not Now as for other things which may bee variously conceived and held without the destruction of faith or good manners a liberty of judgement may bee allowed onely with such restrictions as shall obviate all publick disturbances of the Church Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals seeing it cannot rationally bee denied that whatsoever is so is perspicuously laid down in Scripture albeit we cannot say è contra that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental 4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England he would have the infallibility of General Councils to bee asserted by Dr. White Dr. Field and the most Reverend Arch-Bishop Lawd but it is no where so affirmed by them Arch. Lawd confer sect 37. Num. 3. Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points fundamental and this he had reason to affirm but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council appears 1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages And 2. Those that have been assembled have not taught all fundamentals but some only at the most And therefore he understood it if he ever said so which we have Fide jesuiticâ of the visible Church diffused through the universe The other passage out of sect Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essentiall and diffusive Ibid. sect 21. N. 5. that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise one could not possibly beleive him For he tells him divers Protestants beleive the same with him Cites Keckerman thus speaking The question is whether the whole Church universally considered for all the Elect who are members of the Militant Church can erre in the whole faith or any weighty points thereof and answering 't is simply impossible And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus that 't is impossible that the Church should ever by Apostacy and mis-beleif wholly depart from God taking the Church for all the beleivers now living and in things necessary to be known expresly And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy he thence infers that she the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in fundamentals albeit she may erre in superstructures for if shee could shee would not bee Holy but Heretical it being most certain that no assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy He goes on and tells us that the Arch Bishop asserts Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is p. 254. when it's decisions are admited once and received Generally by Catholicks Now because he could not but know that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation instead of sect 38. he gives us sect 33. But to pass that the Arch Bishop saith only this That a General Council is a very probable but yet a fallible way of introducing truth but after it's determinations are admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also infallible that is saith he it deceives no man for so all truth is and is to us when it is once known to be truth So that he only saith this when the Church hath found it's determinations true they are infallible Hear his words 'T is true a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church which he supposes cannot erre in matters of faith is then infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath truly determined already without errour as that is supposed to bee which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith But that a General Council a parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be infallible in all it 's after determinations what ever they be I utterly deny P. 305. What hee further cites from Mr. Ridley Dr. Bilson Dr. Potter is evidently inconsequent nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely that the will of God is to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality as our Ceremonies are as you may see in his preface sect 6. Lastly As for the consent of universal Antiquity Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour bee alledged nay we have strong presumptions that they little dreamp't of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for and indeed had it been otherwise how is it that in so many Volumes writ by them against all kinde of Hereticks they never touch upon this Argument never press the infallibility of General Councils never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost or tell their adversaries that they must yeild the same obedience to them as Scripture had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church should have over look'd so facile and compendious a proof and yet they have not only done so Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem eâ—postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians Epist ad Epict. but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence Thus Athanasius 't is
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of
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
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
would not bee members of the church because not united to some Organical part of it Yea 2. In the daies of Elijah there would have been no Church there being no such organical body And 3. Under the prevailing of Arrianisme those Righteous souls who renounced Communion with the Arrians and fled into dens and caves must have renounced the Church Catholick as being Members of no such Organical Body Now hence it follows that the unity of the Church Catholick cannot be external which Mr. C. every where supposeâ—â— and takes for granted but onely internal or that of faith and charity and consequently to prove our separation from the holy Catholick Church it must bee proved that we have not that faith obedience and charity which is requisite to make us members of that Church which is a taske so hard that Mr. C. durst not set upon it 3. Sect. 4 That to be united in external Communion with some such part of the Church Catholick cannot bee necessary to my being a member of it Mr. Chilling p. 255. sect 9. this is evident 1. From the instances now produced 2. Because a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches external Communion and yet hee is still a member of the Church And this also strengthneth the former Corollary 4. Sect. 5 Id. p. 264. That not every separation but onely a causelesse separation from the external Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme This we have sufficiently proved above VVhence it evidently follows that those Protestants who say they forsook the external Communion of the Church visible that is renounced the belief and practise of some few things which all visible Communions besides them did believe and practise cannot precisely upon this account lye under the imputation of the sin of Schism any more then the seven thousand that refused to bow the knee to Baal or those in the primitive times that refused communion with the Arrian Churches As doing it upon conviction from Scripture Reason and Antiquity that all the visible Churches of the world had in these observances swerved from the Word of God Reason and Antiquity which is every where their plea. Mr. Chil. p. 265. sect 32. Now hence it follows that to leave the Church and to leave her external Communion is not the same that being done by ceasing to bee a Member of it that is by ceasing to have faith and obedience the requisites to make us such which can never bee necessary this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick worship and indeed were these the same it must of necessity follow that no two Churches divided in external communion can bee both true parts of the Catholick Church Mr. Chil. p. 271 sect 50. and consequently that either the Church of Rome which is thus divided from all other Christians is no part of the Catholick Church or which is more uncharitable that all the Churches of Christendome besides her must bee excluded from being parts of the Church Catholick as being divided in external communion from the Roman yea when the Western and Eastern Churches refused communion with each other one of them presently must bee excluded from the Catholick Church Yea it will follow that either there is some particular Church that is by promise from God freed from ever admitting any superstitions or corruptions into her Liturgies and publick services or else that to separate from superstitions and corruptions crept into these particular Churches is to become no Churches which is as rediculous as to say that to purge any person from those distempers which others labour under were to unâ—man him Indeed I know that the Roman Church pretends to bee the guide of the faith of others to be secured from these corruptions and consequently to bee the Root of Union to other true Orthodox Churches but this pretence is so assaulted by Mr. Chil. P. 337. sect 20. that I am confident they are not able to stand out against the evidence of his Reason Thus then hee Is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not one amongst all the Apostles who were men very good and desirous to direct us in the surest way to Heaven instructed by the Spirit of God in all necessary points of Faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this most necessary point of Faith should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Meethinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them especially this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary St. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Meethinks St. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their priviledge to them Meethinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which he saith also of the Thessalonians he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms that their faith was the Rule for all the world for ever but then sure he would not have put them in fear of an impossibility as hee doth chap. 11. That they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Jews ahd done Meethinks in all his other Epistles or at least in one of them hee could not have failed to have given the world this direction had hee known it to have been true that all men were to bee guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Meethinks writing so often of Hereticks and Anti-Christ he should have given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that St. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successours the Bishops of Rome How was it possible that St. James and St. Jude in their Catholick Epistles should not give this Catholick direction Meethinks St. John instead of saying hee that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God the force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the Sons of God should have said he that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it hee is a good Christian and by this mark you shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if hee consider as hee should the pretended necessity of this doctrine to salvation ordinarily can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation should be so deeply and affectedly silent in this matter as
that not one of them should say it plainly so much as once but leave it to bee collected from uncertain principles by many more uncertain consequences 5. Sect. 6 Wee say that it cannot bee proved that the English Church separated from the external Communion of the Church Catholick let Mr. C. produce any one thing which wee alledge as a reason of our separation and shew that it was held as a matter of faith or practised in the publick Worship of all other Churches and then wee shall acknowledge it 2. We have not separated from the external Communion of the reformed Churches much lesse from the Communion of our selves and therefore not from the universal of which both they and we are parts And thus Mr. Chil. explains himself and tells you that his meaning was onely this P. 295. that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part Luther and his followers might bee said to forsake this external Communion of the visible Church But that properly speaking hee forsook the whole visible Church viz. As to external Communion you must excuse mee if I grant not and my reason is this because hee and his followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to bee so by their reformation now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church and what other plea could have been made by the Church of Jury in the dayes of Elijah or the Church of Christ under the prevalency of Arrianisme I understand not And what hath Mr. C. to evidence the contrary 1. Saith he p. 262. a separation from any one true member of the Catholick Church for doctrines that are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that member is indeed a separation from all Churches Ans But the Church of Rome hath separated from the Church of England a true Member of the catholick Church for doctrines commonly held by other churches in communion with her Ergo shee hath separated from all Churches 2. The Argument evidently supposeth some of these untruths 1. That a true member of a Church or a particular true Church cannot require unjust conditions of communion or at least cannot have any other to consent with her in these conditions or that if she do it is unlawful for others to separate when such conditions are required Yea lastly it supposeth the very thing in question that all true Members in the Church Catholick must necessarily communicate externally with each other 2. Ibid. Reply p. 47 48. He tells us that Calvin confesseth this separation which confession is considered by Bishop Bramhal 3. Saith he no Church can be found antecedent to our separation p. 263. with which we are joyned in external communion Answ What inference do you make hence seeing wee are joyned in internal communion with all the Churches of God and are willing externally to do so if no unjust conditions be required 2. What think you of the Churches which reformed before us Ibid. Again he adds no Church hath Laws or Governours in common with us Answ What of all this is it necessary to our external communion that all the Laws or Governours of other Churches should be the same with ours 2. Have not the Eastern Churches the same Governours with us Ibid. Repl. they are manifestly Heretical Answ This wee constantly deny as you may see in Bishop Bramhal Reply p. 349. Bishop Mortons Apol. Dr. Field Mr. Pagits Christianography and others He proceeds not one Church can be found Ibid. which will joyn with us in publick offices or wee with them Answ Who told you so Bishop Bramhal informs you that albeit the Eastern Churches use many rites that we forbear yet this difference in rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to bee for any thing he knoweth if distance of place and difference of language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion seeing wee agree in the acknowledgement of the same Creeds and no other nor do we require agreement in lesser matters as a condition of communion in which the Church of Rome is extreamly Schismatical Obj. But their Patriarch Jeremiah refused communion with us To this Bishop Bramhel Replies in two full pages that the thing is not true and 2. that since his time Cyril the Patriarch hath professed communion with us Lastly Saith he surely they could not become ipso facto in communion with the Graecian Church by separating from the Roman Answ Surely wee may so as having since left off to require those unjust conditions or practise those unlawful things which before wee did require and practice 6. The reason of our separation from the Church of Rome Sect. 7 is not so much because they maintain errours and corruptions as because they impose them Chill p. 267. sect 40. and will allow their communion to none but to those that will hold them and have so ordered that either wee must communicate with them in these things or nothing Now this I hope is not a reason common to you with other Churches for what they hold they hold to themselves Id. ibid. p. 306. sect 106. and refuse not to communicate with them that hold the contrary so that we may continue in their communion without professing to beleive their opinions but in yours we cannot Lastly Sect. 8 were wee Schismaticks for separating from the Church of Rome for doctrines which were common to her See Pagits Christianography with other Churches yet can it not be hence infer'd that we must close with the Church of Rome in all her unjust demands but only in those doctrines if there were any in which she hath the consent of the Eastern Church and all others which we esteem the Church of God Again p. 287. sect 12. Sect. 9 wee are told that the Articles mentioned by the Dr. most of them had been expresly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England whence he infers that the English separation made from the Roman Church should have been made on the same grounds from the universal Church above a thousand years since seeing it is evident that in St. Gregories time both Eastern and Western Churches were in perfect unity Where not to take notice either 1. Of his false supposition that Christianity in England was no older than St. Gregory or Austin the Monk when it was above two hundred years older than the very being of a Monk Nor 2. Of his rediculous assertion that these Articles which we contend against are not new because most of them declared in former Councils when as I am confident he must sink down as low as a thousand years to make this good let him cite any Council expresly declaring for any of these Articles excepting the Celibacy of Priests and the worship of Images which is as evident an innovation as any possibly can be Nor 3. To minde
an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils which have been sufficiently refuted already and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition to shew that these Doctrines c. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory or esteemed matters of Faith For 1. Sect. 11 Wee have already evinced the contrary of the Popes supremacy and proved that in two Brittish Councils it was Synodically rejected and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism and his Reply to the Bishop of Calcedon and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography beyond all possibility of contradiction 2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition which was made by the Brittish Picts and Irish against the Church of Rome touching the Celibration of Easter of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish Bishop Usher from p. 92. to p. 116. and their aversness from communion with those of the Roman party which he relateth p. 108 109 110. where among other things you have these verses made by one of the chief of their wise men Woe bee to him that doth not keep From Romish Wolves his sheep with staff and weapon strong 3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead let it bee observed that the Prayers and oblations mentioned are expresly noted to have been made for such whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss See Bishop Usher p. 27 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit p. 189. Bed l. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 2. hee gives these instances The Brothren of the Church of Hexham in the anniversary commemoration of the Oâ—its of Oswald King of Northumberland used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms to offer for him in the morning Id. l. 4. cap. 23. the sacrifice of the sacred oblation as Beda writeth who tells us yet withall that he râ—igned with God in Heaven and by his prayers hee procured many miracles to bee wrought on Earth So likewise doth the same Bede report Bed l. 4. Hist cap. 23. that when it was discovered by two several visions that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal or Whitby in York-shire was carried up by the Angels into Heaven they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan that being at Bath and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his Scholler at Glassenbury to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven hee straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety Divinae pietatis and intreated the Lords of the place where he was to do so likewise 4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the same was taught then which we teach now as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick approved by divers Bishops in their Synods and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day before the receiving of the Communion This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York Hom. in Dâ—e Sancti paschat p. 17. and thirteen other Bishops and the words of it are There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed Howsel The body truely that Christ suffered in was born of the fleâ—sh of Mary with blood with bones with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul-living And his Ghostly body which we call the Howsel is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limb without soul And therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood 5. From hence it follows undeniably that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass 6. And for communion in one kinde it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often lest they should want the food and drink of salvation Pagit Christianography part 3. Our Lord saying except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of Man you shall have no life in you From whence it is evident that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements 7. That the Layicks were permitted yea commanded to read the Scriptures appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan That all such as went in his company Lib. 3. c. 5. whither Clerks or Layicks were tyed to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures or learning of Psalms That they had their service in their own tongue I have but little evidence neither have you more to the contrary Bishop Jewels reply pag. 190. But the best I yet find given of it is this that Theodore the seventh Arch-Bishop after Austin brought the Latin service into England That they rejected Image Worship is evident from this that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images and when the acts of that Council were sent into Brittain by Charls King of France Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture which Epistle with the said Book with our Kings and Princes hands was brought to the King of France See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden aliis That they rejected invocation of Saints Holinshed's Hist ad An. 1100. p. 27. is proved from the History of King William the second who protested openly that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lords sight and therefore neither would hee nor any man See other evidences in Pagit pt 3. p. 83. that was wise as he affirmeth make intercession either to Peter or any other Saint for help Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry saith Henry of Huntington At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Popes Letters in execution but at last after the pressures tyranny and arts of an hundred and thirty years continuance for it began in 970 and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it the Clergy were driven from their chast Wives and betook themselves to Concubines whom they changed or multiplyed without disturbance And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses not very good though very true O bone Calixte nuno omnis Clerus odit te Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate For heretofore each one might have his mate But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne They must keep Punks or learn to lig alone By which you may see that it was not Calixtus the First who lived Anno Dom. 221 that enjoyned Celibacy as our Authour
intimates and would have the learned Dr. guilty of the same blunder Mr. Cr. p. 309 albeit he hath not one syllable whence he can infer it But Calixtus the second who lived An. Dom. 1119. Sim. Dunelm in Chron. lib. 20. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. pag. 67 who in a Synod held at Rome An. Dom. 1120. Made this decree that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons should bee altogether interdicted the cohibitation of Concubines and Wives CHAP. XXIV Particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from their corruptions sect 1. Mr. C's limitations considered ib. The example of the Emperour Justinian for it sect 2. Of Carolus Magnus sect 3. Mr. C ' s. evasion obviated sect 4. The testimonies of Balsamon sect 5. The example of the Kings of Judah vindicated sect 6. Mr. C ' s. Objections answered sect 7 8. The History of the reformation sect 9. Wee might reform without Synodal concurrence sect 10. IN the consideration of this twenty fourth Chapter Sect. 1 I will use as few words as possible And First Whereas the Dr. had said that by the concessions of the most learned Popish VVriters particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church Mr. C. p. 285. as in the state without leave had from the See of Rome This saith he is willingly granted But then 1. He will not have them grant such a power of purgation against the consent of the See of Rome Answ As if they who have power to do this without the leave of the See of Rome might not do it with a non obstante to the contradiction of that See 2. Were all the decrees and statutes of the Germain Spanish Gallican Churches against the encroachments of the Pope his indulgences his bulls c. so largely insisted upon by Bishop Bramhal made by the consent of the Roman See did she not with greatest violence oppose them Secondly saith hee did they allow this liberty against the consent of the whole Church Catholick Ibid. Answ Wee have shewed that wee did not separate from the whole Church Catholick but being constrained by your obstinacy in imposing on us unjust conditions of communion refused to communicate with you the most ulcerated part of the Church Catholick upon these terms 2. When the Church in Athanasius his daies was over-run with Arrianism the Church of Israel in the daies of the Prophet Elias with Idolatry was it not lawful for particular Churches and particular Tribes to purge themselves from those corruptions 3. What promise have wee what evidence to assure us that there never was can nor will be any superstitions in all the Liturgies of the Church of God if you tell us that there be such promises we must call upon you to produce them if not then might there have been cause of our altering some things which were universally practised in the visible Church at the time of our reformation when we returned to that Primitive purity that was more or less deserted by it Thirdly Ibid. Not a Purgation quoth hee from the whole faith and discipline in any thing they thought fit to be rectified that by the authority of Councils and laws of Princes had been received and inforce ever since this Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves members of the Catholick Church Answ Every word is a misadventure for neither were the chief things reformed by us as the tyranny of the Pope the Idolatry of Images the Sacriledge in with-holding the Cup c. decreed by any Councils established by any laws of Princes or received by us at the first conversion of the Nation as wee have sufficiently evinced much less did the asserting of them declare us members of that Catholick Church which never owned them but detested them Fourthly Ibid. He tells us that we cannot produce one example either of States or Princes that ever made any laws to repeal any doctrines declared or disciplines established in the Church Answ If he speaks of a particular Church 't is so palpable an untruth that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think he needs an instance to the contrary if of the whole Catholick Church it concerns not us for never will hee bee able to evince that we have done so or if wee had done so in sleighter matters where they have swerved from Scripture and Primitive antiquity how are we blame-worthy in so doing hath not your Trent Council decreed against the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants which yet was the Doctrine of the universal Church in the fourth century have you not laid aside some Ceremonies which in the Primitive Church were practised universally Lastly Ibid. You say that the Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholick were to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of discipline that swerved from the decrees and ordinations of the Church and no other Answ The Purgations executed by our Princes were truly so and this wee constantly assert let Queen Elizabeth speak in her own behalf England saith she hath embraced no new religion Cambdens Annals of Eliz. p. 35 36. nor any other then that which Jesus Christ hath commanded that the Primitive and Catholick church hath exercised and the Antient Fathers have alwaies with one voice and one minde approved And 1. Sect. 2 touching the Emperour Justinian the first instance produced by the Dr. let it be only considered that it was he who banished Pope Silverius who created Justiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his imperial power who made so many laws contrary to the decrees of former Synods and for the correction limitation or right ordering thereof who made so many laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons and Benefices and holy Orders and appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie excommunicating all Hereticks and that of Nestorius and Eutyches in particular ordaining that if the followers of them did not return after warning given by vertue of his Edict they should have no favour L. cum recta C. de summa Tâ—â—â— or pardon but be condemned and punished as convicted and denounced Hereticks who made so many Laws touching Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all other matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance yea who expressely saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novel 133. that nothing comes amiss to the Prince every thing is under his Royal cognizance I say if this bee considered Justinian alone if all other Presidents were lost were sufficient to evince this Political supremacy of soveraign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions and consequently to justifie the Oath of Supremacy which Mr. C. tells us wee cannot hence justifie there being nothing ascribed to his Majesty thereby See Mr. C. p. 290. but onely Political Supremacy as is excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 290. Yea 2. To justifie our reformation it being onely to the casting out of
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
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
deny it with Grotius De sum Pot. c. 7. how miserable is our Authors proof who tells us that if there bee not spiritual laws and a spiritual director to them all what will become of unity Answ Why may they not have such laws and yet be independent is it necessary they should disagree 2. They may have diverse laws in circumstantials and yet preserve their unity seeing the unity of the Church is that of Communion not of apprehension and may stand with any difference of opinions in all matters that destroy not the foundation and Ruine not the being of a Church 3. They have spiritual laws and a spiritual director common to them all the Word of God Oh but they must have a General Council Rep. Why so good Sir Ans Because otherwise they will not obey the Rules of Scripture Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Oecumenical Council Ans They should obey them Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of Gods Word So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council what preservatives of unity will there bee and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one the remedy against Schism would bee as soveraign and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries God hath provided say they no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches but his Word yes say you a general Council or patriarchical no necessity of them say they to unity let men believe the foundations of Christianity and be charitable to their brethren bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters it is enough Now to this you learnedly aske how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity even say they by holding the foundations of Christianity so plain that they need no determination and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity And here comes in another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks and our reformation â—o bee illegal which runs thus That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority by Queen Elizabeth must bee illegal and Schismatical but such was the Reformation of the Church of England Now to make this good hee gives us an History of it and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen Mr. Cr. p. 274. unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion or more truely the superstitions restored by Queen Mary and then hee gives us what was done in this convocation viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendered to the Bishops who in the name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper Ans The businesse is onely this the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered or else Banished and persecuted out of the land when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown shee found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas yet did she not presently dispossesse the one and restore the other being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden but by degrees now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the blood-thirsty Bonner who had warmed himself at so many Bone-fires of our Bishops and learned Clergy without any other remorse then this that hee did not cut off root and branch Dr. Heylin Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 113. But such was their fear modesty or despair of doing any good to themselves and their cause that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all and not much more by the lower Clergy then a declaration of their judgement in some certain points mentioned here by Mr. C. which at that time were thought fit to bee commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy is his own addition it being onely a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy and whether it were so or no is not much material hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on and learned men of each party were elected to bee disputants of each side wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions that it was generally thought they were not able to defend their Doctrine Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104. in the points to be disputed But to proceed in the History of the Reformation after the Religion established by Queen Mary had continued un-interrupted for a month and somewhat more afterward it was tollerated withal required to have the Epistles Gospels the ten Commandments the Symbole the Lettany and the Lords-Prayer in the vulgar tongue Cambden p. 10 11. and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers who impatient of delay by the length of time which ranne and pass'd away in other matters desiring rather to run before good laws then to expect them in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christs true Doctrine Id. p. 33 34. first privately in houses and then openly in Churches On the 22th of March the Parliament being assembled the Order of Edward the sixth was re-established and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of publick prayers and administration of the Sacraments the Sacrifice of the Masse was abolished and the Liturgie in the English tongue more and more established In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops of which anon and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637. Now if it bee considered with Dr. Crakanthorp that what was here done by this most Religious Queen was not introductory of what was new that so it should bee necessary to discusse it in a Synod but onely restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters that Queen Elizabeth did onely justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated 2. â—ul Ch. Hist l. 9. p. 52. That this alteration of Religion was also enacted by the Parliament which repealed the laws of Queen Mary made against the Protestants and revived those of King Henry the 8 and King Edward the 6. in favour of them And 3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had desiring and advising her to these things yea and old Bishops also for whereas our Author tells us in effect that she had none to advise with p. 274. but such as were now ordained the rest being generally averse from her proceedings 'T is void of truth For what doth he think of William Barlow John Scory Miles Coverdale and John
Hodgskins who consecrated Arch-Bishop Parker Bishop Bale and the old Bishop of Landaffe must these be counted averse from this reformation or new ordained because some of them were transferred I say he that shall impartially weigh these things to omit other answers till anon cannot but acknowledge that the Queen had sufficient ground for what she did and that there was no necessity of the concurrence of any Synodal Authority to legitimate her actions On the 24th Dr. Heylin ib. p. 114. of June the publick Liturgy established by the Parliament was required to bee Officiated in all the Churches of the Kingdome and the Bishops were called in by certain of the Lords of the Council commissionated thereunto in due form of Law and were required to take the Oath of supremacy according to a law made in that behalf by the orders of the Land now albeit the Bishops had taken the like Oath as Priests or Bishops in some part or other of the reign of the two last Kings albeit it had been pleaded for by men of their own party and Synodically defined by them to be the right of King Henry the 8. yet did they now obstinately refuse the said Oath and were these upon deprived of their several Bishop-pricks as the law required The Oath is tendered next to the Deans and Dignitories Ib. p. 115. and by degrees also to the Rural Clergy refused by some and took by others as it seemed most agreeable to their consciences or particular ends for the refusal whereof or otherwise for not conforming to the publick Liturgy I finde no more to have been deprived of their preferments then fourteen Bishops six Abbots Priors and Governours of religious Orders twelve Deans and as many Arch-Deacons fifteen Presidents or Masters of Colledges fifty Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches and about eighty Parsons or Vicars the whole number not amounting to two hundred men which in a Realm consisting of above nine thousand Parishes and twenty six Cathedral Churches could bee no great matter About three years after a Convocation was called Heylin ib. p. 158 wherein the thirty nine Articles very little differing from those which in the Reign of King Edward the 6. An. Dom. 1552. had formerly been published were agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the convocation holden at London in the year 1562 ten years after the composing of the former Articles So that if the beginning of the reformation had been illegal by reason of the defect of any Synodical concurrence of the Clergy as indeed it was not yet after the concurrence and consent of this convocation of Bishops and the whole Clergy of the Nation it could no longer be esteemed so that being taken away upon which this pretence of illegality was built nor can it be excepted here that a purgation of the Clergy was first made and then the convocation called for that which Mr. C. stiles a purgation was only such a deprivation as the law required and that upon a most just account the refusal of the Oath of supremacy or non-conformity to the publick Liturgy against which no tollerable exception could be made and this is so notorious as that for the space of ten or thirteen years the Papists freely resorted to it add to this what the Queen returned to forreign Princes interceding for the Papists that these Bishop had in the sight of all the world Cambden ab initio against the laws and peace of the Kingdome obstinately rejected the same doctrine which the most of them had under the Reign of Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. propounded to others voluntarily and by publick writings which things joyntly considered do make this exception vanish into smoak and nothing But 3. If all this were laid aside yet wee affirm that the supreme power may reform against the greater part of the Clergy or with the advise of some of them albeit he have not their Synodal concurrence for otherwise the Idolatries of many of the Kings of Israel could not have been reproved by the Lord seeing they had the consent of the Priests and Levites in so much that Elijah cries out that he alone was left of all the Servants of the Lord. Yea the Preaching of Christ could not legally have been permitted since the Sanhedrim did oppose it nor the asserting of the Nicene faith when by the Arrian Bishops the contrary was spread through the Christian world and the Orthodox Bishops but an handful in comparison of them nor could the reformation of Hezekiah Josiah or other Kings of Judah be esteemed warrantable as being unsynodical and if the Idolatrous Priests which they deposed did exceed the number of the Lords Priests they must have been reputed as Schismaticks from the Priests of Baal as now we are yea had Queen Mary called a Synod of the Clergy which she found in possession of Ecclesiastical preferment at her entrance on the Crown would they not have determined for the Protestants had his Majesty called a Synod before the restitution of the Bishops would it not have determined for Presbytery and against the introduction of the ceremonies Yea lastly albeit two Brittish Synods rejected the propositions of Austine St. Gregories legate you will not I hope accuse the King of being Schismatical for siding with Austin against those Synods and verily if any of the things you mention either the Princes being liable to mistake the truth the possbility of this that the Clergy opposed by him should bee in the right if any power of determining matters of faith do prejudice the reformation of Queen Elizabeth they must stand good also against these instances produced by me for might not the Idolatrous Priests have returned upon Hezekiah or Josias as ours do too often upon us might they not have told them Sirs you are very zealous for what you are pleased to call a reformation but what if you be mistaken in what you so esteem what if the Priests deposed by you be in the right what if God hath committed this work to judge and decide what religion shall bee practised to us Priests are you not Sons of the Church and therefore to bee guided by us your spiritual Fathers Will you say their deviation from the law of God was most notorious Answ True but not more evident then yours both from Antiquity and Scripture in the matters of Prayer in an unknown tongue Communion in one kinde worshiping of Images and the adoration of the Sacrament as God and what other tolerable answer you can return to this objection I profess I know not Next he reckoneth up the carnal interests of our reformation which were they granted would serve to shew the manner of proceeding in the reformation bad but conclude nothing against the action it self we are told of King Henry's luxury and Sacriledge as if these were his motives to reformation but if Sacriledge and luxury did help to reform superstition
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
Lateran Council where there were Eastern Bishops manifestly Schismatical according to your Principles 2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox or if she did is it not rediculous to suppose that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained 3. Were we Schismaticks in this what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome 4. 'T is very impertinent to trouble us with an Objection which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers beyond the Seas in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England when what is said by them hath been refuted then may this question be seasonable As impertinent is that which you object to us ch 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal Rep. paulo post init and Dr. Crakanthorp in several chapters of the same Defence as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question do it if not why do you trouble us with it afresh Lastly Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholick Church the opinions of particular writers which wee have observed albeit your reason that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council is a very poor one for who knows not that as too many of the points in controversie your Church hath not declared her self but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed her self thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images what are wee the nearer seeing shee hath not declared what veneration is due when she declares for a proper Sacrifice shee hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice when she defines for merits whether shee means meritum de condigno or in that large sense in which the Fathers used the word shee hath not told us The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies c. and is this sufficiently to declare her self Again is it the doctrine of your Church that the Pope is above a General Council then doth not the Church of France hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine or if neither bee how hath she sufficiently declared her self who in that which is most material hath been silent And thus wee have considered your conditions Sect. 9 wee come next to propound what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply And 1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given to any of your Arguments for as long as any single Answer remains firm your Argument must be invalid 2. In the doctrine of the Popes supremacy you must prove these three things 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles and over all the world 2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors 3. That it was to bee conferred by Divine Right upon his successors at Rome and not elsewhere because all this is necessary to prove the Popes supremacy by Divine Right 3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers or if you will not dispute that then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture otherwise that kinde of disputation must be impertinent 2. If you accept of this then secondly I require 1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture for otherwise your discourse will bee rediculous as bottomed upon that which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it 2. That you answer the Questions proposed touching this matter above 3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original seeing translations do very much vary from them 4. That you cite none which Rivet Cocus and other Protestants stile spurious unless you answer their Arguments for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary 5. That you be so ingenuous as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you for citing old Editions which no body can meet with partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered And 1. Mr. C. p. 227. Wee are told that few who have any liberal education in that great light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual superiours pennances and retirements from the world c. can bee excusably ignorant of the one holy Catholick Apostolick Church that is that the Roman Church is this Church Where 1. As to continued succession when they are told by men as pious and as learned as any of the Papists 1. That the Papists have no such succession but that it hath been interrupted many times when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie When they are told 2. That it is not succession of persons but of Doctrines which is a mark of the true Church nor the want of it of a false for if hee bee a true Platonist that holds the Doctrines of Plato Chil. p. 356. sect 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section albeit hee cannot assign any one that held it before him for many Ages together why should not he be a true Christian who believes all the Doctrine of Christ though hee cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him When 3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Hereticks viz. the Eastern Church have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have can this bee such a demonstrative evidence that you are onely the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable Again can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them when 1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned for speaking the language of the Protestants And 2. They find it evident that it is not impossible that errours may be held with as great an unity as you can shew Seeing they find the Grecians yea the professors of Mahometism at greater unity