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
to her in them albeit this errour hath nothing of the will in it What I have here said I refer to the judgements of sober and impartial men with whom I am confident these instances with an hundred of the like nature will more prevail then any thing that on the contrary is tendered by Mr. C. and comes now to bee considered 1. Sect. 3 Then he gives us a similitude from civil Governments wherein to entertain principles which if put in practise would with-draw Subjects from their due obedience is an offence of an high nature Mr. C. p. 228. but the actual cantonizing of a Kingdome and the raising in it Courts or Judicatures Independent on and opposite to the common tribunal of the Countrey is the utmost of all crimes and both the Seducers and Seduced here are pursued by arms as the worst of enemies it is so saith hee in the Church whose Vnity we are taught to believe for if Vnity then Order then Subordination of Governours with an c. at the end of them to signifie the Lord knows what What therefore is the great sin against the fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism a dissolving the communion and connexion that the members of this great body have among themselves with relation to the whole Answ This confused stuff cannot very well be dealt withall especially in the lump 1. Therefore as to his example in civil Governments I Answ 1. That the case cannot easily bee the same for seldome is it that there is such a conflict of reason with reason authority with authority amongst men learned in those matters but suppose it should ever happen to bee so as that the most learned Lawyers can scarce tell how to decide the case Would a gracious King think you presently condemn all those to the utmost severity who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duely made should by reason of some prejudices or weaknesses in reasoning bee induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party Put the case some leading Papist should rebel and seek to reduce our Nation to the government of the Pope by force of arms albeit the case be not so difficult but it may easily be resolved for his Majesty against the Pope should those Incendiaries of Kingdomes I mean the Jesuits and other of your Priests by all the arguments they could invent sollicite the illiterate Papists of this Nation to side with this Rebellion as too frequently they have done answer all their demurres and propound to them Indulgences and deliverance from Purgatory and the meritoriousness of the fact and such like motives which should bee effectual in them all and these deluded souls thus thinking it their duty to obey their spiritual guides and having no other means to inform them better should make a party in an Insurrection would you not put in one plea for the excuse of these persons Would you think it meet without respect of persons to make a general slaughter of them all in cold blood I am sure the bowels of our Gracious Soveraign would yern towards them and must the bowels of God bee more contracted Shall we charge him with such austerity as is hardly incident to humane frailty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true a great severity may sometimes be necessary in these cases but still upon political reflexions which are not incident to our Maker Now then apply this to the Unity of the Church and you have an Answer to your Argument But 2. I deny the supposed parity of the similitude for there is greater reason why such severities should be exercised by the civil government in the case proposed because the raising of Courts and Judicatures thus independent do ipso facto dissolve the frame of Government but now the cases of Schism by mee mentioned and many other do not so for albeit they do somewhat disturbe that external unity of order and sub-ordination of Governours which ought to bee preserved inviolate in the Church yet is not that the Unity which is essential to the Church but an internal Unity of Faith and Charity the Unity mentioned by the Apostle Ephes 4.4.5 and albeit the dissolution of the other Union bee a sin yet that it is not damnable seems evident to mee in that God sure hath not made it as a necessary condition of eternal life to believe this subordination of Governours in which this unity consists and that hee hath not done so I conclude because it is no where so manifestly revealed to us that the meanest capacity may apprehend it Whereas what ever is necessary to be believed under pain of Eternal Damnation must bee plainly and evidently revealed c. 6. v. 8. for if ever that of Micah will hold hee hath shewed thee O Man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee It is in this particular As an Appendix to this Objection Sect. 4 I shall consider another of his similitudes of like nature produced against our English Church viz. that if a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil Authority p. 231. it wold not excuse them to say wee do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King c. Which if you produce to evidence this onely that in case wee had really substracted our obedience from lawful Authority excuses like to these would bee unserviceable to us it is very pertinent and close but that it may do you any further service it must bee evidenced not beg'd that you had any Authority de jure over us and that such as we could not lawfully refuse to grant or that to with-draw from usurpation is sinful which will be as easily performed as the former Again Sect. 5 you argue thus the Schismatick is divided from the body of Christ and so from Christ himself and therefore is inevitably damned Answ This division from the body of Christ is twofold either in things in which it is absolutely necessary to be united and hee that is thus divided is necessarily cut off from Christ and must bear his burthen or in these things in which it is not absolutely necessary to bee united as in the same Liturgies or Ceremonies the same opinions as to matters not fundamental in which it is as impossible to obtain a general consent as in the lineaments of our faces Now to assert that a Schism in such matters by reason of the infirmities which are incident to humane frailty should presently cut off our weak Brother from the body of Christ is to assert that God requires upon pain of damnation that a man should truely judge of that which many thousands even of learned men very differently decide and which is so obscurely revealed if at all it be so as that the most piercing intellects dare not peremptorily assert they have found the truth Thus whether the Church of Rome is the onely Orthodox Church of Christ whether a general
council may erre and whether the Pope bee the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ are questions which extreamly trouble the Church of God You affirm all this the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Now that it should here bee necessary for all the Eastern Churches all the Churches of the Protestants upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions and embrace what you obtrude upon them when you shall bee able to demonstrate and I see it done I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being professedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority Mr. C. p. 229. and consequently the preferring of their own conduct or the conduct of particular Churches before the Vniversal authority of the Church For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church both Pastors and flocks as Heathens and Publicans it is so impertinent as nothing can bee more is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason p. 230. as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots but such as discourse of matters of Religion and passe their judgements on them Now here do you not suppose that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church which wee are not very likely to acknowledge 2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements to the most or not If not why do you trouble us with this Argument If so then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour and under the Old Testament when Idolatry prevailed they were obliged unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason to become Idolaters and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ but rejected him as a Blasphemer the people were bound to do so too these and a thousand such like absurdities are the very natural consequences of your positions But you have Fathers to produce Sect. 7 And 1. Ad Eph. Hom. 11. That of St. Chrysostome we consent unto in this sense viz. that wilfully to divide the unity of Christs Church doth inevitably infer damnation as surely as the piercing of Christs body but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferiour moment out of humane frailty doth inevitably do so 2. Ad Sympr cp 2. As for that of St. Pacian who tells us that Novatian was nor Crowned because hee died out of the Communion of the Church Wee Answ That in St. Pacians phrase to dye out of the Communion of the Church was to dye without charity to the members of it as it immediately there follows hear the Apostle if I have all faith and have not charity I am nothing 3. De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10. In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us for whereas St. Austin saith it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church quod credidit that he believed in Christ or professed Christianity or did so much good without respect to the chiefest good Mr. C. will have him to asser t that it doth nothing profit such a one Mr. C.p. 226. that hee is Orthodox in belief whereas St. Austin speaks of Hereticks and presently cries out hear this O yee Hereticks and again quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona and a third time O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas Now separation from the Church by Heresie we acknowledge to incurre damnation The passage of St. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. Denis is very true viz. That all things should be endured rather then we should consent to the division of Gods Church but this he speaks not of the evil of sin but of pain and misery and what of this Lastly Irenaeus doth no where say there cannot possibly be made any reformation c. but only they viz. Propter modicat quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62. who for crisling causes divide the body of Christ who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels such as these can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division which is altogether impertinent to the design for which it is produced but of these two last places see the incomparable Chilling p. 256 257. From what hath been said we may see the weakness of this Argument which we finde p. 296. viz. Salvation may bee had in the Church of Rome and therefore it cannot be schismatical Albeit you cannot be ignorant that we distinguish the quality of persons considering your Church either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their Schisme and continuance in your church and of such we pass the heaviest sentence or in regard of those who owe their Schisme to want of capacity or default of instruction or such like involuntary defects and these wee say may have salvation albeit they continue members of your Church CHAP. XX. General Councils are not infallible whether considered with the Pope sect 1. Or without the Pope sect 2. Their infallibility not concluded 1 From Scripture sect 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16 sect 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect 6. Nor 2 from reason sect 7. Mr. C's Arguments answered sect 7 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it sect 9 10.11 Nor lastly is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity sect 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius Optatus Vincentius Lirinensis and St. Austin produced against it sect 12 13 14 15. 4 Proposition GEneral Councils are not infallible Now touching the infallibility of General Councils Sect. 1 1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope or one without or before his confirmation if the confirmation of the Pope bee requisite then without it is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible and if so then either the judgment of the Pope is so too or not if the first then the whole General Council is fallible in it's determinations for it can have no other members but the Pope and others and if both these be fallible 't is evident that the Council is so if infallible then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope and cannot sit as Judges of the cause it being very right and equitable that fallible persons who of themselves may dangerously erre should submit to the judgement of him who cannot do
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
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
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.
r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 205. l. 23. dele by p. 208. l. 1. r. eat p. 225. l. 20. r. and. p. 230. l. ult dele if p. 233. l. 32. r. the. p. 237. l. 5. r them l. 25. r. non negant p. 239. l. 16. r. as that l 23. r. the. p 242 l. 12. r. Cabrera p. 249. l. 27. r. enormities l. 40. r. what p. 158. l. 20. r. retractations p. 262 l. 38. r. or two p. 267. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 277. l. 16. dele of p. 283. l. 26. r. the. l. 28. r. this p. 284. l. 35. r. Saint p. 371. l. 6. add the. p. 376. l. 34. r. this p. 377. l. 21. r. it p. 391. l. 14. r. intimated p. 395. l. 20. dele that p. 397. l 25. r. the. p. 398. l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 410. l. 23. r. theses p. 422. l. 6. r. think p. 448. l. 32. r. ridiculous and so elsewhere p. 461. l. 4. r. it l. 8. r our p. 475. l 5 r. hath p. 487 l. 37. r. they in the Margin p. 4. r. Print p. 41 add lib. 2 Indic 11. p 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 61. add D. Field p. 81. r. ut vos p. 182. r. Scr. p 38◠r. dist 82 and Cap plurimos and Taraca and Wigorn. p. 388. add commun p. 402 r. ablutionis p. 473. r. Greg. CHAP. I. Popish Cruelties Sect. 3. No evidence of their fidelity Sect. 4 5. The Council of Lateran is for the destruction of those whom they call Hereticks Sect. 6. Which is the judgement of the most eminent Papists ibid. I Cannot forbid my self to wonder Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irrefragable a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary and obtains a Commendam from many Protestants should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions such as if all advantages were taken would stretch an Answer into many Volums for to return our Antagonists words upon him I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary not one instance but I will undertake to shew that it is either very impertinent ushered in with disadvantages to the truth or open forgery or lastly such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore And are we not come to a fine pass Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem when to transcribe a Bellarmine should I say or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Popes Supremacy as if we had not been able to transcribe their Answers when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism to unchurch her and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members And first Sect. 3 With what truth do you insinuate that the Doctors Sermon is of a stile so different from the Court Sermons which the times of our late glorious Soveraign and Martyr did produce Pag. 3. can you not remember one single instance of a Sermon in those dayes that hath employed your pens for an Answer Pag 4. yea with what face can you charge the Doctor with any bitterness in saying That his Sermon might be like to meet with men that are apt to confute their opponents with fire and faggot for are not you the men that have disputed against us with Flame and Gun-powder with Armies and Navies are not you the men that murthered so many thousands in cold blood in Ireland that destroyed the Monks of Bangor for living contrary to the manner of the Roman Church who can be ignorant of the floods of Christian blood that have been shed by the Roman hands in Savoy France Poland Germany Bohemia Ireland England of the treacherous conspiracies that have been made by these Popish Emissaries against our Kings and Queen in England of the butcheries of Princes and Nobles committed by them elsewhere how truly have they been drunk with the blood of Saints and would not these blood-thirsty men pretend as high to Loyalty as you now do was it not the Papal interest which you jointly manage that prompted them to the commission of such execrable facts was it not an opinion that we were Hereticks which you also passionately assert that emboldned them to these actions and can you blame his Majesty or his Parliament if they endeavour to secure their Protestant Friends and Subjects from such cruel and unreasonable men Be it acknowledged that Catholick Religion cannot stand justly charged with these crimes Sect. 4 yet must it be acknowledged also that many yea the greater part of Papists are guilty of a world of blood-shed upon this account and that you are not such who sojourn with us but Loyal to his Majesty what security will you give us shall it be your Oath of Allegiance to our King Fr. White against Fisher p. 571. many Papists refuse it yea persecute those who hold it lawful to be taken Shall it be your subscriptions to any form acknowledging his due Supremacy Alas do not we know that 1. many amongst you allow of mental reservations and equivocations an Artifice that will excuse and free you from the most accurate Oath imaginable and what if you swear that you take your Oath without any mental reservation may you not mean any that you intend to acquaint us with how can any man be assured that you do not all hold these mental reservations seeing you may deny the tenent by a mental reservation and yet hold it but admit that none of you held this Tenent yet do not many of you say That you may break your faith with an * Vide Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. where you have the judgement of Symancha Thom. Aquin. and the Counc of Constance for it p. 625. See also Dr. Mortons Popish posit and practices for Rebel Pacenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist monit Jac. Regis Tit. B. 2. 3. Dr Morton ib. Heretick and all of you that we are Hereticks but were this otherwise Thirdly Do not many of you hold that if the Pope dissolve the Oath you are freed from it as also when he declareth it unjust which when he pleaseth he may do hear the excuser of the Powder Plot from the imputation of cruelty because both seed and root of an evil herb must be destroyed thus deriding the simplicity of his Majesty in composing and requiring the Oath of Allegiance He thought saith he that no man could any way dissolve with a safe conscience the Oath which he had made but he could not see that if the Pope dissolve the Oath all its knots whether of being faithful to the King or of admitting no dispensation are dissolved yea I will say a thing more admirable you know I believe that an unjust Oath if it be
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
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
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
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.
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
Ministers a vow of Celibacy which is a snare the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kinde which is open Sacriledge the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue which bids continual defiance to the Apostle there is a necessity of our separation from her and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical This being so Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church Mr. C. p. 232. had been guilty of Innovation in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession those points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her communion will be in Gods esteem very Schisme For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned as the truths of Christ and the practise of such of them as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God as the Dr. every where asserts he apparently affirms that albeit it be required of us to beleive what we count an errour which is impossible to assert an Innovation to be the truth of Christ which is to lye to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God which is to live continually in Hypocrisie and disobedience to the revealed will of God yet cannot these conditions bee refused but we must incur the guilt of Schisme And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt he must consequently enjoyn us to lye to live in continual Hypocrisie and disobedience to his will as being necessary to this end albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes which is horribly blasphemous And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book As 1. Where he saith Mr. C. p. 259. that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing not fundamental contrary to the sense of the Law the Jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of judgement and internal assent to such commands that they are agreeable to Gods law because it would bee utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the subject beleived to be contrary to Gods law Ans And sure it may be reasonably thought that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbies which the Jewish Nation did afford some might believe that to bee contrary to Gods law which indeed was so and then poor creatures they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty to an impossibility viz. of yeilding internal assent to that as agreeable to Gods law which they beleived to bee contrary thereunto is it not wonderful that the decision of seventy persons contrary to Gods law to the belief of which all Jury was obliged should not only disanul the obligation of seven hundred thousand of giving credit to that law but force them upon the utmost penalty to beleive the contrary that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those who say Ezek. 13. the Lord saith when he hath not said it should yet enjoyn his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe to say so too That he who sends them to the Law and to the testimonies telling them that those who speak contrary unto them have no truth in them should yet oblige the same persons upon the utmost penalty to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies as the truths of God Credat Judaeus Apella Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears saith he in this Sect. 5 Ibid. that it was a less evil and inconvenience that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed then that contentions and disputes should be endless Answ God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters as his breach upon Uzzah and the sons of Aaron doth evince 2. How unwarrantable is it to plead an inconvenience against a Precept for whereas hee talks of a command we shall consider that pretence hereafter might not the greatest Rebels who pretend Religion for their Rebellion plead with parity of reason 't is a less evil and inconvenience that some petty precepts of subjection to Governours should be transgressed then that Religion should bee hazzarded But 3. What is this but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing and to keep close to his precepts were the way to make contentions endless or that if the disobeying of any of Gods precepts might conduce to the ending of contentions we might do so in pursuit of such an end And is not this apparently to do evil that good may come on it to say that God hath need of our lye and disobedience to preserve the unity of his Church The like wee have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect 14. where he tells us that albeit upon supposition of the Churches fallibility in non fundamentals she should erre in such decisions which he is pleased to call not much concerning and by consequence our assent would be erronious yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenced with the most acceptable virtue of obedâ—ence love of peace and unity which accompanies it Answ Let him not talk of obedience till he can shew a precept something from God which obligeth us to beleive an errour or to tell a lye when their Church commands us To disobey God and play the Hypocrites that we may perform obedience to her injunctions to deny his truths out of humility and to purchase peace and unity by these means 2. Seeing fundamentals that is doctrines See Mr. C. c. 19. sect 6. without an explicite belief whereof none can be saved are very few doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God yea of assenting to what is contrary to it if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions and is this agreeable to Gods frequent injunctions to try all things and hold fast the truth And whereas he further tells us Sect. 7 that both truth and errour in such things lyes only on the Churches Ibid. and not at all on their account This cannot bee built upon any other foundation then this that wee are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church of Rome or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schisme though contrary in our judgements to reason and the Word of God which is the very thing in question 2. If this be truth why doth Christ call us out of Babylon least we should be partakers of her sin and consequently from any other assembly with which wee cannot communicate without sin seeing their sins whether they be erronious practises or opinions lie only on their account not ours Seeing therefore it is evidenced 2 Proposition that we are free from the guilt of Schisme it follows undeniably Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must bee the Schismatick as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust and this
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
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
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
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
five others all those that were not with the right Popes were Scismaticks and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ In the time of Benedict the ninth five parts at least must be absciended If the Pope be an essential head of the Church as they must necessarily hold it necessarily follows that all the poor Christians even in America must be unchurched if they side with no Pope and damned if with the Schismatick albeit it sometimes hapneth that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search mistake the true Pope and so become Schismaticks or can any sober man think that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name and to make them presently be rejected by him and if they dye thus perish everlastingly 2. I aske seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence not to have provided against Shism what expedient God hath provided in this case Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all P. 80. Rep. But who shall call it when t is asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes and consequently when we know not who is Pope we know not who is to convocate the Synod 2. How difficult is it to assemble them 3. Who shall have place there seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils Mr. C. p. 80. s 17. 3. The Doctor saith if the Pope should prove an Heretick the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head Sect. 9 to which he Answes that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be not only on head but member of the Church and the See presently becomes vacant to which we have sufficiently replyed above Now for a conclusion of this business Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church and the continuation of its Unity and yet our blessed Saviour so desirous of his Church her welfare so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter should be wholly silent in so great a point not giving us either the name or titles of this head nor the seat of his Empire to prevent the claim of others nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it albeit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them when he hath the greatest work in the world to do and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming nor giving us any notice of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him never telling us of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside of any successour of St. Peter rather then St. Paul I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion and so many opportunities when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one some for another some for Cephas himself when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope yea that Clemens Romanus though Bishop of Rome should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ his Apostles and the zeale of these Primitive Fathers against Schisme that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables then of this pretension CHAP. V. The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo Pelagius Gregory and Gelasius Sect. 2 3 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius Leo Gregory Agatho and others Sect. 5. THus having encountred our Authors reasons in which he doth not usually abound we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce it being little better then one great Petitio principii made by many Popes and reiterated by Mr. Cressy who loves to beg the thing in question rather then evince it His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio by the Universal Church instead of doing this our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes derided and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words Spalat l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church l. 5. Satlivius c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye apud Photâ—â—â—proâ— p. 125. Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent that have both produced and answered them to our hand only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope till it can be made evident 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the whole world and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bishop of the Apostles can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum doth infer not only a Primacy of order which we grant but also of dignity which we deny And 3. That St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
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
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
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
divided drops of species should be let us come to his proofs Sect. 15 And First He summons in Saint Ambrose to tell us that Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body that is the representation of the Body â—f Christ Next the Council of Ephesus to inform us that we participate the flesh of Christ not as common but as truly quickening flesh That is which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us And Thirdly Saint Austine This he did saith he quodammodo con 2. in Ps 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio cp 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands that is Christ real and corporeal diâ— carry these Elements which represented him in his hand Ergo in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ A Consequence very irrational and absurd Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business for if he argue from these words The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh without dividing of it I Answer he adds The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites divided and yet undivided And will our Author thence argue that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he argue from the following words for the onely begotten not passing into as he rendreth it but being distributed to them all and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh is in all of them whole and entire being every where one for as Saint Paul teacheth he is not divided I say if hence he argue I answer that he is in all of them whole and entire as being truly God and truly though mystically united to them For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received he is spiritually made one with them as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 10.17 And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth and therefore must fall with them C. 13. S. 4. I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance And 1. Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Mr. C. p. 146. of his former immolation and the realâ— shedding of his Blood do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion 2. I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented For 1. Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread 2. How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice upon the cross that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed 3. How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body 4. I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated not antecedently to the consecration else may it represent it in the Cellar as well as in the Church 5. I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the separating it from the body or at least from the veins and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth 2. Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them for the remission their sins and Sanctification Now then in doing so either you deprive them of some benefit or not if the first then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years Secondly Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds more of Christ is received contrary to your fourth Section if the latter then not to speak of the superfluity of Christs instituion First you must assert that albeit a man receive entire Christ and that worthily and have the pardon of his sins and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him yet may he be never the better And secondly You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice and not excused by concomitance Thirdly Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood the parity of Reason being most notorious and consequently no Reason can be assigned why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds rather then the Reception in both kinds and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily De Missa Sess sexta c. 10. that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds why should she not also say that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds But were this salve good Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from the delivering of half Christ for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently hath an half Sacrament these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge And 1. He tells us Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants and decay of their devotion whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow if not thus prevented Now 1. Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation and what great harm will it be if casually and by no fault of ours or wilfull contempt some of the Wine should be spilt 2. With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament for this when our Authour supposes there
dulia due unto your Images if latria then again according to your own principles they were the grossest of Idolaters Secondly The Idolatry of Achaz is thus described that he made high places wherein to burn Incense unto other gods and likewise the Idolatry of Israel This burning Incense is therefore Idolatry Jer. 44.21 23. because the Nature of Idolatry agrees to it which is to give the honour due unto God unto another thing and therefore seeing this was done by burning Incense to the brazen Serpent that also must be Idolatry for to say that 't is not sufficient to make an act idolatrous that it attributes the honour due to God unto another thing unlesse it be an Idol is very false for then the offering of sacrifice to the Image of Christ would not be Idolatry the giving it latria terminated thereon would not be so The Arrians could not have been accused of Idolatry in worshipping our Saviour with divine honours and yet esteeming him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Collyridians in worshipping the Virgin Mary the Carpocratians in worshipping the Image of Christ and a 1000. other things 2. This major may be farther confirmed thus to offer sacrifice is Idolatry by the confession of the * Mag sent l. 3. dist 9. Bell. li. de Eccles Triumph c. 12. See Exod. 22. He that effers sacrisice to any but God alone shall be cut off And Act. 7. The Israelites are said to offer sacrifice to the Calf and then presently are called Idolaters Ste 1 Cor. 10. Papists themselves but to offer Incense to an Image or any other thing is to offer sacrifice Thus Tertull. Apol. c. 30. Offero majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit non grana Thuris so that according to him Incense must be a sacrifice and Gyprian de lapsis speaking of those that presently went to offer Incense They would not stay saith he to be apprehended nor did they leave this to themselves ut sacrificare Idolis inviti viderentur Saint Basil tells us in his Oration on Barlaam the Martyr that they brought him to the Altar and put Incense into his Hands that so by casting it out he might seem to offer sacrifice and this he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus * Lib. de poenit c. 14. p. 512. Tom. primi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 male 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. ver pro more daemoniaci libaminis Peter Bishop of Alexandria as we have it in Balsamon tells us that the hands of many were brought unwillingly to offer prophanum sacrificium that is as Balsamon hath it coacti sunt thus immolare yea Saint Austin C. 16. de unico Baptismo having said that Petilian accused Melchiades de Thurificatione of offering Incense he adds that had it been true he might have been excused as being not bound to plead his cause coram homine sacrificijs idolorum inquinato It may be Answered that to offer animate or living sacrifice is Idolatry but as for inanimate sacrifices they may be given to a creature Rep. Now not to mention how arbitrary this distinction is the Fathers frequently teach this offering of inanimate sacrifices to be Idolatry Thus Epiphanius condemns the Collyridians for offering cakes to the blessed Virgin which yet were inanimate sacrifices Ep. au 〈◊〉 num l. 10. Ep. 97. so Pliny tells the Emperour that some worship his Image with Incense and Wine which they that are true Christians cannot be compelled to do albeit it was the Image of him who was himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as counting that homage due to God alone Now this refusal Tertullian calls obstinationem non sacrificandi The onely fault saith he with which the Christians stood charged by Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperour yea the Carpocratians were condemned as Hereticks for offering Incense to the Image of Christ among other things l. 1. c. 24. as you may see in Irenaeus Observationem circa cas similiter ut Gentes faciunt they observed the rites of the Gentiles towards them what were they Saint Austine tels us l. de Haer. c. 7. they did it adorando incensumque ponendo Eis thura adolebant ac libahant saith Theodoret l. de Haer. fab And this as he condemned in the Israelites who worshipp'd the brazen Serpent of Idolatry calling them Ophitae worshippers of a Serpent qu. 18. in 4. Reg so here he adds tanquam deos adorabant not that they did it by any other sacrifice of which we have no mention made but that the performing of these ceremonies was an evidence thereof this being worship proper to a Deity Haer. 27. and Epiphanius tells us that with the Images of the Philosophers imagines Jesu collocant they place the Images of Christ and worship them and perform the Rites of the Gentiles to them or Heathenish Rites and then presently he adds Gentium myfleria persiciunt Tom. 2. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. nunc autem distinct 2. P. 334 335. what are the Rites of the Gentiles but sacrificium alia Now what he means by sacrifice he tells us in his Epit. viz. to offer Incense yea Bellarmine informes us that Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols and proves it from the Pontifical of Damasus the Epistle of Nicholaus the first to Michael but the Pontifical onely saith he did incendere offerre burn Incense and offer it and Nicholaus that he did grana thuris super prunas imponere put corns of Incense on the coals So then from Scripture and the assertions of Fathers grounded on it we have evinced them to be Idolaters And yet I cannot chuse but requite your story with an other out of Master Chillingworth That one great impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a visible Calumny raised against the Catholicks that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar which as Optatus informes us was a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruted abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church but what Answer do Saint Austine and Optatus make to this accusation do they confess and maintain it Do they say as you would now it is true we do set Pictures upon our Altars and that not onely for ornament and memory but for worship also but we do well to do so and this ought not to trouble you or fright you from our Communion what other Answer your Church could now make to such an Objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise but they on the contrary not onely deny the crime but abhor
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
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation 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
him that not the asserting of these opinions but the imposing of them on us as conditions of our communion with them the obtruding them into their Liturgies and publick offices are the causes of our refusing Communion with them and therefore that Mr. C. would he draw the Parallel must evidence that this was done by the universal Church in the daies of St. Gregory Nor 4. That it is not evident that there was such an Harmony betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches but rather the contrary as touching the Celibacy of Priests the power of the Pope c. I say to omit all these and many other things my last Proposition shall be this That neither St. Sect. 10 Gregory taught all these Doctrines nor yet were they embraced by our Church at that time 9 Proposition For to begin with St. Gregory 1. I have sufficiently evinced already that hee denied the Popes Supremacy 2. As for the infallibility of the Roman Church had hee known this to have been the opinion of those daies is it not a wonder that he should never plead it against his opponents and Adversaries 3. Touching transubstantiation Communion in one kinde the Sacrifice of the Mass what can you produce out of Gregory for them And 1. Mr. C. p. 137. As for Communion in one kinde you acknowledge that it was not practised for a thousand years and upward and where doth St. Gregory tell us that it may bee practised otherwise we have shewed you above that Pope Leo and Gelasius thought it no better then Sacriledge to Rob the People of the Cup and therefore if you affirm Gregory to have held the contrary as it is gratis dictum so will it be but an evidence of his departing from what was formerly maintained by his own Church 2. Where doth he say that Christ is corporeally in the Sacrament and that the substance of bread and wine remains not Nay Sacrificium quod passionem filii semper imitatur Dial. l. 4. c. 58. Non inordinate agimus si ex libris licet non Canonicis sed tamen ad edificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonia proferamus Moral l. 19. c. 16. Graeg in Ezek. l. 1. Hom. 9. that it then obtained not in the Church of God nor was esteemed as an Article of their faith is fully evidenc'd by Bishop Usher in his book de Christ Eccles success l. 1. c. 2. And for the sacrifice of the Mass he tells us that Christ is Mystically there offered and that this is such a sacrifice which is an imitation of Christs passion Against your new Canon of Scripture which the Dr. quarreld with he is most evident in his Morals where hee saith citing the 6 of Maccabees that it was not Canonical Against your Traditions necessary to supply the defect of Scripture hee tells us whatsoever serveth for edification and instruction is contained in the Volume of the Scripture And again Hereticks do usually for the confirmation of their perverse opinions suggest such proofs which are not found in Scripture and what I pray you are your Traditions yea all the doctrines you contend for in this Book And whereas you Sacrilegiously Rob the People of the use of Scripture he on the contrary assures us Graeg l. Epist 40. ad Theod. Med. that it is an Epistle sent from God to his Creature that is to Priest and People And if thou receive a Letter saith hee from an Earthly King thou wilt never sleep nor rest till thou understandest it The King of Heaven and God of men and Angels hath sent his Letters to thee for the good of thy soul and yet thou neglectest the reading of them Therefore I pray thee study them and dayly meditate on the Word of thy Creatour and learn the minde of God in the words of God You tell us that the worship of images must be observed Graeg l. 9. Ep 9. Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita and acknowledged by all means he contrariwise that by all means it must be avoided And again in the same place 't is unlawful to worship any thing that is made with hands because it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and again in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia I commend you that you had that Zeal that nothing made with hands should be worshiped but yet you should not have broken them c. but let them bee proserved and forbid the people the worshiping of them that the ignorant may have whence to gather the knowledge of the history and yet not sin in worshiping the Picture You assert a Purgatory after this life he is thought to contradict it by John Pank who p. 20. proves the contrary 1. Moral l. 8. c. 8. From his Morals where he saith whom mercy now delivereth not him justice after the world alone imprisoneth To which purpose is that of Salomon That in whatsoever place the tree falleth whether toward the South or towards the North there it shall be because at the time of a mans death either the good spirit or the evil spirit shall receive the soul going from the body he shall hold it with him for ever without any charge that neither being exalted it can come down to punishment nor being drowned in eternal punishments can thenceforth rise to any remedy of Salvation If then after death there bee no deliverance there be no change but as the Angel either good or bad receiveth the soul out of the body so it continueth for ever either exalted in joy or drowned in punishment then there can be no Purgatory then there can be nothing but Heaven or Hell where they that come shall abide for ever And in another place It is undecent to give our selves to long affliction for them whom wee are to beleive have come by death to true life This therefore seeing wee know we are to have a care not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow our affliction on the living to whom our piety or devotion may bee profitable and our love yeild fruit Here is no place for Purgatory seeing he teacheth us to beleive that the faithful in death do attain to true life and that their passage from this world is to a better Neither doth hee acknowledge any use of Prayers Masses Trentals or any other offices or obsequies for the Dead who saith that our devotion and love yeildeth no fruit or profit to them Lastly as for Marriage of Priests I do not deny but that at first Pope Gregory did command them to live single but when hee understood that they were given secretly to fleshly pleasure and that hereupon many Children were Murthered many infants heads found in a Fish-pond hee disanulled that commandment p. 288. Vid. Sup. chap. 17 sect ult Now against this evidence we have nothing but the confession of an Osiander an Hâ—mphry and a Carrion whose citation by the way is altogether impertinent with
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
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
then your selves And the same might easily be shewed of your other notes were it worth the while 2. You call upon us to procure you an authorized conference wherein wee may understand one anothers Churches and know one anothers essential Doctrines which haply you may procure when you can give in good security that what S. C. or any other persons appointed as Members of this conference shall affirm to bee the essential Doctrines of the Church of Rome shall be accepted as the essential Doctrines of that whole Communion and by them declared to be such and no others for unlesse this be so we may by this means understand the opinions of S. C. but not what and which onely are the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome FINIS APPENDIX TO page 65. line 37. add And whereas he tells us page 76 77. that St. Austin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council Austin Ep. 92. writing to Pope Innocent acknowledge that the Popes Authority was de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta Wee Answ The words in St. Austin run thus Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae That is saith Chamier to thy drawing forth and confirming the truth from scripture they the Hereticks will more easily submit and therefore here is no acknowledgement that the Popes Authority was derived from Scripture Add to this 2. That it is no way evident that the authority he speaks of was any authority over the whole Church of God To page 173. l 30. add Nor is this sufficiently confuted by telling us that one or two of the Fathers call it an Apostolical custome seeing it is most notorious that they very frequently afford this title to such customes and traditions as unquestionably were not derived from the Apostles Yea as St. Jerome most clearly hath it praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisquis existimat every one esteemed and consequently called the precepts of their Ancestors Apostolical traditions Haer. 75. Decreverunt Apost feria quarta prosabbatho Jejunium Ep. 86. Thus Epiphanius tells us that the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually Where as St. Austin professeth quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare quibus oporteat precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum Christ or his Apostles have not defined what daies we should fast upon And by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitive Church alledged against the Montanists De Jejunio that the Apostles imposed no yoak of standing and common fasts In the first age after the Apostles Dr. Taylors liberty of Proph. sect 5. Papias pretended hee received a tradition from the Apostles touching Christs millenary Reign on Earth which pretence was received by all or most of the Christian world in the first three hundred years and yet there was no such tradition but a mistake in Papias now if a tradition whose beginning of being called so begun with a Schollar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some ages upon the meer authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a tradition Apostolical Again St. Austin called the communicating of Infants a tradition Apostolical and yet we do not practise it because we dis-beleive the allegation But I refer you to that excellent discourse now cited for abundant evidence And whereas they call this praying for the Dead an Ecclesiastical custome this name is frequently given by them to such things as were not universally practised by the Church of Christ and therefore is no sufficient evidence that this was so Thus St. Apol. 2. cont Ruff. To. 2. p. 314 apud Da. de usu Patrum p. 207. Jerome asserts the Church of Christ to have held the immediate creation of Souls whereas Prudentius Tricassinus Episcopus tells us expresly that it was absque certa definitione relicta This and many other instances of the like nature you may finde in Dally de usu Patrum p. 206 207. To page 176. l. 4. add Yea many of the Fathers especially the most Antient dreamed of a purging fire at the day of Judgement which was to try every Soul and purge it from it's dross if it had contracted any whilest it lived on Earth this was the opinion of Lactantius Hilarie Ambrose Austin Jerome Casarius Arelatensis Eusebius Emissenus Eligius Noviomensis as you may see in Dally de paenis Satis Hum. p. 387. Yea Maldonate confesseth in Luc. 11. 35. that this was the opinion not only of Origen sed fere Antiquissimi cujusque Scriptoris Dally p. 498. and therefore if the Fathers speak of any purging fire after death it will make nothing for Purgatory unless it can bee proved that they assert moreover that the Souls of the faithful presently after their departure are carried to it To p. 183 l. 4. â—dde And should you not blush to tell us p. 116. that without all controversie all Churches who professed Christianity before the reformation do agree unanimously in the practise of praying for the dead so as to beg forgivenesse of their sins a bettering of their state which Protestants allow an asswagement of their sufferings Dr. Field's Apen Where as the p. 68. Jacobites p. 69 Armenians and p. 70. Cophti pray not for the dead at all nor can it bee evinced that the Eastern Churches pray for the asswagement of their sufferings yea Nilus in his discourse de Purgatoria tells us that the Grecians reject and anathematize this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that if any remission of sins be given to the dead that it is given by the Divine bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by inflicting punishments see Dally p. 540. As vain is your â—â—mmiseration of the condition of the members of our Church P. 117. because shee doth not offer up those prayers for the dead which from the most Antient times were offered For as Mr. Dally hath it if the omission of those prayers bee criminal this crime is common to us with you who have together with us rejected those prayers which they were wont to make in their behalf for whereas the Antients prayed for all the faithful departed you esteem this a great absurdity and will have us pray but for some onely Again you have rejected the three great grounds of praying for the dead On which the Father 's bottomed their petitions for that which was the common opinion of all the Antients Atqui veterum pro mortuis preces omnes fere ad illa tria vel placita pertinebant Dally p. 534. horum aliquid in animo babebant cum pro mortuis precabantur qui ergo ista tria unde omnis veterum profluebat pro mortuis â—ratio c. viz. that the souls of the faithful departed were kept in some secret receptacles extra Coelum your Florentine
Council hath decreed against The millenary Raign which most of the Antient Fathers held you have exploded as ridiculous Lastly The sentence of the purging fire which was to try and purifie all men even the most holy you have deservedly rejected whereas upon these three opinions did almost all the prayers of the Antients depend and how then can you be said to have retained the prayers which the Antients used albeit you retain some of their words who have wholly rejected those opinions upon which they did depend I confesse there were some other ends which I have mentioned above of the Antients prayers as the obtaining an happy Resurrection the augmentation of their glory at the union of their souls and bodies the blotting out of their sins at the day of Refreshment that they might finde mercy in that day and would the Church of Rome pray for them to these ends and these alone wee would very heartily joyn with her But shee hath added new ends of her own devising as the satisfaction of Gods justice the procuring pardon of venial sins not formerly remitted and a release from a purgatorian fire which shee hath kindled and is it meet that we who have rejected together with them these prayers as grounded upon such opinions which had confess'd Antiquity to plead for them should embrace them again upon such grounds as are not onely manifestly false but also void of all shadow of Antiquity To p. 189. l. 34. adde nor is it ever said in Scripture that the body of Christ is received unworthily but onely that the bread and cup are so further were it said so yet will not your transubstantiation follow hence without begging the main dispute betwixt us viz. whether such a passage must be understood litterally and rigidly or according to the custome of sacramental phrases that is figuratively and spiritually Lastly if they that despised the Apostles were said to despise Christ because they were commissionated from him as we have it Mat. 18.5 and he that offends a weak brother is said to offend against Christ because he doth it against one of his members why might not hee that participates the Sacramental elements unworthily be said to receive Christs body so as receiving that which represents and signifies his body and offers to the Receivers faith all the benefits thereof 2. The confirmation of all that I have cited from Dr. Hoyle may be seen in the margin of the places cited After p. 211. l. 17. adde we have something alledged p. 304 305. In defence of this half Communion which here may properly be considered we are told 1. That the Protestants use sprinkling instead of dipping Answ This is Elâ—â—châ—s Parium For 1. Albeit the Apostles used dipping yet did not either they or our Saviour command it he never said dip all that you Baptize as he said drink ye all of this and therefore that he and his Disciples Baptized in Rivers and by dipping will no more infer that we should do so then that they say down at this Supper or used a clinical gesture will infer that we should use it 2. Dipping is no essential part of the Sacrament but a mode or circumstance and therefore variable but the cup is an essential or at least integral part of the Sacrament as is fully evidenced by Crocius in his Antibec p. 214 215. 3. This we do in case of danger otherwise the Church requires dipping Now in such case the Scripture gives warrant for such an alteration both by example and precept telling us God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now hence to argue for a change in the institution of Christ when no such necessity in the Church can be alledged is as if the Israelites should have urged a general permission for eating the Shew-bread because David and his Servants had it to supply their necessities 2. Saith hee do we not think our selves obliged to communicate fasting albeit Christ instituted the Sacrament after Supper Answ No We think it highly convenient but wee dare not charge him with sin that doth it otherwise 2. The time is evidently a circumstantial not commanded or instituted by Christ depending upon the Passeover and therefore very unfit to bee paralleled with this deprivation of the cup. 3. Hee addes do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non obstantâ— the Apostles gave commandment to the contrary Answ Some who think the precept not temporary scruple yea refuse the eating of them and to such this instance must bee impertinent others that eat them do it upon this account because they suppose they have good reason to conclude the precept temporary and made onely to avoid the scandal which it gave unto the Jews and seeing this cannot with any reason be supposed of Christs precept the instance must bee impertinent to them also Yea wee have many Texts of Scriptures which seems to give us this liberty of eating any such things but there is not any thing which in the least manner intimates the lawfulnesse of with-drawing the cup from Layicks To p. 453. l. 14. adde Onely whereas hee saith that surely prudence and a most necessary care of our own salvation by continuing in the unity of the Church would dictate to us that seeing the Church is infallible as to fundamentals and therefore cannot mis-lead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her decisions as if they were of necessary faith for onely by doing so wee can bee sure not to erre in necessary points and wee shall be certainly free from all danger of Schisme p. 266. And by this means say you the Church of Rome is continued in unity and by assenting to all decisions her members are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary whereas Protestants by taking a liberty of discerning betwixt fundamentals and non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may bee fallible are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals I Answer This whole discourse to omit divers other answers very obvious depends upon two suppositions unanimously exploded by us 1. That the Church which wee hold to bee infallible in fundamentals is the Roman Church or at least a General Council whereas when wee assert the Church to be infallible in fundamentals we do not intend to assert that any one society of men is so but onely thus that whilest the world lasts there shall bee some men in the world which erre not in fundamentals Chill p. 105. or that religion shall never be so far driven out of the World but that it shall alwaies have somewhere or other some that beleive and profess it in all things necessary to salvation Thus therefore you argue Protestants acknowledge that some Christians shall bee infallible in fundamentals albeit they be neither the Roman Church nor a General Council nor any other visible Society therefore they ought in prudence to submit to the decision of the Roman Church or a
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.