Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores iÌ„ mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi iÌ„ m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. GermancruÌ„ Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion helâ— with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstaÌ„ding you may hear the Lord making this coÌ„plaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the roman-Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-halfe-Communion Coâ—poâ—eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe froÌ„ this charge til she can prove
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the roman-Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time such as were destructive to those that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been â—o convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church Reply We grant that the Church both can and has condemned arising heresies before there was any conveniency for a generall Councell for the Church either diffusedly or representatively that is either as she is disperst throughout the world and out of councell or as assembled in a generall Councell hath power to coÌ„demn arising heresies and her condemnation of them either way is security enough to her adherents I grant likewise that the want of the sentence of a generall Councell to condemn us were no security to us in case you could shew us otherwise condemned by the Catholique-church dispersed throughout the world but since you can neither do the one nor the other the Church of Rome and her adherents that have both for them are secure enough and you who have both against you are most insecure and I say further that seeing it hath been the custome of the Catholique-church to condemn arising heresies by general Councells ever since she hath had the conveniency of having them it is certain that the Quaerie by what generall Councell was she ever condemned is rationally put and you being not able to produce one leave it unsatisfied As to the Quaerie Which of the Fathers ever writ against her the Dr. answers that it is evident enough that the Fathers of the first five hundred years are against the present Church in all controversies disputed between the Romanists and Protestants Reply Sir We expect to see your evidence but never hope to see it produc'd As to the third By what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd the Dr. answers We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church Reply Shew that the Scriptures thus interpreted do reprove the Church of Rome for till you do so I must needs averre that the Ouaerie is unsatisfied Now let us see how the Paper sent to Dr. Samwaies proves the church of Rome not to have fallen at any time into Schisme and to do this it puts the desinition of Schisme which see in the Paper then it proceeds If ever the church of Rome c. read what is said till you come to the Quaeries and afterwards the Quaeries This done let us see how on the contrary the Dr. hath prov'd the church of Rome guilty of schisme The Church of Rome saith he c. hath departed from the communion of the Orthodox Churches Reply Assigne them good Dr. otherwise you only give us words He goes on And hath forc'd a departure c. No good Doctor you voluntarily left her communion and so made your selves Schismaticks He proceeds The schisme is theirs who cause it Let that passe He holds on When the Orthodox departed from the Arrians c. Reply Strange the Orthodox departed from the Arrians this is quite contrary to St. John 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain heretiques sayes Exierunt ex nobis they went out of us or departed from us which if true and certainly what St. John saith is true and withall that the Orthodox departed from the Arrians as the Dr. sayes then it evidently followes that the Orthodox were Arrians that is heretiques and the Arrians that is heretiques Orthodox for according to St. Iohn they are heretiques that depart but according to Dr. Samwaies the Orthodox departed from the Arrians therefore the Orthodox were heretiques and if so then the Dr. at unawares hath made himselfe an Arrian for I suppose he will say he is one of the Orthodox I wonder again the Dr. did not see the manifest contradiction he run into when he said the Orthodox departed for the Orthodox are they that do not depart from the Doctrine anciently received so that to say that the Orthodox departed is to say those that did not depart did depart which is plain contradiction in terminis Now he begins to answer the Quaeries If then saith he it be demanded 1. Whose company did she leave 2. FroÌ„ what body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook To the first he saith we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she persisted in her false Doctrines Reply He does not satisfie the Quaerie at all for he tells us not what Orthodox company she left he only sayes she left the company of the Orthodox because she persisted in her false doctrines but this is still to leave the Quaerie unsatisfied and according to his accustomed manner to assert things without proof I confesse if we would grant what he saith without proof he would need no more and might lawfully proclaim his victory To the second he replies That she departed from their body that is from the body of the Orthodox not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves Reply You are still like your selfe that is constant in affirming without proof as for what you say of locall separation 't is frivolous to mention it since none was urged in the paper and as for the reformation we call it deformation till you evidence the contrary The text brought out of the Prophet Hosea is impertinent and so deserves no reply and as impertinent is the text which at the beginning of his answer he brings out of the Prophet Isaiah concerning the Church of Jerusalem which only proves that there were many in her who were fallen into sin but what is this to the church of Romes falling into heresie for it is one thing to fall into sin another to fall into heresie and we deny not but many of the church of Rome fall into sin That instance likewise of the church of Corinth is to as little purpose objected against us for it only proves that some not all did erre concerning the resurrection He may if he please but it is to as little purpose argue thus Other particular Churches as the Eastern have fallen into heresie therefore the Church of Rome at least may fall therefore for ought we know hath fallen I deny the consequence for it was only said to St. Peter and his Successors and the Church of which they were to be Pastours Thou art Peter or as the Syriack hath it Thou art a Rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gatos of hell shall not prevail against it To the third Which was the true Church which she forsook he sayes We reply what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incur'd by forcing others Reply This is no answer for you do not tell us what true church she forsook and whereas you mention again her forcing you I reply as before that you
Imprimatur Geo Parish S. T. P. Reverend ' in Christo Patri Archiepisc ' Ebor ' a sac ' Domest ' April 14. 1663. THE Church of ROME Not sufficiently defended from her Apostacy Heresie and Schisme As appears By an Answer to certain Quaeries Printed in a Book entituled Fiat Lux and sent transcribed as 't is suppos'd from thence by a Romanist to a Priest of the Church of England Whereunto are annexed The Romanist's Reply to the Protestant's Answer and the Protestant's Rejoynder to that Reply By P.S. D.D. Yorke Printed by A. Broade and are to be sold by R. Lambert at the Minster-Gates 1663. To the Right Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God JOHN Ld. Bishop Count Palatine of Duresme Right Reverend and my much Honoured Lord WHen I waited on your Lordship the last Summer at the time of your publique-Ordination I communicated to your Lordship the Papers that now are printed in this small Booke Your Lordship was pleased to give me incouragement to publish them and withall to advise me to forbear any future reciprocation of this Saw which some count their delight to draw and retort I should not have presumed to communicate these endeavours of mine in a contest so long managed by our learned Prelates and other worthy Men of our English Church but that I perceive that our ordinary sort of people have not the opportunity to procure nor leisure to peruse Books of larger Volumne and Reverend Bishop Jewel's Apology that might instruct them in the severall Questions in debate between the true and pretended Catholiques that is betwixt the Protestants and the Romanists is rarely perused by the people of this Age though it may possibly be found in some Churches What the Person is that sent me the Quaeries extant I perceive in the booke called Fiat Lux and who made the Reply to my Answer I know not but I perceived that the people might easily be amazed by them and disposed to judge the Church of Rome not at all changed from her primitive integrity and thereupon the better inclined to desert our Communion In the Parish where I live I perceive the Papists and there are severall Families there of the Romish-perswasion generally believe that we have set up a new Religion that we have no Priests amongst us and consequently no Sacrament except perhaps what their women in some cases by allowance do administer Baptisme What effect such opinions do produce is visible enough in the spreading of this error in this place within a few years by-past That we should do our best endeavours to acquaint the people that Rome is not such as sometimes she was that England is not a Church bearing date since Henry the eight's Reigne that our Divines are Priests duely ordained that we have no defects in our Discipline destructive to the being of a sound Church and that salvation may be obtained better amongst us than in any Church in the world is the common duty of all intrusted with the charge of souls What I am able to contribute to so good a work I adventure to shew by this ensuing Discourse and how Zealous both myselfe and all others ought to be to have it done the danger of such as are misled from our Assemblies doth abundantly demonstrate That by Gods blessing this Skirmish may confirme some that stand establish some that stagger and raise up some that are fallen amongst us I hope the rather for that I have been encouraged thereunto by your Lordship who being so well skilled in the excellent structure of our settlement which were our Discipline advanced to the purity that our Church in the commination professeth is to be wished for would fall but little short of the Primitive-constitution hath alway been ready to maintain that the pretensions of Rome so far as she condemns and dissents from us in the substantiall parts of Religion are destitute of a solid foundation Your Lordships ability to defend and resolution to suffer for the Cause of our Church both at home and abroad are so well known that to speak anything of either of them is superfluous I crave your Lordships candid acceptance of this small work and withall I humbly returne my thanks for your Lordships patience in perusing these Papers and readiness to impart your Lordships direction and advice in severall particulars and with my prayers that your Lordship may enjoy that measure of health and length of life in your Diocesse that may enable you to settle it according to the pious and grave designe of your Articles of Visitation and compleat your Reparations of those Ruines that sacrilegious hands have made upon the Fabriques belonging to your Bishoprick in accomplishing which good Enterprize I have been an eye-witnesse that your Lordship forgetting your private concernes spareth neither for cost nor paines I rest My Lord Your Lorships humble and much obliged servant Peter Samwaies To my worthy friend Walter Lyster Esquire Sir THough you live among some of the Roman Religion yet you are better satisfied with the Constitution of that Church wherein you receiv'd your Baptisme than by the Quaeries that you gave me to be shaken from the truth of that Catholick Christianity which we professe since the Reformation in England When I returned to you the short Answer which you see now made publick it was received you know with as much scorne and disparagement as those of the new Religion for such I call the present Profession of Rome use to entertain the Reasons that either they understand not or know not how to answer But yet that somewhat might be retorted I know not what Champion amongst them let him answer it to his Superiours if he did it without their leave sent as you can witnesse a Reply closing it with an Appeal to an indifferent Judge I have joyned issue with him upon his own Termes and hope that whatsoever they may judge that are engaged never to approve any thing that shall convince them to be mistaken yet an indifferent Reader will acknowledge upon his perusall of our severall pleas that whatsoever Rome was in her primitive purity and splendor yet when we were forced to withdraw our selves from her Communion she had forfeited all just claim to her first excellency and cannot be excused from Apostacy Heresy and Schisme If any thing that hath been written upon the occasion of that Challenge which you brought me may contribute something to your further confirmation in the truth espoused already by you I shall not think my labour lost but if it shall conduce also to the better establishment of others I have reason as in the first place to glorify God for making me serviceable in the defence of his truth so in the next to give you thanks for engaging me in this Contest who being perhaps too much inclined to peace had not marched into this field had I not as you can witnesse first been challenged Wishing you all that felicity that none of the
voluntarily and wilfully left her and if you storme at her because by spiriruall punishments she seeks to reduce you to your former faith you do like Rebells who voluntarily forsake their allegiance and afterwards storme at the King who seeks to reduce them to their former alleglance by severe punishments and if you will needs have the Church of Rome guilty of schisme for forcing you only in this manner then how will you acquit the King that he be not guilty of rebellion who forceth his Subjects in the same manner and so we shall have the King a Rebell and not his Subjects He saith likewise that the Church of Rome hath left her selfe as one may say Reply One that will speak contradiction or not answer the Quaerie may say so for when you say that the Church of Rome hath left her selfe as one may say either you must mean that the whole hath left the whole and this is a flat contradiction or else you mean that she hath left her selfe because certain of her Members have left her but this only shews that they have left her not She her selfe and so the Quarie is left unsatisfied Thus have you a briefe Reply to the Drs. Answer and how solid it is let others judge The Protestants Rejoynder to the Romanists Reply Sir I Received the Paper wherein I know not who maketh a Reply to that accompt which I gave to the Proposalls which you shewed me in the defence of the present Roman-church (a) Facilè est cuiquā videri respondisse qui tacere noluetic aut quid est loquacius vanitate quae ideò nō potest quod veritas quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas De Civitat Dei lib. 5. c. 27. St. Augustine said it long since and we find it true by experience It is easy for any man to seem to answer another who is resolved not to hold his peace for what is more talkative then vanity which cannot do what verity can because if it pleaseth it can make more noyse than verity The vulgar sort think that he that hath spoken last hath the best cause and so perhaps such of your neighbours that are blinded with the Romish errors conceive all in my Answer abundantly satisfied by the Replyer because he hath thought fitting not to be silent Though I have as little hope to satisfie those who are resolved to continue what they are by my Rejoynder to this Replyer as I had to convince them of their mistake in thinking so well of their Romish church as the first paper would encourage them to do yet lest any of the weaker sort among our selves should think that the Replyer hath sufficiently justified the reasonablenesse of the first quaries by 's accompt to what I wrote or that I were wanting to my duty in defence of the Truth I shall give you a short satisfaction to all the pretensions made by the Replyer for the justification of Rome from Apostacy Heresie and Schisme First the Replyer thinks himselfe concerned to civill at my exceptions against the definition of Apostacy mentioned in the Quaeries he will needs have Apostacy to import as much as is said in the Quaeries not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to Christianity I grant that a totall Apostacy doth but the word signifying no more then a departure it may be more or lesse dangerous according to both the termes of such a motion from what truth and to what error the departure is made (b) Apostasia importat retro cessionē quā dā a Deo quae quidem diversimodè fit secundū'diversos modos quibus homo Deo cōjungitur primo namque homo Deo conjungitur per fidem secundo per debitem subjectā volūtatē ad obediendū praeceptis ejus tertio per aliqu a speciala ad supercrogationem pertmentia sicut per religionē clericaturā vel sacrū ordinē remoto autē posteriori remanet prius sed non cōvertitur 22ae q 12. a 1. Aquinas saith that Apostacy denotes some kind of recesse from God which may come to passe in sundry sorts according to the different means whereby aman is joyned unto God for first'd man is united unto God by faith 2. By the submission of his will to the Divine Precepts 3. By speciall priviledge of super-eminency as by holy Orders and the last being removed the first abideth a man may renounce his Orders and yet not his whole faith let therefore the Replyer turn to his St. Thomas and from him learn to understand what Apostacy signifies or if he please let him consult a better Saint I mean Luke the Evangelist and he shall find him using the word for a particular word of recesse When Saint Paul came to Jerusalem St. James the Bishop of it and the Elders said unto him * Acts 21.21 Thou seest brother how many thousands of the Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law and they are informd of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do we think the Jews had heard that St. Paul did forsake all the law of Moses judiciall morall and ceremoniall no they instance only in circumcision and the customes which were the ceremoniall Law and yet they thought that this recession only was sufficient to denominate him a Doctor of Apostacy (c) Duabus apostasus exisentibus adbuc potest remanere homo Deo cōjunctus per fidem sed si a side recesserit tune omninò a Deo retrocedere videtur id ibid. Aquinas in the place afore-cited affirmeth that one may depart from God by forsaking the order of his profession or degree in the Clergy and also by perversnesse of mind against the Divine precepts and yet notwithstanding these two Apostacies remain conjoyned unto God by faith but if a man depart from the faith and * 1. Tim 4.3 St. Paul saith they do that shall teach to abstain frō marriage forbid the use of meats which God hath created to be received with thanks giving of them which believe and know the truth and will not this Apostacy concerne such as teach thus then he seems to be guilty of a full Apostacy When Bellarmine in his Appendix to his book de summo Pontifice calls Luther an Apostate he speakes properly or not the Replyer I hope will not charge the Cardinall to speak incongruously and yet all the world knowes that Luther renounced not the name and title of Christianity neither did the Cardinall think so But grant what indeed no man not void of common sence can deny that there may be a partiall Apostacy yet the Replyer denies my Minor as he calls it where I instance in the particular doctrines of worshipping Images invocation of Saints halfe-commonion corporeall-reall presence c. I because assumed without proofe and needs there proof that Rome teacheth
these doctrines Let the Replyer deny them if he please we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the romish-Romish-communion we need not prove what they deny not being indeed so farre obliged not to deny it as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons To assert a partiall apostacy is not to confound it with heresie the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed which heresie doth not he that never acknowledged the truth cannot apostatize from it but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith may be call'd an heretique though he were never Orthodox Rome is Apostaticall in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed 't is not her mistake only in the truth but her dereliction of it when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone but by workes also for this she believed not but the contrary when St. Paul wrote to her and taught her the right belief Rom 3.28 And when St. Clemens governed her as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians where he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. The next thing the Replyer conceiveth him selfe concerned in is to prove that thâ—s Enthymem or argument The Pope have fallen by heresie therefore the Church of Rome is no valid way of reasoning and withall an extravagant controversie leading to a new dispute coÌ„cerning the Popes infalibility ex Cathedrá the Replyer here is much mistaken so if it be demanded whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure t is no sin not to believe as the Pope believes except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies when he trifles and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence he hath answer'd my argument my reason is clear and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it Thus then I argue is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope or not if it be lawfull why are they censured that obey not his decrees if unlawfull why are they excused that erre not with him nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind and as Hart did in his coÌ„ference with Reynolds rather in despite of all evidence to to the contrary say the Pope cannot erre then plead that though he doth yet the Church is not bound to obey him and truly if it be obliged to obey him how it can stand when he falls I see not 'T is pretended also by the Replyer that the Church of Rome in ascribing universall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice and so not condemâ—ad by a Generall Councell to prove this he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath (c) De Roman Pontifice lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉 would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon so that if Bellarmine please the words in the Canon because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome shall import because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so id est as the Canon before speaketh that Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Concessions to that Bishop as to grant him Authority over those Provinces But why must the sence of Ruffinus be rejected who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasticall History saith that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt (g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised who give the same interpretation of the Canon The Replyer therefore is very bold when he saith that this sence of the Canon which I give is against the intention of it seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment and Learning have given of it before Moreover what a goodly account is given why this cannot be the Genuine sence of the Canon A Bishop governing Churches in the West saith the Replyer is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon No reason I Confesse efficient but yet a Morall reason it might be moving the Fathers assembled in the Councell to provide for the Unity of the Church by like expedient in the East as they saw it furnished with in the West Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation which may out of the Canon thus be framed The ancient Customes are to be retained but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is an Ancient Custome therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome who by the right of custome kept his Authority over the West the minor is evident by experience The Replyer I know likes not the major for he saith that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right Alwayes held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how did this word escape him I appeal to a competent Judge the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions whether Clemens Romanus or no I dispute not but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict in point of Fact for the age wherein he wrote doth not he in that forme of Supplication extant lib 8. cap 10. of the Constitutions sufficiently declare that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co. sâ—it lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray saith he for the Episcopacy of the whole world and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem and his Diocesse and for our Bishap Clement of Rome and his Diocesse and for Luod us of Antâ—och and his Diocess Let the Replyer heâ—e obseâ—ve that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World but as a Pastor over his own
at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over out of their own Communion Is it not evident by St. Cyprian 63. Epist that the people received the Cup (z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr in calice Domino sanctificando plaebi administrando non hoc faciunt quod Iesus Christu◠Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus Author Doctor fecit docuit religiosum paritèr necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucharisticall Cup and administring it to the people mark no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes heare him speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament now so shamefully defended by the Romanists in his Exposition of the 98. Psal for in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech as the Trent-faith now doth he saith expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them (a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualter intellectū vivificabit vos etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Aug. in Ps 98 pag. 1105. edit froben Understand spiritually that which I have spoken unto you you are not to eat the Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they will shed who will crucifie me I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you being spiritually understood it will quicken you though it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated yet it is behovefull that it be invisibly conceived Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach that what mutation is wrought by consecration is mysticall and not such as the Romanists fancy grosse and corpoporeall when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words he saith (b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini lesu ut inciperent esse quae nō erant quātò magis operatorius est ut fint quae crant in aliud cōmutentur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus that those things which were not by vertue thereof should begin to be how much more effectuall is it to cause the things that were to be and yet to be changed into somewhat else id est to continue naturally what they were before the consecration and yet also after the consecration Mystically and Sacramentally to become the body and blood of Christ which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation * Revel 17.8 that was and is not and yet is others as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans to the Jesuits challenge p. 14. tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603. those words that so much troubled them and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner * Quantò magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make that those things which were should be changed into another thing To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle (c) Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe quem Dominus obtulit vinū suisse quod fanguinem fnum dixit Cyp. Epist 65. we find that the Cup was mixed the epistle was wri◠against the Aquarii that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone which the Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration for thus he writeth concerning that Mysterie (d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ coelesti sic corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having hope of the Resurrection When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation they are nothing but a Catachresis an abuse of words or hyperbolicall elevations familiar to all sorts of Writers not unusuall among the Ancients when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptisme as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist that it is no longer after the consecration common bread St. Chrissest and Greg Nussen say also of Baptisme Non est aqua communis it is not common water and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated by the efficacy of the spirit the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into another element It appears hence that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the roman-Roman-Church as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches and the Papists in the Roman separation who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession before the Protestants departed from them or rather were forced and driven from them As to my assertion schisme is theirs who cause it he thinkes to say only let that passe a valid confutation and excepts against my instance when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the heretiques made the schism◠This is contrary as he pretends to 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain he retiques saith exierunt a nobis whic◠if true saith he then the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretiques and t◠Arrians and the Heretiques were Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye◠of a Jackdaw as infallibly as any on◠I ever heard of as if departure it sel◠did imply a crime without reference to the Society which a man leaveth b◠his departure Is departure from the blessed
Apostle we recount not to staine the glory of his memory but only to shew that he was not priviledged to become an unshaken Rock such as on whom the Church might be secured Antiquity did not by Christs expression understand the Person of Peter only to be meant when he said Upon this Rock I will build my Church but some first by the name of Roek understood every beleever as Origen Greg. Nyssen St. Ambrose and Aquinas himselfe following Origen as the learned (e) Exercitat 15 ad Annal. Baron P. 39. Casaubon observeth Secondly Others conceive that by Rock our Lord understood the faith of St. Peter so (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys upon this Rock id est the faith of this confession so (g) Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est mox haec sides Ecclesiae fundamentum est Hilary lib. 6. de Trinit The building of the Church is upon this Rock of his confession and afterward this faith is the foundation of the Church and St. August most clearly in his 10. Tractâ—t on the first Epistle of St. * Quid est super bane Pewam aedificabo ecclesiam meam super hanc fidem super id quod dictum est Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi super hanc Pettam inquit sundabo Ecclesiam meam John What is on this Rock I will build my Church but upon his faith upon that which hath been spoaken Thou art Christ the Sonn of the living God upon this Rock saith he I will build my Church Thirdly Some by Rock understood Peter but with no Prerogative to his person above the rest of the Apostles except of his age in which respect St. Hierome * Cur non Johannes electus est virgo aetati delatuÌ„ est qua Petrus senior erat Hieron adv Iovin lib 1. thinks him to be made the Prolocutor and prompenesse of answering Christs demands We deny not that the Fathers ascribe unto Peter this pious heat especially observable in him upon severall occasions more then in the rest of the disciples Peter (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 199. edit savil saith St. Chrysost fervid in all things or upon all occasions and full of freedome in speaking or rather of charit y then free dome of speech whilest others hold their peace cometh to the Master and saith c. Vpon this accompt the Ancients give unto Peter a dignity peculiar amongst the rest of the Apostles not a princely power over them (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence Eusebius lib. 2. c. 14. calls him for his excellency the Prolocutor of all the rest Thus much and no more did the Fathers grant unto Peter when the Latins call him principem and the Greek's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince and leader of the Apostles St. Hierom's testimony is evident for this when he prayseth St. John so highly making him the beloved disciple because he was a virgin and Superior to St. Peter because whereas Peter was an Apostle and John an Apostle the one a married man the other a virgin Peter was only an Apostle John an Apostle an Evangelist and a Prophet 'T is true he objected before the preeminence of St. Peter above the rest but answereth the objection by granting no more to St. Peter then we acknowledge to be given him by Antiquity which was not a Soveraign Monarchicall Authority over them but a praesidency among them Hear St. Hierom's words lib. 1. adv Jovin If (k) Si virgo non fuit Iohannes cur caeteris Apostolis plus amatus sit dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipfuÌ„ in alio loco super emnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex acquo super cos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen proptere à inter duodecem unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Hieron adv Iovin lib. 1. St. John were not a virgin why was he more beloved then the rest but you say that the Church was founded on Peter though that be elsewhere laid on all the Apostles and all of them receive the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and though the strength of the Church be equally grounded on them all yet not withstanding one is chosen among the Twelve that an Head being appointed the occasion of schisme might be removed Where St. Hierome by the name of Head meant not to ascribe a Soveraigne power to Peter over all the rest for all St. Peters power is comprised in the Keyes and in the building of the Church upon him but you see that all the Apostles in St. Hieroms judgement receive the Key 's and the Church is built upon them all equally wherefore in Hieroms opinion though Peter had a pre-eminency among the Apostles he had not a Soveraignty above them To conclude fourthly and lastly Some of the Fathers by Rock understood Christ himselfe So (l) Tu es Petrus super hane Petram quam confessus es super hanc Petram quaÌ„ cognovistidicens Tu es filius Dei vivi aedificabo EcclesiaÌ„ meam 1. super meipsuÌ„ filiuÌ„ Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meaÌ„ St. Augustine in his thirteenth Sermon on the words of our Lord. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed upon this Rock which thou understoodest when thou saidest Thou art Christ the Son of the living God will I build my Church id est upon my selfe the Son of the living God will I build my Church upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And this Sense 't is probable that Christ made evident to the Apostles by pointing demonstratively to himselfe when he pronounc'd the pronoune This as he may be supposed to have done when he said * Iohn 2.19 Dissolve this Temple Neither do these four severall Interpretations differ in the substance of the sense but only in the manner of expression for as if a devout man should say God cured me or the Physitian cured me or Rhubarb cured me he would by these severall expressions speak after the accustomed manner of speech retaining still one meaning that he was cured by God as the first efficient by the Physitian as the second and subordinate by the Rhubarb as by the instrument so the Fathers as the learned Exercitator on Baronius noteth when they say sometimes that the Church is built upon Christ sometimes on Peter sometimes on every believer and upon the faith or consession of faith made by Peter agree very well in the substance of the same sense though they use severall ways of declaring it Which is doubtlesse the reason why one and the same Augustine other whiles expoundeth Christ words after one of the forementioned senses and otherwhiles after another for in his Retractat lib. 1. c. 21. he saith that he had sometimes by Rock understood Peter but afterwards most frequently Christ whom Peter confessed for Christ is the
Province which was not of old and from the begiÌ„niÌ„ng under his power If any have entred anothers Province have by force subjected it unto himself let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed nor the pride of worldly Authority under pretence of the Hierarchy enter into the Church and by little and little before we are aware we loose that Liberty which the Lord Jesus Christ the deliverer of all men by his blood hath procured Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved inviolated and the customes which were from the beginning No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell and Binius having recited only six Canons of it pretend that in the Vatican and some other Copies there be no more Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome may easily think that the Vatican can scarce brook a CanoÌ„n so directly crossing the present claimes of that See But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evident that he could not but relà te it and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duely inferre Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth determine that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it and that it may be made to appear that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod no nor for yeares after Christ much lesse from the beginning exercis'd over the Britâ—nick Churches therefore Rome can pretend no right over BritaÌ„nie without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves This priviledge of our Brittish-Church upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus will appear the lesse disputable from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord as the Legats of the English Nation at the Councell of Constance contend pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France and Spaine as having received the faith before them preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the Roman-Church at that City â—ay not into Italy till the second year of Claudius the Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome and by the authority of the Councell of Ephesus ought to continue so as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop or Court or ecclesiastical jurisdiction Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter and the administration of Baptisme for 't is not credible that the whole Brittish Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop as their lawfull Patriarch see the Primates vindication p. 100. c When I say that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us he reply's as he useth when he hath nothing to say that this is no Answer to which I thinke I need say no more but that this is no reply Clemens according to the title of the 4 ch of his 6 booke of Constitut might have taught him (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique but hâ— that forsaketh the godly He will not yield that we were forced to forsake Rome But is it not notoriously evident They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith are clearly the Schismatiques but so have the Romanists done as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo Moreover if it be Schisme as it is for a particular church to withdraw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church Rome as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholick faith nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismaticall He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith and herein we are like Rebells that storme at their King that seeks to reduce them We are not so fond in espousing opinions but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them assoon as we shall be taught that they are not agreeable to the Catholique faith * Psal 141.5 If the righteâ—us smite us it shall be a Kindnesse and if they reprove us it shal be an excellent oyle which shall not break our head But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spirituall punishments forasmuch as they reach when the Pope hath power our very souls and spirits so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire sword Gun-powder and all the instruments of cruelty that wit and malice can contrive they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops rather then the sacred Scriptures though St. Augustine (t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hâ—c placet si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticuÌ„ saeviatur Aug cont Cresc Iram l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such as were truely Heretiques affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men that Heretiques should be put to death and though he saw good reason to change his opinion and that the Imperiall Lawes were by their severity advantagious unto Christianity yet it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholique Church which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholicke and that will be when they shall convince us that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force will never concerne us till the Popes Authority over us be made evident and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient when it shall be his Prerogative to give us Commands When I say the Church of Rome hath
Apostacy Heresy or Schisme But first not by apostacy for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to christianity none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus But notwithstanding this the Doctor by a new definition of apostacy will prove she fell thus for saith he Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Profession which we have formerly made But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn ergo he proves the minor because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not Reply The minor is deny'd and the probation concerning particular Doctrines as Worshipping of Images invocation of Saints c. is likewise deny'd because assum'd without proof and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid because it confounds Apostacy with heresy but the other definition is good because it clearly distinguishes them and if so then the Dâ— hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie This done the paper proceeds to prove that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy and to effect this it puts the definition of heresy see it in the paper then it goes oâ— thus If the Church of Rome did eveâ— adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receiveâ— Doctrine of the Christian-world I pray satisfy me in these particulars viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her 3. By what authority was shâ— otherwise reproved Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues Certain Popes Bishops of the Church of Rome as Liberius Anastasius secundus and Honorius have fallen by heresie ergo the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie Reply The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ which is to be wav'd because the paper doth not meddle with it and I deny the consequence which he no wayes goes about to prove But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy let us see at least what he sayes to the Quaeries To the first then which demands By what generall Councell was she ever condemned he answers by the sixt Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts Reply This unlimmited power challenged by the Pope is his supremacy alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine institution and therefore onely said not prov'd in which he is stil like himself to be an Usurpation As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it to evince this we will cite the words of the Canon which the Dr. least they should discover his bold assertion untrue omitred the words are these Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt Lybia Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custome these last words because the Bâ—shop of Rome c. evince the thing to be aâ— I have said for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government to wit because as the Councell sayes it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West I reply that you speak against the Text because this not another thing but this here spoken off viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces this is accustomed and to whom to the Bishop of Rome it is his custome to have it so wherefore we like of it well and confirme it Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction but confirme it I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places to wit in the West Reply This is against the fence of the Canon for those words because the Bishop of Rome c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should governe the Churches here mentioned As for the Councell of Eliberis it being but a particular one and the Quaeries demanding a generall one we need not reply unto it Nay if it be look'd into it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church least that which is adored be painted on walls In which Decree these words that which is adored are manifestly against the Doctor for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures in those times of persecution to be painted on the Church-walls for fear the Infidells should deface them Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice Act 7. desining that we must exhibit to Pictures contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds Honorariam adorationens non veram â—atâ—iam An honorary adoration not true latria that is an inferiour adoration but not the supream due to Almighty God only Hethinks to evade by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those 300. Bishops there convened Reply It is barely said not prov'd that the Nicene Canons were not universally received but I expect proof as for the Councell of Frankford it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons but only defines that vera latria is not to be given to Images which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms If then these two Councells agree how could the Dr. truly say that the Frankford councell rejected the Nicene Thus you see that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome condemned by any generall Councell But since he cannot prove it by Authority he will by reason thus The want saith he of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists