THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
Mystical Union between Jesus Christ and his Church and not the Union between the Husband and the Wife For having said This is a great Mystery that we might not think that he spake of the Mystery of Marriage he addeth But I speak concerning Jesus Christ and his Church But the Vulgar Translation of this Text calls it a Sacrament we grant it but doth this prove Marriage to be a Sacrament Will the Vindicator own all those things which in the Vulgar Translation are called Sacraments to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome Then the great Whore mentioned in the Revelations must be one of their Sacraments for so the Vulgar Translation calls her Rev. xvij 7. And the seven Stars mentioned Rev. i. 20. must be another for so they are there called And Dreams and Visions must be a third for so they are three times called Dan. ij 18 30 47. And Piety is called a great Sacrament 1 Tim. iij. 16. I suppose he will not own these to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome and yet in their Authentick Translation they are called Sacraments as well as Marriage But that Marriage is no Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ among many others we have these reasons to satisfy our selves I. Because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ for it was in the World before his time If after his coming the blessed Jesus did change the nature of it and make it a Sacrament then let them shew us when and where he did it II. Because as it hath no word of Institution so neither hath it any visible Sign or outward Element for neither the words nor the actions are Elements and unless there be an Element to which the word of Institution is joined it can be no Sacrament III. Because there is no promise of Grace annexed to any outward Element for though the state of Matrimony be a sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some Analogy with it ye we do not know that the entrance into this state hath the promise of any Grace to join or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church And for these reasons we exclude it from the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ with all the requisites of a Sacrament properly so called And for our so doing we do not want Authorities among the eminent Doctors of the Roman Church I shall only give you two instances Their own Durandus delivers his opinion in plain terms telling us Durand in sentent l. 4. Dist 26. q. 3. Cajetan Annot. in loc That strictly and properly speaking Marriage is not a Sacrament And Cardinal Cajetan upon this place of Scripture cited by the Vindicator hath these words Prudent Reader thou learnest not here of St. Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament for he saith not This Sacrament but this Mystery is great and in truth the Mystery of those words is great Thus it appears that neither from Antiquity nor the written Word of God any of these five Additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome viz. Confirmation Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony can with any justice plead the same title to be Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind as it is confessed on all hands Baptism and the Lord's Supper may I do also receive and admit of all the received and approved Ceremonies of the Catholick Church used in the Administration of the above-mentioned Sacraments 1 Cor. xiv 40. THAT all things are to be done decently and in order we own to be an Apostolical precept and that in point of duty we stand obliged to yield Obedience thereunto We also acknowledge that the Superiors in every Society are the proper Judges of that Decency and Order And that it always hath been and still is the practice of all well-ordered Societies to submit to the Determination of their Superiors therein And that to invert this Order or for private persons to take upon them to dictate to their Governours in this case is the only way to introduce Anarchy and Confusion Which is all or at least the substance of all that the Vindicator here offers in behalf of this Article But after this Concession there are some things still stick with us which will not suffer us to subscribe thereunto viz. I. Because we are required to receive it not only as an Article of Communion but as an Article of Faith under the penalty of an Anathema though it only concern Ceremonies which are things mutable at the pleasure of the Church II. Because the Ceremonies here spoken of or some of them neither are nor ever were received nor approved by the Catholick Church III. Because the Roman Catholick Church as they call it is but a particular Church and hath no more power to impose Ceremonies or Usages upon any other Church than that other hath to impose upon Her. For Par in parem non habet imperium IV. If any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of Rome or any other Church be such as that the Members of that Church cannot comply with them without sin and danger the general rule of the Apostle doth not in that case bind to blind Obedience For then there is an Apostolical pattern which must take place Whether it be better to obey God or man judge ye Acts iv 19. I embrace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Council of Trent hath been defin'd concerning Original Sin and Justification IN defence of this Article and to perswade us to a compliance therewith the Vindicator proceeds in this method I. He undertakes to give us an account of what the Council hath defin'd in these two points And II. To vindicate those their Definitions Now whether he hath been faithful in his account or whether the Definitions of the Council or his Vindication of them be such as may oblige us to comply with him and the Council therein are the things we are now to enquire into I. As touching Original Sin it must be acknowledged that the Vindicator hath faithfully set down the Doctrine thereof as it is defin'd by the Council of Trent But notwithstanding the Authority of this Council or the strength of the Proofs which indeed are weak enough whereby he endeavours to defend its Definition of this point yet there are some things we cannot comply with and till we are convinc'd by better Arguments than are here offered we cannot embrace all and every thing which in the Council of Trent hath been defin'd in this point But because the difference here is not very great and no new matter offered but only such as hath been over and over again considered and refuted and because there are matters of greater moment still behind Concil Trident. Sess 5. Decret de peccat Origin Can. 5. I shall only desire the Vindicator once more to read over that very Decree upon which this part of
did frequently relax some part of their penance And if this be all that is intended by Indulgences we shall not much quarrel with him about them but I am apt to think that this Gentleman will find but few of his own Communion who will be so ready to comply with him herein as we are There are two eminent persons of his own Church if he has any acquaintance with them viz. Greg. de Valentia Greg. de Valentia de Indulg c. 2. Bellarm. de Indulg l. 1. c. 7. and Cardinal Bellarmine who if he please to consult them in this matter will tell him another tale The former will assure him That this opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things And the latter will inform him That if this opinion be true then there will be no need of the Treasure of the Church and that Indulgences will be rather hurtful than profitable It is plain That these Doctors had a far different notion of Indulgences from that which the Vindicator here would perswade us to But it may be he will appeal from them as private Doctors which if he do whither will he send us to learn the Intention of the Church in this matter The Council is silent and gives us no Definition of the thing established by it and their chief Pastor who by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. is made the sole Interpreter of that Council hath not by any publick Act that we ever yet heard of declared the sence of the Council in this Decree So that we are still left either to spell out the intention of the Church in the Writings of their approved Doctors or else to guess at it by the practices of their supreme Pastors As to the former I have already given you a taste in two eminent Instances and might without any great trouble furnish you with many more And for the latter we need go no farther than the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber and the Bullarium in the former of which you may find Rates set which being paid an Indulgence may be had for almost any kind of Sin. And in the latter you have an account of several Bulls of Indulgence by several Popes Vide Bullar Tom. I. p. 204. Tom. III. p. 74 Tom. IV. p. 86. wherein a plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins and of all Sins is granted Which certainly must amount to more than a bare Relaxation of some part of Canonical Penance or else the poor People who purchased them were horribly cheated both of their Money and Expectations And if this be their notion of Indulgences we do not believe that any such power was ever given or left by Christ to his Church or that the use of it is at all beneficial to the Faithful I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. THE Vindicator foreseeing what Objection might be made to the Catholicism of the Roman Church begins his defence of this Article with an explanation of that Title telling us That as the Catholick or universal Church signifies a Church consisting of all particular Churches united in the Communion of the same Faith and Sacraments and submission to the same Ecclesiastical Government the Church of Rome is not the universal or Catholick Church but a part of it but as it imports a Church which is universal in its influence and by a singular privilege hath Authority over all other particular Churches and is the Center of their Communion the Church of Rome in this sence is the Catholick or universal Church and is rightly stiled the Mother and Mistress of all other particular Churches This Notion of the Catholick Church is liable to as many if not more Objections than the other For 1. Where or by whom was ever the Catholick or Universal Church understood to import a particular Church endowed with universal Influence 2. By what singular privilege hath any particular Church this universal Influence or Authority over all other particular Churches seeing par in parem non habet imperium 3. Whence had the Church of Rome this singular Privilege Was it from God or of Men If from God let her produce her Charter if of Men then those who gave it were superior to her to whom it was given and certainly they did not give away their own Superiority and if not then the Church of Rome instead of being a Mother and Mistress must own her self to be a Daughter and Handmaid to another 4. When where or by whom was the Church of Rome ever made or owned to be the Center of Catholick Union or Communion These Questions I doubt will not be quickly answered and till we are satisfied in these and some others we shall hardly be perswaded to subscribe this Article But why not The Vindicator assures us This was the Doctrine of the first Ages of the Church and if so then ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments than distrust theirs To this I answer That if this was the Doctrine of the first Ages then Pope Gregory the Great who certainly was as Infallible as any other Pope was mightily mistaken For when John Bishop of Constantinople did arrogantly assume to himself the Title of Oecumenic or Vniversal Bishop Gregory sharply reproves him for it and tells him Gregor l. 4. Epist 38 39. c. It is a New Name a wicked profane insolent Name the general plague of the Church a corruption of the Faith against Canons against the Apostle Peter and against God himself And he farther adds That never any Godly Man never any of his Predecessors used those Titles and whosoever doth or shall use them is the very Fore-runner of Antichrist From whence it is plain that before his time which was about Six hundred Years after Christ there never was any pretence made to it But the Vindicator says there was and that it was the Doctrine of the first Ages Now whether Gregory or this Gentleman be in the right is the thing in question The Vindicator to make good his ground urgeth us with the Authority of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. adv Haer. where he saith That the Church of Rome is the greatest and most ancient of all others founded and established there by the Two most Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. 'T is necessary that every Church should recurr to this by reason of its more powerful principality To this I answer That Irenaeus in that Book writeth against Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion who contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles had devised certain strange Heresies for trial whereof he appeals to those Churches which the Apostles had planted saying The Church of Ephesus first instructed by St. Paul and afterward continued by St. John is a sufficient witness of the Apostles
learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
to admit of them and embrace them And this he pretends to do both by an Apostolical Precept and Apostolical Practice Two mighty arguments if they be apposite to the thing in hand and well managed which whether they be or no I shall now examine The Apostolical Precept which he produceth is in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 7 17. in these words Remember them which have the rule over you c. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as they that must give an account c. In the former of these Verses as their own Lyra upon the place tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers that are dead Lyra in Hebr. c. 13. v. 7. We ought to remember them by following their Faith and imitating their good Examples And lest we should be at a loss to know who they are whom we are to remember and whose Faith and Vertue we are to follow the same Lyra tells us They were the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ In the latter place the same Lyra tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers who are alive viz. by obeying their Commands and giving due Reverence to their Persons That obedience is due from Inferiors to their Superiors we readily grant But then I. They must be such Superiors as not only pretend to have but really have a right to rule over them Now we do not think that any particular Church no not the Church of Rome it self hath any authority to give Laws to another Church for it is a certain Rule Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no power over one another And if so then the Church of Rome hath no reason to expect our compliance with every thing which she thinks fit to require of us II. As they ought to have a right to rule over us so their commands ought to be such as we may without sin obey them otherwise the rule of the Apostles will dispense with us Act. 4.19 Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye Now whether they be so or no how can we tell if we are not allowed before-hand to know what they are These things being thus premised I dare now venture any unbyassed Reader to be the Judge whether by virtue of this Precept the Church of Rome may justly challenge a power to impose what Observances and Constitutions she pleaseth upon the whole Christian World For that is truly the question between us Having considered the Precept by him procured and found him mistaken in it Let us now consider his argument from Primitive Practice and see whether that will stand him in any more stead This he tells us was the practice of the Apostles even of St. Paul himself and Silas who as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem And so were the Churches established in the Faith Acts xvi 4 5. The Apostolical Council held at Jerusalem having finished their Decrees commissionated Paul and Barnabas with Judas and Silas to publish the same among the Brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia Acts c. xv v. 22 23. These Men faithfully discharged their duty in performing their Commission and their so doing had a good effect for thereby the Churches were established in the Faith and increased in number daily Now what is all this to the Vindicator's purpose Will it necessarily follow That because Paul and Silas published the Apostles Decrees in these places Therefore the Church of Rome may impose what Ordinances and Constitutions she will upon all Christians If not I do not see what good this instance of Apostolical Practice will do the Vindicator I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that Sence which our Holy Mother the Church has held and does hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation thereof Nor will I ever admit or interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers WHAT Tertullian said merrily of the Heathens in his time Tertul. in Apologetico Vnless God please Man well He shall be no God and so now Man must be friendly and favourable unto God may with a little variation be here applied to the Church of Rome Vnless the Holy Scriptures please Her well they shall be no Scriptures For unless they speak according to Her Sence they are not to be admitted it belonging to Her to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of them For I do not at all doubt but it is of that Church that this Article speaks and which it stiles Our Holy Mother the Church And for this I have the warrant of Pope Pius himself who in his XXIII Article stiles it The Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Nor indeed can it be otherwise understood for if the true Sence of Scripture must depend upon the Judgment of the Universal Church i. e. of all the Christians or at least of all the Bishops and Pastors in the World how is it possible to get them together to declare the Sence thereof or must we reject all Scripture till we have such a Declaration If you tell me that we must look for it in the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers I answer I. That this is an impossible task for all sorts of Christians for Women and unlearned Men can never perform it if therefore their Salvation depend thereupon they must inevitably be damned II. Those that are learned and able to read and understand the Fathers do not find any such unanimous consent among them so that if according to this Article we must not admit the Scripture till they are all agreed about the Sence of it both learned and unlearned will for ever want a Rule to govern themselves by in the eternal concerns of their immortal Souls To avoid these difficulties The Church of Rome by Catholick understands the Roman Catholick Church and by Our Holy Mother the Church the Church of Rome which they call the Mother and Mistress of all Churches But will this make the business ever a jot the more easie Must all the Christians in the World out of Greece Egypt and many other more remote parts repair to Rome to receive the true Sence and Interpretation of the Scriptures Or if they do are they sure to meet with it when they come there Will they not find as much difference in opinions between the Doctors of that Church as of any other Will they not find that Councils have contradicted Councils and Popes condemned Popes And if so where then can they hope to meet with an infallible Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures To this may be added That if it belong to the Church to judge of the true Sence
the place Now if this be as undoubtedly it is the sence of the Apostle here let us see what consequence the Vindicator can draw from hence to favour his undertaking The Apostle here assures those to whom he wrote That all Prophecy of Scripture is not made of their own Explication i. e. as he explains himself Prophecy of old came not by the Will of Man. Therefore saith the Vindicator it belongs to the Church i. e. the Church of Rome and her only to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture for all Christians If you can swallow this consequence I do not see what you need to stick at One would have thought the more natural consequence had been this Therefore trust not every thing that pretends to come from a Prophetical and infallible Spirit but try whether it do so or no. Thus you see what a firm foundation this Gentleman hath laid which thus failing him his Superstructure thereupon must needs be in a very tottering condition His next Scripture is Acts xx 28. Where St. Paul charges the Elders of Ephesus To take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his own blood To these St. Paul saith he had declared all the Counsel of God v. 27. and then bids them to take heed to the flock c. i. e. to instruct those committed to their charge in that Doctrine which they had learned of him That by a parity of reason all Pastors and Teachers are to feed the flock committed to their care we willingly grant but how he will hence infer That all Christian People are to receive the true sence and Interpretation of Scripture from the Church of Rome I cannot imagine His next is 1 Tim. III. 15. Where St. Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth There is an excellent Treatise lately printed at London intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth to which if this Gentleman be permitted to read it I would referr him for his better understanding of this Text. His next is Matth. xxviij 20. Where our Saviour having given his Apostles his last and largest Commission promiseth to be with them alway even unto the end of the World. This promise was made to the Apostles and not only to them but to the whole Church of God in all Ages but how the Church of Rome comes to claim a Title to this promise more than any other I know not or if she had it I do not see what service it would do her in this case For that Christ will be alway with his Church so to preserve it as it shall never cease to be a Church we do not doubt but to preserve it from all error as he never promised it so we have no reason to expect it His next is John xvi 13. Where our Saviour tells his Disciples When he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth This promise was not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles whose case was so peculiar and extraordinary that the Church now hath no ground upon which to hope for the same Assistance which they then had and which indeed was then necessary for them to have That Christ will assist his Church in all Ages by his Grace we do not deny but that that Assistance implies Infallibility we cannot grant for then every private Christian who is assisted by Divine Grace would be infallible But if it did why the Church of Rome should put in a peculiar claim to this privilege more than the Church of England or any other particular Church I see no reason But it seems the Vindicator found great reason for it for thus he argues Christ promised his Apostles when he the Spirit of truth came he should guide them into all truth Therefore it belongs to the Church of Rome to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture Just as if one should argue Christ promised that these signs should follow them that believe In his name they should cast out Devils They should speak with new Tongues They should take up Serpents and if they drank any deadly thing it should not hurt them They should lay hands on the sick and they should recover Mark c. xvi v. 17 18. Therefore all that believe in Christ at this day shall do the same things His last Scripture proof is Matth. xviij 17. Where our Saviour saith If he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican To this I answer I. That our Saviour in this place doth not speak of Controversies in Religion or points of Faith but of quarrels between neighbours as is plain from v. 15. where our Saviour saith If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone c. II. By Church here we cannot understand either the Catholick or that which they call the Roman Catholick Church Not the former for that would make the thing not only impracticable but altogether impossible for when a quarrel happens to arise between two Neighbours if they must stay for the Decision of it till the Vniversal Church is assembled for that purpose their quarrel may last long enough Nor the latter for that would be as impracticable as the former for if two Christians have a quarrel in Syria or in Aethiopia must they go to the Roman Church to end their difference III. By the word Church therefore in this place we must understand any particular Church or Society of Christians of which the the two quarrelling Neighbours are Members Now it is confessed on all hands that any such Society in giving Admonitions and using of Censures may err being subject to be mislead either by passion or prejudice or ignorance 'T is plain therefore that this Scripture is not at all to his purpose or if it were it would do him no service Thus have I considered his Scripture proofs and now let us see what the Fathers will say for him He produceth two passages both out of one and the same Father viz. St. Aug. His first Authority is taken out of his first Book contra Crescon Gram. c. 33. Then says he we follow the truth of the Scriptures when we do that which hath seemed good to the whole Church which Church is commended to us by the Authority of the Scripture To the end that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates I cannot imagine what was in this Gentlemans mind when he pickt up this passage of St. Aug. for a proof of this Article St. Austin indeed says Then we follow the truth of
Elementum fit Sacramentum And now let us see Catech. ad Parochos pars 2. Tit. de Sacram. n. 5. p. 113. Aug. l. 10. de civ Dei. c. 5. And Epist 2. how far they agree with us in this notion of a Sacrament The Trent Catechism which always speaks the sence of that Council gives us this definition of a Sacrament It is a visible Sign of invisible Grace instituted for our Justification which it grounds upon the Authority of St. Austin and the compliance of all the School Doctors with him therein The Doway Catechism saith * P. 49. A Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible Grace instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification And their †P. 4 5. Summ of Christian Doctrine c. printed at London 1686. saith A Sacrament is a visible Sign instituted by Jesus Christ to convey his Grace into our Souls and to apply unto us the merits of his death So then it is agreed between us that these three things viz. The word of Institution a visible Sign and a promise of invisible Grace are absolutely necessary to make and constitute a Sacrament And it is acknowledged on all hands that these three are to be found in the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper The dispute therefore between us is concerning the Five additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome Of which we say That they want either the Word or the Element or both Matrimony Order and Penance have the word of God but they have no outward Element Extream Vnction and Confirmation have neither Word nor Element But this Gentleman contends That these Five as well as the other Two are founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture And here I confess the Vindicator hath taken a great deal of pains but to little purpose he hath sweat and toil'd and at last found out a great many Fathers who have called them Sacraments which is a thing that no body would have deny'd him upon his own bare word For That many things which indeed and by special property are no Sacraments may nevertheless pass under the general name of a Sacrament he must be a very great stranger to the Writings of the Fathers who will not acknowledge it We very well know that it was usual with the Fathers to call any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion or any holy significant Rite by the name of a Sacrament And in this Sence he might reckon not only seven but seventy or more if he pleased for he may furnish himself with great variety Tertullian calls the Stick which Elisha cut down cast into the water Tertul. advers Judaeos and made the Iron swim Sacramentum Ligni the Sacrament of Wood. And the same Father calls the whole State of the Christian Faith Contr. Marcion l. 4. Aug. in Sermone de Sanctis 19. Leo de Resurrect Domini Serm. 2. Hieron ad Oceanum Inter Decreta Leonis c. 14. Aug. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of the Christian Religion And St. Austin speaks of the Sacrament of the Cross And Leo calls the Cross of Christ both a Sacrament and an Example And St. Jerome calls the Water and Blood which issued out of the side of the blessed Jesus the Sacraments of Baptism and Martyrdom And Leo calls the vow of Virginity a Sacrament And St. Austin calls the Bread that was given unto the Novices or Beginners in the Faith called Catechumens before they were baptized a Sacrament And if he will but consult St. Hilary he may find in him these expressions Hilar. in Matth. Canon 11 12 23. The Sacrament of Prayer the Sacrament of Hunger the Sacrament of the Scriptures The Sacrament of Weeping and the Sacrament of Thirst Bern. in Sermone de Coena Domini And St. Bernard calls our Saviour's washing of the Disciples Feet the Sacrament of daily sins I suppose he will not call all these Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and if not then must he aknowledge that there are Sacraments to be found in the Fathers besides those that are properly so called The truth is the Fathers sometimes spake Metaphorically and sometimes properly sometimes they spake more loosely and sometimes more closely sometimes they spake of things as they were in themselves and by specially property such and sometime by way of allusion and as in a general sence they might be called such And if we be not careful to difference these several ways and manners of speech in the reading of them we may unawares fall into great errors and mistakes This is plain in the matter now before us All are not Sacraments properly so called which they call so we are therefore to distinguish between their expressions when they speak of a thing obitèr and by the bye and when they treat of it designedly and on set purpose And if we consider their Writings when in the latter way they treat of this subject we shall find that they mention no more Sacraments but only two St. Cyprian saith Then may they be throughly sanctified Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. ad Steph. Aug. de Doctrina Christiana l. 3. c. 9. and become the Children of God if they be new-born by both the Sacraments And St. Austin saith Our Lord and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments instead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in observation most reverend as is the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Lord. And again the same holy Father speaking of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord saith Aug. de Symbolo ad Catechumenos Paschasius de Coena Domini Bessarion de Sacrament Eucharistiae These be the two Sacraments of the Church And Paschasius saith These be the Sacraments of Christ in the Catholick Church Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Cardinal Bessarion saith We read that these only two Sacraments were delivered us plainly in the Gospel Here you have Both the Sacraments and the Two Sacraments and the Only Two Sacraments of the Church Whence it is plain that though the Fathers sometimes either in heat of this discourse or for a Rhetorical flourish might call those Sacraments which properly speaking were not so yet when they did designedly and on set purpose speak of them they mentioned only Two which I think may be a sufficient answer to his Authorities But he has yet another Reserve to bring up and that is That all these are founded upon the sence of the Scripture Let us see how whether this will any more avail him than the Authority of the Fathers hath done Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation TO establish this he produceth Acts viij 17 18. where it is said Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw that
the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified
and comprehensive that there is no room left for Evasion For 1. It forbids all external acts of Adoration as bowing down to them or before them 2. It doth not only forbid the Worship of Images as Gods but as Images and Representative Objects 3. It doth not only forbid the Worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Jehovah But all this notwithstanding the Vindicator thinks he hath found out both Scripture and Antiquity wherewith to defend both these Articles For the Invocation of Saints he alledgeth Gen. xlviij v. 16. where Jacob blessing Joseph's two Sons saith The Angel that delivered me from all evil bless the Lads To this I answer That by Angel here is generally understood the Angel of the Covenant viz. Christ the Son of God. But if we should grant him that it is to be understood of an Ordinary Angel yet can he not thereupon avail himself any thing in this case for God being pleased often to make use of the Ministry of Angels in sending succor and relief to good Men Jacob prayed not unto the Angel but to God as may be seen in the 15 Verse that he would appoint the same Blessed Angel that administred unto him in all his streights to be the Instrument of his good providence to those two Sons of Joseph whom he had now made his own and caused them to be called after his name He alledgeth also Rev. i. 4. Rev. v. 8. and Rev. viij 9. The first of these Texts is nothing to his purpose for the most that can be made of it is only this John prays that God would send his Grace to the seven Churches by the Ministry of the seven Spirits there mentioned and what is all this to the matter in hand or how will this warrant our praying to Saints departed Nor will his next Scripture do him any more service for it is generally understood to be either a Representation of the Church below offering up prayers by her Pastors who are the mouths of the Congregation to God or else a Representation of the whole Church of Christ both in Heaven and Earth joining together in their Doxologies and Praises to God for the Victories of the Lamb and the Redemption of the World by his Blood. And this latter seems to be warranted by the very next words where it is said And they sung a new song saying Thou art worthy to take the Book and to open the seals thereof for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation v. 9. Nor will his other Text any more avail him the 9th verse which he quotes is nothing to the purpose but I suppose he meant v. 4. where it is said That the smoak of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand That by Angel here we are to understand Christ the Angel of the Covenant they themselves dare not deny For the Angel that offered up the Prayers of the Saints in v. 3. is called another Angel different both in Nature and Office from those other seven Angels mentioned v. 2. But if Scripture will not do his business Antiquity he thinks will for that he says is very express in all the Doctrine of this Article And as witnesses of what he says he names St. Cyril Alex. St. Ambrose St. Augustin St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Jerome but without any direction where to find their evidence recorded Only in the Margin he tells us That these Quotations may be seen cited at large in Nubes Testium To all which I shall only return him this Answer That all these Quotations may be seen answered at large in The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion c. First and Second Parts and in another Treatise intituled Veteres Vindicati and in the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium For the Worship of Images All that he offers to prove is no more than this 1. That the making and having of Images in Churches or private Houses is not unlawful 2. That some respect and veneration is due to them both which we readily grant But whether the Veneration and Honour that is due to them ought to be called a Religious Honour This he tells us is a Dispute among Divines but no matter of his Faith. But if this be no matter of his Faith yet it is the only matter of Debate between us and them in this point and that it is the intention of his Church from which he tells us we are to take our measures as to the manner and external profession of this Honour hath been plainly made appear from the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which this Article is gathered If therefore he doth not prove this as indeed he doth not pretend to do he is so far from vindicating the Doctrine of this Article that he proves nothing at all Not finding therefore any thing in his proofs that tends this way I see no reason either to give my self or the Reader a needless trouble by a tedious examination of them But if there be any thing wherein this Gentleman desires a further satisfaction I would recommend to his perusal if he be permitted to read them two or three small Treatises which have lately been published upon this Subject viz. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship c. An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery c. A Discourse of the Worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints c. In which if he doth not find full satisfaction in this matter I must dispair of giving him any I believe that the power of Indulgences has been given and left by Christ to his Church and that the use of them is very beneficial to the Faithful THE Council of Trent hath indeed asserted the Doctrine of Indulgences Contin Sess 25. Decret de â—â—â—ulg but not explain'd it It damns all those with an Anathema who either affirm them to be unprofitable or deny that the Church hath power to grant them And all this without once letting us know what it means by Indulgences The Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition c. would perswade us that all that is intended by Indulgences is only a Relaxation of Canonical Penance and in complyance with him the Vindicator here seems to be of the same opinion for that is all that he advanceth for the Vindication of this Article That such a power as this was given and left by Christ to his Church and that the due administration of it is very beneficial to the Faithful we willingly grant And that this godly Discipline was anciently used by the Church of Christ we deny not For it is most certain that it was the practise of the Church to enjoin penance to her offending Members and if they did humbly and patiently submit thereunto and prove penitent under them she
heartily desire that he may do it Greg. Naz. in Epist ad Caesareenses Chrysost ad pop Antiochenum Hom. 3. and do it diligently And that this Holy Father meant no more than this may plainly appear from what he saith of the Church of Caesarea It is saith he in a manner the Mother of all Churches and the whole Christian Common-wealth so embraceth and beholdeth it as the Circle embraceth and beholdeth the Center Thus Jerusalem is frequently stiled the Mother of all Churches and St. Chrysostome calls Antioch the Head of the World. Now as these Churches are called Mother Churches because the Cities in which they were planted were the Mother Cities of those Provinces so for the same reason the Church of Rome is oftentimes called the Chief the Principal and the Mother Church because that City was the Metropolis or Head-City of the West And as the Bishops of those Churches may be and oftentimes are called the Chief Rulers and Governours of the Church so likewise and no otherwise the Bishop of Rome is sometimes stiled the Head i. e. the chief Governour of the Church And that by the whole Church here we are to understand no more but only the whole Church of that Province Polydor. Virgil explaining those words of St. Cyprian The Chair of Peter Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor rerum l 4. the principal Church from which the Vnity of the Priesthood first began thus writeth Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other wise be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from the Bishop of Rome unless we understand it only within Italy For it is clear and out of question that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before Peter ever came to Rome To this I might add That every Bishop may be called the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is his duty to take care not only of his own Flock but of the whole Church of God. As also that this Title Head of the Church hath been given to several godly Bishops who were never Bishops of Rome nor ever dreamt that any Supremacy of power over all other Churches was thereby conferred either upon him or them But I am not willing to enter farther into the Controversie than the Vindicator leads me And to this Evidence of his I think enough hath been said to show that it will not much avail him His next witness is St. Chrysostome l. 2. de Sacerd. c. 1. For what reason did Christ shed his Blood Certainly to purchase those sheep the care of which he committed to Peter and his Successors The whole force of his Argument if he can frame any out of these words must be That the Bishop of Rome is the true Successor to St. Peter Which if we should grant him I do not see how it would thence follow that the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor Head and Governor of the Catholick Church For if St. Peter himself was not so he cannot have it by Succession from him De Unitate Eccles Edit Oxon p. 107. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 38. Now St. Cyprian saith The Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined in the same fellowship of Honour and Power And their own Pope Gregory saith Peter the Apostle is not the Head but the chief Member of the holy universal Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but the Heads of several Nations Yet notwithstanding under one Head viz. Christ they are all members of the Church And to speak in short The Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints in the time of Grace all accomplishing the Lord's Body are placed among the Members of the Church And there was never any one yet that would have himself called the Universal Bishop So that as Paul Andrew and John were Heads of the Church in like manner and no otherwise was St. Peter Head of the Church If therefore St. Peter was then they were all so too for they were all equal and what a confusion that would be let the Vindicator judge To this may be added That if St. Peter was really the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Church constituted by Christ St. Paul certainly was very much to blame Gal. ii 2. to withstand him to the face as he did And it must be a very great Arrogance and presumption in him to say That in nothing he was behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. xij 11. Gal. ij 7. Or to share Jurisdiction with him saying That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter But St. Chrysostome Chrysost in Epist ad Galat. c. ii whose Authority he so much depends upon will tell him That Paul had no need of Peter 's help nor did he want his voice but was equal unto him in Honour Besides all this One may be said to succeed another either because he possesseth the same place that he did or because he teacheth the same Doctrine and with the same diligence that he did Now the former of these will not be enough to make any one the true Successor of St. Peter Alphons contra Haeres l. 1. c. 9. for as their own Alphonsus de Castro saith Though it be matter of Faith to believe the true Successor of St. Peter is the Supream Pastor of the whole Church yet are we not bound by the same Faith to believe that Leo or Clement though Bishops of Rome are the true Successors of St. Peter And yet this is the Succession they so much boast of and if this be it Dist 40. Multi the same St. Chrysostom will inform him That it is not the Chair that makes the Bishop but it is the Bishop that makes the Chair Neither is it the place that Halloweth the Man but it is the Man that Halloweth the place Dist 40. Non est facile And St. Jerome will tell him They are not always the Children of Holy Men that sit in the rooms of Holy Men. Nor did these Holy Fathers speak without Book for the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's Chair Matth. xxiij 2. And the Abomination of Desolation shall stand in the holy Place Matth. xxiv 15. And the Man of Sin as God shall sit in the Temple of God 2 Thes ij 3 4. As the first of these did Succeed Moses in place but not in Doctrine so the two other shall succeed Christ and his Apostles And thus Pope Liberius though an Arian Heretick and Pope Coelestinus though a Nestorian and Pope Honorius though a Monothelite may be said to succeed St. Peter in place though not in Doctrine But will the Vindicator say or can he imagine that St. Chrysostom meant That Christ shed his Blood to purchase a Church and when he had done committed the care of it to such Successors of St. Peter as these were His next is St. Jerome Epist 57 and 58.
the reasons of it are expressed at large in the Epistle of that Council to Pope Coelestinus Thus have I considered the Proofs brought for Vindication of this important Article and having laid them in the Balance have found them all too light But he hath yet one Authority more not from Antiquity but from a Modern Author and one of our own viz. the Reverend and learned Doctor Sherlock This I confess Disc of the Knowl of Jes Christ p. 163. I did not expect for who would ever have thought that that worthy Gentleman should ever have been brought upon the Stage as an Advocate for the Popes Supremacy But this Gentleman thinks that whatsoever is said by any Body touching Order and Discipline in the Church and the necessity of subjection and obedience to the Governors thereof must needs terminate in the Pope who they say is the Center of Unity though in so saying they do but beg the Question For we can with great cheerfulness and willingness subscribe to all that Dr. Sherlock hath there said and yet think our selves never a jot the more obliged to swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome I undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent and I condemn reject and anathematize all things contrary thereunto and all Heresies whatsoever the Church hath condemned rejected and Anathematized THIS he tells us is the consequence of that Doctrine of our Creed wherein we profess to believe The Holy Catholick Church But how comes this to be the consequence of that Doctrine Very naturally for the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church 'T is boldly said but how doth this appear Very plainly for there are the greatest reasons in the world to believe it So that now we must either show our selves to be unreasonable Men or else of necessity we must subscribe this Article But are we obliged to take all this upon the bare word of the Vindicator May we not look into and consider these reasons whether they be so great and good as he talks of Surely we may or else he would not have exposed them to publick view Well then let us see what they are R. 1. His first Reason is Because the Church of Rome has continued in a visible Succession of Pastors from Christ's time till now Ans The point of Succession hath been already considered and I think enough said to show the unreasonableness of that Plea. But because he so much insists upon the visible Succession of Persons in the same place let me ask him two or three questions 1. Who was the Bishop of Rome next by Succession to Peter who the second who the third who the fourth For in this they are not yet well agreed Some say Linus was the second others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the third others say Clemens Some say Anacletus was the fourth others say Anacletus 2. Whether an Heretick or a Necromancer or a Blasphemer being in the Chair be the true Successor of St. Peter and if not whether that do not break the Line of Succession 3. Whether when there was no Pope for some Years the visible succession of Pastors in that Church was not discontinued 4. When there were three or four Popes at one and the same time and not known who was the true one there was not an apparent interruption of their visible succession R. 2. Because the Church of Rome never went out of or separated from any precedent Church but all other separate Congregations have gone out from her Ans If by going out of or separating from any precedent Church he mean departing from the Doctrine and renouncing the Discipline of that Church which he must do if he mean any thing then we say That in both these the present Church of Rome hath gone out of and separated from the Primitive Church as hath been plainly made appear in this Discourse And that those who separate from her do not separate from the Church but from the corruptions of that particular Church which they are well warranted to do by St. Paul who having told the Corinthians That there can be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no Communion between Light and Darkness no Concord between Christ and Belial nor any Agreement between the Temple of God and Idols at last thus inferrs Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. vi 14 15 16 17. Because the Church of Rome hath sent Apostles abroad and converted all Heathen Nations to Christianity R. 3. Ans This is so notoriously false and so well known to be so to every one that hath but looked into Church History in which we have an account of most Nations when and by whom they were converted that I cannot but wonder at the Confidence of this Gentleman in asserting it But if we should grant him this would it thence follow That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Might I not as well reason thus The Scribes and Pharisees compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes therefore those two Sects were the whole Jewish Church Because the Church of Rome in publick Synods has opposed and condemn'd in all Ages arising Heresies R. 4. This is as notoriously false as the former Ans as is plain from those two Instances of the Milevitan and African Councils which I mentioned in the precedent Article and might easily be made more plainly appear by Instances of other Councils which have not only not desired but rejected the Authority of the Church of Rome when it would have inposed But the thing is so well known that I shall not need to do it These are all the Reasons he alledgeth and these he tells us are the greatest in the World. If they be so the World is in an ill condition and men like the great Nebuchadnezzar may be sent now to graze amongst the Beasts of the Field having lost their Reason I am of Doctor Sherlock's mind That Men cannot own the Authority and Government of Christ till they submit to the publick Instructions Authority and Discipline of the Church But what is all this to the Church of Rome's being the Catholick Church 'T is plain he doth not say it and I am well assured he never meant it I subscribe to St. Austin's Judgment That particular Councils Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 9. must yield to General because the whole is deservedly preferred before a part But did ever any Council either particular or General decree a part to be the whole or a particular Church to be the Catholick Church If not I do not see how the Vindicator can avail himself of this passage nor for what end he did produce it Thus it appears that the New Articles in Pope Pius