Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches it must also subdue their minds to an assent and this under the Penalty of an Anathema or cutting off from the Body of Christ which answers to a Civil death in the Law 9. If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal Iudges who might possibly give a wrong sentence How securâ—ly may we submit our judgements to the Supream Tribunal of the Church And how justly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gainsayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never mislead us And the grounds of this assurance which the Preacher is not yet perswaded of are now to be discoverd 10. The true grounds of the Churcheâ— Infallibility are the words of Truth the Infallibility of the promises of Christ the Eternal wisdom of the Father These Promises are the true Palladium not of the Conclave but of the Vniversal Church Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Vlisses as to apprehend he can steal it away 11. We do not deny however that Infallibility and Omniscience are as he saies incommunicable Attributes of God It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary because he is essentially immutable as in his Being so in his Vnderstanding and Will Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from actual mutation God who is absolutely Omniscient can teach a rational Creature 〈◊〉 Truths necessary or expedient to be known So that though a man have much ignorance yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know and has promised he shall faithfully teach others Our Saviour as man was certainly infallible and as far as was requisite omniscient too So were the Apostles likewise whose writings Protestants acknowledge both to be infallible and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation Good Doctor do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an infallibility as to some things on a Creature What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Thus the Doctor may see what a trifling Discourse he has made against Gods Church 12. Now the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church by vertue of which she has alwaies been believed to be in our sense infallible follow At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles That he would be present with them alwaies to the end of the World Therefore since not any of them out-liv'd that age this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Surely to direct them Therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his businesse onely 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know 4. He has promised that Against his Church built upon St. Peter the Gates of Hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail Therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie 5. He has commanded that Whoever shall not obey his Church shall be cut off from his Body as a Heathen and a Publican Therefore Anathema's pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of Decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to Decisions of the Universal Church call'd by the Apostle The Pillar and ground of Truth made for the composing of publick Debates about the common Faith 6. To conclude the belief of the Churches Vnity is an unchangable Article of our â—reed Therefore certainly the onely effectual mean to preserve Unity which is an un-appealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church 13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Authority of Tradition produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church representative which has an influence over the Souls of menâ— requiring much more than an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic general Councils We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths miserable shift and say that all these Promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity which from these Promises argues invincibly against all Heretics and Schismatics who might otherwise on Mr. Chillingworths ground alledge as the Donatists did that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority and that Gods spirit was transplanted from her into themselves Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers somwhat more discreet who are willing to allovv those Promises absolute and to belong also to the Guides of the Church som or other that they shall in all ages continue orthodox but not alvvayes to the more superior or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Councils because thus they see their cause will suffer by it But this plea also is utterly unsatisfying For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers or Ecclesiastical Courts shall contradict or oppose one another here the superior questionlesse is to be our Guide otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so and therefore to these not the other in such cases must belâ—ng these promises where they cannot possibly agree to both 14. These promises now being Yea and Amen the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord passe for a Deceiver but apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholic for to some Church they must be applyed But let him consider withal he must condemn St. Gregory who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church as the four Gospels He must condemn Constantine who in the first Council of Nice professed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops that ought to be attributed to thâ— Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the General Councils of Gods Church condemn likewise which is more dangerous the Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many Anathema's against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisions of theirs in some of which were new expressions not extant in Scripture but devised by the Fathers then present as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now I ask Doctor Pierce were
those Anathema's lawfull were they valid Or will he say those first Councils to which he professes assent usurped an Authority in this not of right belonging to them If those Anathema's were valid then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them as the sence of Divine Revelation and this under the penalties of being separated from Christ And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty But if those Anathema's were illegal and invalid then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others who still followed the same method not only impostors but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men 15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility than any of his Quotations can be against it Here we have expresse Scripture and universal consent of Antiquity Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England at least before their late restitution who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council Now could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge that when one of your 39. Articles declares that some General Councils have err'd the meaning should be â— that any legal legitimate General Council has err'd but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion And if this be the meaning the breach made by it may be curable 16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages as against this Point the concession of Baronius c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and continued two hundred years at Rome I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it Can no Church be Orthodox if Heretics rise and continue in the same City Is the English Church a Quaking Church because Quakers first began and still encrease at London As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it 17. The like we say touching the Donatists Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense Ingemuit orbis c. The world says St. Hierom sadly groaned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian that is after the Council of â—riminum But how was it Arian if it groaned c. for it could not be really Arian against its will But St. Hierom uses this expression because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the Catholics And true it was that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banish'd But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled it and presently repented Besides the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox but afterwards by the Emperors Tyranny and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian but capable of a good sense to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed yet to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth but presently after being at liberty both themselves and all the rest renounced And after all there remained but three years of persecution for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed 18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers and though one of them says All that were purely Orthodox that is such as he esteemed so because they were of his Opinion held that Doctrinâ— yet he thereby shews that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church But the truth is there was a double Millenary opinion the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years in base sensual pleasures banquets and women This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book as St. Hierom affirms And it is most deservedly detested by the Church But there was another Opinion that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights and ravishing consolation in a blessed conversing with him And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias St. Ireneus and St. Iustin Martyr For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves unwilling to censure it neither can the Doctor I believe shew that it was ever condemned by the Church 18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time and many years after such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally but withal take notice it was onely in one species Again it is confessed that from that Text Nisi mandâ—caveritis carnem c. St. Augustin c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism This appears first From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin c. the whole Church affirming that Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants 2. From his interpreting his own meaning in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina His words are these None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism thereby becomes partaker of the Boâ—y and Blood of our Lord and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body he should depart out of this World before he really eat of that Bread and drink of that Chalice For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament 19. That therefore which the Church since and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter was nothing at all touching Belief For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point but onely an external practise of the Church And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries which by frâ—quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too To conclude this matter For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenaâ—y Belief and Infant
general were allow'd them That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries this will not excuse them for dissenting from the Church in any particular Doctrines actually decided by a General Council Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even internal is unlawful without a certain demonstration that the Church hath actually erred in such and such Doctrines But which way possibly can any particular person or Church arrive to such a demonstration It must be by producing express Scripture or universal Tradition formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared Who can think who dares believe that those supreme Guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the only Guardians of the Scripture it self and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and manifestly contrary to express Scripture or evident demonstration And as for universal Tradition there can be no Iudge of it but the whole Church particular persons or Churches are utterly uncapable of making such a judgment especially in opposition to the whole Church 11. It were happie therefore if Protestants considering the Promises of Christ and the necessity of unity in the Church would allow but as much submission to the Supreme Tribunal of his Church as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim to which no such Promises were made For then though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible yet they would acknowledge that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbidden but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisions 12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore produced in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals And indeed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh that is the Messias came By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed For as to the outward proâ—ession and practises of the Mosaical Law it was alwayes continued in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair I say as to the outward practises of it For in the Spiritual sense of it the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself typified therein But now Shiloh was already come and God's promise of Indefectibility rested in this New High Priest and his Successors 13. Notwithstanding all this yet Errors might creep in about non-fundamentals as the Rabbins confess when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place and without all tergiversation be obeyed So as though they being indeed in such things fallible should command any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law the Iews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of Judgment and internal assent to such Commands that they were agreeable to God's Law because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great importance should be transgressed than that Contentions and Disputes should be endless 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority than the Iews did to their Sanedrim which was infallible in fundamentals but subject to Error in non-fundamentals they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council but ought to submit their internal Judgment to them For since it is impossible they should have any demonstrative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred I mean in matter of Doctrine all other inferiour Judgments all only probable Arguments against them ought to cease the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opinions altogether improbable So that though upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions and by consequence their assent would be erroneous yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience humble submission of Judgment love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it Besides that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches and not at all on their account 15. But since Protestants find an extraordinary difficulty more than Catholicks to submit their Judgments to Authority and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges Let it be supposed that their first Reformers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions should thereupon have been excommunicated by the Church In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience and not voluntarily forsake her Communion and much less ought they to have set up or repair to an Anti-communion For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism 16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church and the unlawfulness of separation from it I do not mean a Church of one denomination no not the Roman as such for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her But I intend the Vniversal Church which we call Roman Catholick because all true Orthodox Churches an union of which constitutes the Universal Church acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Root of their Unity Therefore Protestants in vain seek to excuse their separation upon pretence it was onely from the Roman not from the Vniversal Church because 1. A separation from the external Communion of any one true Member of the Catholick Church for Doctrines which are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that Member is indeed a separation from all Churches which is manifestly the case of the English separation 2. Because it is evident that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves a toto mundo A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melancthon in these words Nec non parvi refert c. For it doth not a little concern us that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us descend to posterity For it were a thing more then absurd after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world if we in our very beginnings should also divide from one another And which Chillingworth also confesseth in several places cap. 5. sect 55. As for the external Communion of the
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.
to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
General Councils every Patriark and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his And a strict Injunction is laid on all the Bishop of Rome not excepted that they presume not to meddle in any Diocesse but their own And the chief Primacies of Order were granted to Rome and Constantinople not for having been the Sees of such and such an Apostle but for being the two Seaâ—s of the two great Empires Witnesse the famous Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon c. Nay the immediate Predecessâ—r of Boniface the third Pope Gregory the Great calls the Tiâ—le of Universal Bishop a wicked prophane and blasphemous Title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand c. Further adding That if any one Bishop were universal there would by consequence be a failing of the universal Church upon the failing of such a Bishop Which is an Argument ad homines not easily to be answer'd whatsoever infirmity it may labour with in its self c. And upon that occasion he makes an excursion about the Pope's infallibility and his falling into Heresie c. nothing to the Point Lastly He concludes that Whosoever shall read at large the many Liberties of the Gallican Church and the published confessions of Popish Writers for more then a thousand years together touching the Papal Vsurpations and Right of Kings he will not deny that the Supremacy of the Pope is but a prosperous Vsurpation 3. This is the substance of his Discourse upon this Point of Novelty the Supremacy of the Pope In answering which he must permit me yet without any prejudice to the Cause yea rather for a better clearing of it not to bind my self to his Order Assuring him in the mean time that I will not purposely omit any thing material either in his Reasoning or Quotations 1. And first in general he must give me leave to tell him that by the Conclusion of the foregoing Discourse he has entirely enervated all that went before For by arguing and asserting That the Gallican Liberties and Popish writings against Papal Vsurpations do demonstrate that the Supremacy of the Pope 〈◊〉 but a prosperous Vsurpation He clearly shows that his fore-mentioned Reasons do not touch the Catholic Cause at all He acknowledges those Writers to have been Roman Catholics None can deny the French Church to be a Member of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged for such by the Pope himself and professing a subjection to him as to the Supream Spiritual Pastor of God's Church Therefore it is evident that what they deny to the Pope is not simply his Supremacy in Spiritual matters which is all that will be required of Protestants but an extending of that Supremacy beyond what they conceive the received Ecclesiastical Canons do warrant and this the English may as well be permitted to do as the French 4. To the end therefore he may no longer mistake this so important an Argument I will clearly set down the Churches Doctrine concerning this matter This Doctrine is contained in that profession of Faith compiled by Pius 4. and extracted out of the Council of Trent I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Iesus Christ on Earth I acknowledg the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches And more largely in the Decree with great circumspection framed in the Council of Florence and subscribed by the Greeks We do define that the Holy Apostolic See and Bishop of Rome does enjoy a Supremacy through the whole world And that the Same Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Iesus Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that in the Person of St. Peter he hath received from our Lord Iesus Christ full power to feed rule and govern the whole Church in such manner as is express'd in the Acts of Oecuminical Councils and the holy Canons This is the Decision of the Council of Florence The substance of the Doctrine of which Decree by which the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is acknowledg'd to have a Jurisdiction over all Christians to be regulated by the Ecclesiastical Canons is so received even in France notwithstanding all the Gallican Liberties that whoever denies it will not be esteem'd a Catholic See what Cardinal Palavicino writes touching the Cardinal of Lorrain and his French Bishops proceedings about this Point in the Council of Trent 5. This Jurisdiction the Preacher positively denies both to the Pope and St. Peter affirming It to be an impudent opposition both to the Letter and sense of our Saviours forecited precept Mark 10. But I heartily with Dr. Pierce would look well on this passage of the Gospel once more and ask his own reason though he should not be able to exclude all the fumes of passion from it Is Ecclesiastical Authority in Superiors and Subordination of Inferiors forbidden in this Text Will one that calls himself a Regular Son of the Church of England by vertue of this Text pronounce the Sentence of Decapitation according to his own pleasant expression upon his own Church whosoever passes for the Head of it whether his Majesty or my Lord of Canterbury On the contrary I dare pronounce that not the affecting but lawful exercising a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to this Precept that it is establish'd by it For in this very Text expresse mention is made of some that are great yea some that are the chiefest And if he would have adjoyn'd the next Verse to his Quotation he would have published to the most ignorant of his Hearers of Readers his manifest abusing this passage of Scripture Our Saviour immediately adding For even the Son of man came not to be ministred unto but to minister Surely he will not deny but that our Saviour had Authority yea a Supremacy of Iurisdiction over the Church and only here proposes himself as a Pattern of humility to be imitated by his Apostles and their Successors And what were the Apostles Church Governors without question How then are they to imitate their Supream Governor In renouncing Superiority Did he himself do so By no means But as he did not glorifie himself to be an High Priest But he that said unto him thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech And being high Priest he did not forget his meeknesse and humility consistent very well with the vigour of Spiritual Jurisdiction In like manner his Apostles and all that succeed him are commanded not to affect Superiority and when they are lawfully invested with it not to exercise it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Eph. 1. Can. 8. they must neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles both to the Emperor to Iohn himself and others which being already produc'd by him need not be repeated Yet for all this neither Pelagius nor St. Gregory notwithstanding their detesting this Title did therefore quit their right to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church and their Iurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarks too nay they assert it in these very Epistles wherein they are most sharp against that Title as shall be shew'd 6. The reason of this 't is manifest the Preacher does not understand therefore let him not disdain to be inform'd The like Order that is observ'd in the Church of England he may conceive is observed in the Catholic Church that is that the same person may be both a Bishop an Archbishop and a Primat I will add also the Supreme head of the Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Eccâ—esiasticks For as for his Majestys Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs it is not in this place to be treated of Now my Lord of Canterbury is just like other Bishops merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bishops in it but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves which are not removeable by him unlesse they incur crimes that by the Canons deserve it Lastly he is a Primat over both Provinces that is the whole Nation yet without prejudice to the other Metropolitan in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose though he have a power to summon him to a National Council c. And in this regard he may be stiled the Vniversal Pastor of England and by being so makes the Church of England to be one National Church which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads Yet if any one should stile him the Vniversal Bishop of England it would not be endured because he can exercise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own By considering this well the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church 7. For though this Title of Vniversal Bishop taken in some sense might draw after it such ill consequences yet being apply'd to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church it might innocently signifie no more but such a general Superintendency as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors and with such an innocent meaning as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon without any contradiction of the same Council to Pope Leo Boniface the Third did accept it from Phocas yet having done so it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of Iurisdiction by it more than himself and his Predecessors had enjoy'd And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge If he can find any proof to the contrary let him produce it and I will immediately recall what I have said 'T is true as appears in the History of the Council of Trent written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates against naming the Pope Bishop of the Vniversal Church who in conclusion absolutely gained the silencing of that Title But this happened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church or over all Churches taken disjunctively for this they willingly acknowledged but they opposed this Title only as the Universal Church might be taken in a collective sense that is to say as united in a General Council whereby a right of Superiority over a General Council may seem to be determin'd to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil which in this matter they allowed CHAP. IV. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predecessors viz. St. Gregory P. Pelagius P. Felix P. Gelasius P. Leo. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon illegal Of the 2d Canon of the first Council of Constantinople 1. BEing now to demonstrate more than a Primacy of Order a primacy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third extending it self to all Christians all particular Prelates and Churches yet a Supremacy not unlimited for then General Councils would be useless but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church I will first to make it appear reasonable declare the ground of the necessity of it which in brief is as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers because since General Councils the only absolute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or great expences c. can very seldom be summon'd it would be impossible without an Ordinary constant standing Supreme Authority in the Church to prevent Schisms that is it is impossible the Church should subsist 2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sitting at the upper end of the Table a priviledge to speak first or to collect Votes Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to conserve unity as in a National Church so in the Vniversal is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians For all the subtilty of human wit without such a Concession can never answer the arguing thus If according to the Doctrin of the Fathers there be a necâ—ssity of setting up one Bishop â—ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop â—ver many Bishops and one Patriark over many Arch-Bishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history and experience But what expedient now without such a primacy of Iurisdiction can the Presbyterians find out against the mischief of Schism Truly no other but by rejecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the certainly visible unity of the Catholic Church that is by believing that Schism iâ— no such ill thing as that much care needs be used to prevent it But surely English Protestants not having blotted out of their Creed that Article since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as necessary to the â—nity of the whole Church to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised and without which the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions 3. Certain it is that the antient Fathers thought so
the great Saint Basil who writing to St. Athanasius about suppressing Arianism in the East hath these words It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to desire him that he would have regard to our affaires and interpose the judgment of his Decree c. Moreover that he would give Authority to sâ—m choice persons who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there c. 6. Again when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice had framed a new confession of Faith it was argued of nullity saith Sâ—crates especially because Iulius Bishop of Rome was neither himself present nor sent any to supply his place Whereas saith he the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome And this authority the same Pope Iulius asserts For writing to the Eastern Bishops who had condemned St. Athanasius he sayes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are you ignorant this is the custom that you should first write to us and after that determin just matters there Therefore if there were any ill suspition against that Bishop of Alexandria you ought to have signified it in the first place to the Church here 7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen another Greek Historian saith expresly That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law declaring all things to be void that are done without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Nay which is yet more this which for ought appears was only an unwritten Canon or Custom for no Council mentions it but deliver'd by Tradition even in the Eastern Churches was of such authority that the foresaid Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial We decree says he that according to the antient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order here is a Iurisdiction asserted extending it self beyond the Diocesâ—n Metropolitan or Patriarcal limits of Rome 8. I will add a few examples more when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Priâ—at of Ancyâ—a and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza The Bishop of Rome saith Sozomen to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain restored to every one of them their own Church And he adds further That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome to give account of their judgement threatning that he would not leave them unpunish'd if they did not cease from innovating All this he did saith Theodoret not by usurpation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Churches law 9. Again when the General council of Ephesus was entring into debate about the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch the Bp. of Ierusalem interposed affirming that according to the antient custom the Church of Antiochâ— as alwayes governed by the Roman Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope 10. Moreover when Dioscorus Patriark of Alexandria in the Scismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople Flavian appealed to the Pope And this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the custom of Synods sayth the Emperor Valentinian 11. Two examples more I will the rather add because we of this Nation are particularly concern'd in them The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice This Council was by Iustinian called Oecumenical because though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion yet the Canons of it were never rejected by them In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was ordain'd upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba to this effect That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome who might renew the Process and appoint Iudges And by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop in case any Bishop deposed should make such an appeal till the Pope had determin'd the cause it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place These Decrees the Council made to honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle 12. Now at this Conâ—cil among other Bishops from all the Western Countreys some came out of our Britany as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us And therefore the General Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk or the Saxons had possession here By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper though much bragged of in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope which St. Augustin requir'd of the British Bishops For what grosse ignorance was it in this Abbot if the Paper relate truth of him That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God especially over the Western Provinces and so much respect return'd him from them after the presence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishops of Romes delegation he should be such a stranger to his person or authority or his titles after the year of our Lord 600 At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop when the Britains thus denied it as appears Both in that they are said by venerable Beda the South-Irish at least to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Antistitis and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis as may be found in the Register of his Epistles 13. A second Monument wherein we Britains have a peculiar interest is that most antient first Council of Arles celebrated according to Baronius and Sirmondus assented to by Sir Henry Spelman in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome as appears by the first Canon in these words First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Breviary of
When there are many Popes the Church has many Heads When the Pope is Heritical the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheâ—ded Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors whether Ecclesiastical or Civil For they are all Heads within their Precincts A King is the Head of his Kingdom and a Bishop of his Diocesse When we call therefore the Pope Head of the Church we mean that among all Governors thereof he is the Supream in the sense before declared He is a Head but not so as Christ is in respect of his Mystical body who by his Spirit internally quickens and directs it The Pope is only an external ministerial visible Head and as it were Root of Vnity and Government All this no question the Doctor knew before to be our meaning and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic insignificant though many of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd 15. When there is no Pope says the Preacher the Church wants a Head It is granted For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal The Government is not dissolv'd Succession is not interrupted It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not that is the Regal Authority lives though Kings in their particular persons dye Nor is there any substantial difference as to this point between hereditary and elective Monarchy And in this sense we may say that Popes dy not nor Bishops Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Româ— But principally because when an Ecclesiastical Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a vis generativa or virtue in the Church to constitute another in his place and so to continue the Government There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms After the death of Pope Fabian before there were any Christian Emperors the See was vacant for above a years space yet neither did St. Irenâ—us Optatus Epiphanius or St. Augustin when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair esteem that thereby the Chain had been broken neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority 16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference in a case of Schism when there are many Popes then says he the Church is become a Monster with many Heads But he is deceived As when after the death of a King several pretenders to the Crown appear there is still by right but one legitimate Successor all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants It is so in the Papacy In that case St. Cyprians Rule holds If the Church be with Novatian it was not with Cornelius who by a lawful Ordination succeeded Fabian Novatian therefore is not in the Church nor can be esteemed a Bishop of Rome Or if it be uncertain to which of them the right pertains so that some Nations adhere to one Head others to another it is a great calamity but yet the Church remains though wounded yet not wounded to death A General Council cures all 17. If the Pope according to Doctor Pierce his supposition should prove an Heretic he infers very improperly that the Church haâ— such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded For in that case the Pope is so far from remaining a Head that he is not so much as a Member of the Church but is deprived not only of the Administration but also the Communion of the Church as other Heretical Bishops are So that then there is a pure vacancy I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom not to say unmannerly terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection 18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church the Popes primacy Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty and whether his proofs or mine are more concluding I leave to the Readers consciences He will excuse my dilating on this Point because therein I follow his own example for he tels his Majesty He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too though I believe we shall have different meanings yet without equivocation even when we deliver our reasons in the same words For i. I also acknowledg the Popes supremacy to be the chief if not only hinge on which does hang the stress of more than Papal the Ecclesiastical Fabrick as being the Cement of the Churches unity 2. Because it is a point wherin say I likewise the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concerned His meaning is that no danger is to be apprehended for England but only from that Point I am sure on the contrary that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poyson'd with Heresies The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a Sword drawn for or against it Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned between the English and Roman Court about matters not of Religion but outward Interests in which generally the Pope had the worst at last But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced The Kings of France always have been and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities as ever any Princes were yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted Sons of the Catholic Church The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be because it preserves peace and unity in that Kingdom not by the terror of Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience And let Doctor Pierce be assured without a Spiritual Authority which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects all their preaching and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy 19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better He saith That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iurisdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd his
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them To the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule yet they admit certain universally received Traditions besides expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
For though he florish with Greek and Latinâ—quotations of Fathers joynd to Scripture which they do not yet since there is no visible Judge talk'd of in it but himself that is able to speak What is this but private spirit having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have So that let them preach as much as they will the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this Whether their last speaking Iudge in England or ours in the whole Catholic Church deserves better to be believ'd and rely'd on 5. It cannot be deny'd but that there is somthing of Truth in all these Sects The Guide which each of them respectively layes claim to is a justifiable Guide though being alone not sufficient For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us would be to become Beasts 2. To exclude Gods Spirit from directing us would be to cease being Christians 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity and Authority of General Primitive Councils would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable 4. And last of all to deny a judging determining power to the present visible Governors I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected Yet unlesse they all concur that which we take to be Reason and Inspiration and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and mis-guide us 6. Now it is only the Roman Catholic Church whose enâ—â—re Guidance proceedâ— from all these and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each mans Soul and universal peace in Gods Church which effects cannot possibly flow but from a complication of all these Guides Roman Catholics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture as the Socinians do but they give due bounds to Reason nay they silence it quite when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture they with the Presbyterians and even Fanatics acknowledge it is Divine Inspiration that moves the Soul to assent thereto and embrace the verities contained in Scripture directing their actions accordingly But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light neither can there be any Guide more dangerous then false Inspirations they conclude that all such pretended Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Suggestions which are prejudicial to Honesty Virtue Piety and the common Rules of Obedience both Spiritual and Civil All Inspirations which which incite private uncommission'd persons to reform either Churches or State all that nourish Factions or Commotions in the Common-wealth All that beget Pride and an opinion of self-sufficiency or an humor of censuring others especially Superiors In a word whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the community of the Prophets that is Church Governors such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected detested and sent back to the Infernal Father of them 7. Moreover Roman Catholics do willingly and confidently appeal to the Primitive Church the four first General Councils and the holy Fathers But universal experience demonstrating it impossible that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed and therefore not impartial or indifferent their last recourse is to the present visible Church which cannot declare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations that is by a General Council All Catholics submiting to this Council not their tongues only but also their judgments by following the Church thus with humility shew that they are guided both by Reason Inspiration and Examples of Primitive Fathers Hence St. Austin sayes We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church if we rejoice in the name of Catholics and in the Catholic Faith And elsewhere Contra rationem nemo sobrius c. No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason no Christian against Scriptures no lover of peace and unity against the Church And this only is the Guide that we say and presently will demonstrate to be infallible 8. Now that the final Decision of all Controversies in Faith can only be expected from such a Guide and consequently that all Christians under pain of damnation are obliged never to contradict this Guide and alwaies to assent when it requires we are taught not by Reason only but God himself also and this in the Law of Moses The whole Nation of the Iews saith St. Augustin was as it were one great Prophet the policie of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian to the twelve Princes of their Families answer'd the twelve Apostles to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples to the several Courts of Judgement our Ecclesiastical Synods to the great Sanhedrim a general Council and to the High Priest our Supreme Pastor Now for our present purpose the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law ran thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement c. that is as we find in 2 Chron. 19. 8. between blood and blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Iudgements then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall shew thee c. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right hand or to the left The man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel Upon those words in this passage unto the Iudge that shall be in those daies Ainsworth out of the Rabbins observes that if the high Synedrion had determin'd of a matter after another Synedrion rose up which upon Reasons seeming good unto them disannulled the former Sentence then it was disannull'd and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later So that the present Authority was alwaies to take place and no Appeals to be made from it For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking Iudges upon any pretence whatsoever either of a private exposition of the Law or the Authority of preceding Rabbies were allow'd there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue And observe that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of Judgment For otherwise it would be against Conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law It is just so and alwaies has been so in the Catholic Church The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers
Communion are not at all conducing to the Doctors Design I will refer him to the Judgment of Doctor Ferne of some weight no doubt with him who expresly saies and proves by Reasons not unlike these That nothing can be concluded by those two Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church Vniversally and in all the Members of it may be infected with Error in Points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith CHAP. X. Of Prayer for the Dead It s Apostolic antiquity Purgatory necessarily supposed in it The Doctor 's Objections answer'd 1. HAving treated so largely of the Preachers two pretended Noveltys 1. the Primacy of Iurisdiction of the See Apostolic and 2. the Infallability of the Church in her General Councils I might rationally enough neglect examining the following particular Dogma's which he likewise charges with Novelty and betake by self to the point of Schism because if the Church have a spiritual obliging Iurisdiction taking its Original from the Chair of St. Peter and again if what the proposes to us to be believed she proposes validly under the penalty of being separated from Christ since it is manifest that she so proposes the said particular Doctrins not in her Councils onely but universal practise wherein her Infallability is with an equal Autâ—ority demonstrated they ought without contradiction be submitted to Neverthelesse having some reason to doubt that in case any of his Novelties be omited he or at least some of his over-credulous Readers will impute such an omission to a difficulty in disproving him I must be content to take a trouble on me which is therefore only necessary because many Protestants are unreasonable 2. His third pretended Novelty is the Doctrin of Purgatory which he says We have from Origen or at the farthest from Tertullian and he from no better Author than the Arch-Heretic Montanus Nor does Bellarmin mend the matter by deriving it from Virgil Tully or Plato 's Gorgias 3. It would have been a great courtesie both to his Hearers and Readers if he had inform'd them why he singled out a speculative Point touching Purgatory and omitted one of far greated importance because obliging to Practise also which is Prayer for the Dead His way of proceeding doubtlesse does not want a Mystery And he must give me leave to answer his Novelty of Purgatory by speaking scarce any thing at all of it but only telling him nakedly the Churches Doctrin about it and by insisting on the confessed Antiquity Apostolic Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead which being cleared I defie all his learning and skill unlesse he can disprove this to deny or so much as question on the other 4. Now the Doctrin of the Church concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead is contained in this Decree of the Council of Trent There is a Purgatory and Souls detained there are helped by the suffraâ—es of the Faithfull that is by Prayers and Alms and most especially by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar By which Definition the Church obliges all Catholicks no farther than simply to believe that there is a place or state of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers c. The Council tells us nothing of the position of this place nor what incommodities Souls find in it nor whether there be fire c. which are Points that St. Augustin says he could not resolve On the contrary it forbids at least out of the Schools all curious subtile Questions concerning it all discourses which are not for edification 5. Having represented the Churches Doctrine I will next transcribe the Form of her Prayers for the Dead extant in the Canon of the Masse Remember likewise O Lord thy Servants who have gone before us with the Sign of Faith i. e. Baptism and repose in the sleep of peace We beseech thee O Lord mercifully grant to them and to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord. And after the Canon We beseech thee O Lord absolve the Soul of thy Servant from all chains of his sins to the end that in the glory of the Resurrection he may respire by a new life among the Saints and Elect through Christ our Lord. Now if it can be demonstrated that by the universal practise of the Primitive Church such Prayers as these were made for the Dead it unavoidably follows That the Souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hâ—ll And if so where are they Doctor Pierce speak like an honest man 6. To demonstrate this let him view narrowly these passages of the Holy Fathers before and during the space of the first four General Councils St. Denis the Areopagite or whoever was Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and who by confession of Protestants liv'd within the second Century after the Apostles declares that the Priest does demand from the Divine goodnesse for the person departed a pardon of all sins through human frailty committed by him and that he may be conducted into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into a place from which grief sadnesse and mourning it banished And presently after he testifies that What he commits to writing concerning this Prayer pronounced by the Priest for the Dead he received by Tradition from his Divine Teachers the Apostles 7. Next Tertullian Let the faithful Widdow saies he pray for the soul of her Husband and make an oblation in the Anniversary day of his death begging for him refreshment and part in the first Resurrection And to prevent the Preachers Objection that the Father learned this from the Arch-Heretick Montanus let him answer for himself We make saies he Anniversary Oblations for the Dead and for the Natalitia of the Martyrs And presently he adjoynes Concerning these and the like Observances if you require the Authority of Scriptures you will not find any Tradition shall be alleged to you for the Author custom for the confirmer and Faith the Observer 8. After him follows his Schollar blessed St. Cyprian The Bishops saies he that went before us have ordain'd that not any one of our Brethren at his death shall name in his Will for an Executor or Guardian any Ecclesiastical Person and if any one shall do otherwise that no Oblation should be made for him and that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for him at his death For such a one deserves not so much as to be named at the Altar in the Priests Prayer 9. Eusebius relates that at the Obsequies of the Emperor Constantine the People and Clergy unanimously sent up prayers to God not without tears and great groanings for the Soul of the Emperor Likewise Epiphanius disputing against the Heretick Aerius reckons this among his heresies as St. Augustin likewise does That he denyed
mercifully than their sins deserve not to be doubted For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord Prayers should be made when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy works of Charity and Alms are made who will doubt that these things help towards their good for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead yet only such as before their death have lived so as that these things may profit them after Death And again For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving and for others as a propitiation 14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience for he is no Stranger to the Fathers what a great Volume may be written to confirm this And that not one expression can be quoted against it Therefore whereas he said without any ground that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus I would ask him From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead but from the Heretie Aerius Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them which without any fault may be omited On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him the Church does these things necessarily having received such a Tradition from the Fathers And St. Augustin we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lye here or in another place repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice to make Supplications to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings a translation into the region of Light and peace and a place in the bosom of Abraham But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell where are they then He cannot deny a third place unless he thinks them anihilated He will not say that third place is Purgatory because the Church calls it so But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed 16. To conclude If all the Liturgies of the Church all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church an expresse Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees He will say it is not Canonical at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance and however the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin and from Plato Cicero and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him that Heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls as to perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers becom immediatly perfect 17. To fill his learned Margins he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin as the Bishop of Rochester Polydor Virgil Suarez and Thomas ex Albiis but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church in contradiction to the Preacher that there is a Purgatory what other inducement could he have to mention them unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not that he was resolved to pretend but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church CHAP. XI Of Transubstantiation or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament Iustified by the Authorities of the Fathers c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd 1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament That blessed Mystery which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument to signifie and to operate Vnity is by the cunning of the Devil and malicious folly of men becom both the work and cause of Dis-union 2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran For in Pope Nicholas the Second's time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con then Transubstantiation But evident it is That it was never taught by our Saviour since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced This is my Blood explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrin than the concession of Aquinas who says That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one From whence Bellarmin angrily infers that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one 3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter I will as before set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv out of the Council of Trent it is said I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Conversion or Change of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body and of Wine into his Blood which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received 4. And if he will needs have it so let it be granted that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as old as his Beginning that is in the time of the first General Council But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends 5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
was not by telling them it was no sin but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning because they allowed them maintenance 3. Again he will find that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things both for their frequent abstinences from flesh and some other Fruits and for their to some Persons at least recommending Virginity who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner as the Protestants objecting the same things are now by the Church Catholic See Chrysostom Ambrose and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy understanding it of the same Heretics Lastly he will find that Faâ—stus the Maniches made the very same Objection to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Doctrin of Devils To whom St. Augustin thus answers I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself lest he should seem to have introduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed to a love of perpetual Virginity and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow 12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon let him consider what an Author not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church has said of that Point that is The Patriaâ—e of Presbyterians Mr. Cartwright The Council of Nice says he did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward only being married before intrance into the Ministry it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that precedent Marriage And Paphnutius shews that not only this was before that Council but was an antient Tradition of the Church in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested for a motion being made by some in the Council that the married Presbyters such as were married before made Presbyters should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives this Paphnutius a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor though himself never married opposed saying Grave jugâ—m This was a heavy yoke c. and that perhaps such a strict rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives But now mark what follows That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditionem according to the Churches antient tradition ' should afterward forbear from marrying But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before when yet a Laick The story is in Socrates l. 1. c. 8. in Zâ—zomen l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much advantage from Paphnutius 13. Now for as much as concerns the Controversie touching Marriage of Priests Bellarmin will grant That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree and consequently that it may be dispensed with Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permited the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Ordination And indeed considering the temper of the Eastern Countries far more enclin'd to such passions than that of the Europeans we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western Yet no antient Canon â—f either of the Churches can be â—ound that permitted Priests to contract Marriage after Ordination And even among the Grecians a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests who attended the Altar 14. But what the universal belief and practise of the Western Churches was our Preacher may collect from the following Testimonies Therefore not to insist upon the generally esteem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony of a dispensation from which not one example can be given It appears that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly married was forbidden 1. By the Second Council of Carthage express in this Point It was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons and such who dispense Sacraments should be Observers of Chastity and abstain even from their own wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep 2. The Second African Council thus decreed Whereas Relation was made of the Incontinence of certain Ecclesiastics though with their own Wives this Council thought good that according to former Decrees Bishops Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives which if they do not let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office As for other inferior Clarks they are not compell'd hereto But let every Church observe their own custom 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same You says he who with pure bodies uncorrupted modesty and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation have received the grace of the holy Ministry know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence without stain neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates some have prâ—created children when they exercised Priesthood And again the Apostle speaking of a Bishop sayes having children not getting them 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius sayes What shall the Churches of the East do What shall the Churches of Egypt do and of the See Apostolick all which receive Clerks either such as are Virgins or Continent or if they have wives such as cease to be husbands to them The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian And he writes to Pamachius thus If married men like not this let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the Act of marriage 5. We are wont says Saint Augustin to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden and yet having received it they by Gods assistance bear it to their end I will conclude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis more ancient then St. Augustins time nay ancienter then the First General Council of Nice The Council hath thought good that it should be absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget children 15. That the Eastern Churches took to themselves anciently a greater liberty is to be understood not generally for in many of them aâ— great a strictness was observed as besides the forecited tâ—stimony of S. Hierâ—m concerning the Churches of the East and of Egypt appears from Origen Eusebius and Epiphanius who all require continence in Priests even from their wives if they have any And particularly S. Epiphanius says That to
cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
Religion of their Fore-Fathers even King Henry the Eighth for all his Headship never pretended so far Of this I dare accept as Judge even Sir Edward Coke himself and Balsamon likewise though a malicious Schismatick therefore the fitter to be quoted by him yet all he sayes is That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. which whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church he can do or no is little for the Preachers purpose I am sure he is not able to prove it or if he could it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn 7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes is that of the Kings of Iuda in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed But withal the Doctor may do well to take notice 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the High Priest or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves 2. They are not said to have reformed the people against the Priests 3. Or without the Priests 4. Yea in several places we read they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation And therefore Bishop Andrews who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church as might be says only that those Kings did reform citra or ante declarationem Ecclesiae but he saies not contra And to make good his citra or ante hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments a Negative thus There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture ergo there was none The infirmity of which argument is much more visible if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles containing a relation of so many hundred years and chiefly of the actions of Kings not of the Clergy 8. It cannot indeed be denied but that in such publick changes the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual and therefore no wonder if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of especially in so very short a story But certainly according to Gods Institution the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge and it is from their mouths that Kings are to learn Gods Law and what they are to Reform because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now for Reformations or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David Solomon c. who besides a Regal Authority were Prophets likewise immediately inspired and so employed by God I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth the young child his Son or youngest Daughter no Prophets surely 9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive which as he sayes set on work the English Reformers of happy Memory which was their observing that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partizans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation Gal. 1. 8. 10. But to omit his contradictions charging us with hideous errors in Faith which yet he dare not say are Fundamental lest he ruine his own Church To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council persons of too honourable a quality to be called by a little Doctor contemners of the Apostles denunciation conspirators liable to a curse To omit his commending the first English Reformers our Kings c. that they consulted not with fleth and blood then which what could be said more unluckily to himself Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual Do not your self confess that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation To omit his petty Quibble that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain Directly contrary not only to many of his brother Divines but to the Head of his Church King Iames who in a publick Speech to his Parliament says I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church To omit all these and more I shall desire the Doctor to take notice that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adversaries should make such an objection concerning which the Reader may please to review what has been said before chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers that the Church hath been forced to make such as they call them new Articles of Faith For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators As yet such Doctrines c. having never formerly been opposed except by inconsiderable Hereticks Such as Iovinian Vigilantius c. whose Errors before any Council could take notice of them soon after they appeared withered away again were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholicks But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter that they were unjustly question'd either of Error or Novelty Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils For fear of new Articles must liberty be given to new Heresies Old Articles such as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council New ones that is Old ones further explained Or Old Practises newly declared to be Traditions 12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor and related to in his margin are no new Articles Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England For even St. Gregory who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel is accused by learned Protestants of all or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects Doctor Humphrey accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium c. that they brought into England Purgatory Oblation of the salutary Host and Prayers for the Dead Relicks Transubstantiation To which Osiander adds That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy Invocation and Worship of Saints nay that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved excused defended To which Carrion in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes adds That when he tragically exclaim'd that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies in his
authorized Conference in which the only Design may be by consent to enquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow and without which it must not nor ought to be expected Let us understand one anothers Churches let us know one anothers essential Doctrines If there be any mistakes any misinterpretations on either side let them be cleared But till this be done and it can only be effected by them they must pardon us if according to the temper of calamitous unjustly oppressed persons we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon is in effect the most severe and bitter against us as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlawful 5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King Iames whose authority being his Supreme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal should surely have more then an ordinary influence over him That learned King in his before mentioned Speech hath these remarkable words I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion as laying wilfulness aside on both hands we might meet in the midst which is the Center and perfection of all things For if they of the Roman Church would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs as themselves cannot maintain nor deny to be worthy of Reformation I would fâ—r my own part be content to meet them in the mid-way so that all novelties might be renounced on either side See the condescence of this great King and compare it with the stiff humor of this little Doctor He 'l not comply with the least of our defilements not he Softly good Sir do you not as ill when you comply with the Lutherans who surely are not without some little stains Do you not as ill when you comply with the Hugenots who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean Look soberly into your own rashness you began the Separation that hath bred so many wars and so much licenciousness both in faith and manners upon points which your selves confess are not fundamental and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least difference between us Go now and close your Sermon with a few soft words Your arms are open to embrace c. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches c. of his divided defiled disgraced Spouse And when all 's done you 'l not stir an inch towards the peace you so gloriously talk of If this be Hypocrisie remember Doctor the woes that attend it if not express your self so sincerely hereafter that we may not suspect it For my part of all the faults in a Sermon to that of dissembling I here declare a Vitinian hatred as you learnedly call it Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander whom you commend for complaining of some abuses in the Church among other Authors which you there cite jumbling Protestants and Catholicks confusedly together for after all their zeal they dyed quietly in her bosom and did not like you tear in pieces the seamless Coat of our SAVIOUR and reject all terms of peace unless every pretence of yours be satisfied to a tittle I remember too a dogged word you gave us not far from the beginning of your Sermon where after you had reckoned up Socinians Antinomians Ranters Solifidians Millenaries Reprobratarians c. a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring to all which you yield more antiquity then any will allow your Reformation you pass them over with the gentler names of Heresie and Usurpation but when you come to the Pontificians you immediately grow high and rage and resemble them to the Mahometans c. blind and impertinent Passion Do you not see abroad a civil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and are they no better than Mahometans Do you not see in your own Country and at Court too Persons so qualified that you should blush at your own unmannerliness to compare them to Mahometans 6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns and making Decrees with a non-obstante to c. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since But surely they know Catholick Princes are wiser now and the Court of Rome too This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement On the contrary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome only what France Spain c. find extremely advantageous both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States And as for Decrees with a non-obstante he mistakes the terms of Apostolick Constitutions by which is intended Constitutions not made by the Apostles but former Popes And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin let me ask him a Question or two Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling instead of dipping non obstante that our Saviour and his Apostles instituted it otherwise Do they not think themselves obliged to communicate fasting non-obstante that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper Do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non-obstante the Apostles gave a command to the contrary All this they do because they think these things not essential or unalterable but left to the prudence of their particular Church Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils Mr. Ridley sayes Councils indeed represent the Vniversal Church and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth Doctor Bilson plainly confesses the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth And after fairly sayes The Fathers in all Ages as well before as since the Great Council of Nice have approved and prastis'd this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts Hooker professes The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin yea though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion Their Authority General Councils is immediately deriv'd and delegated from Christ sayes Potter And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Brethren I might say Fathers in this Point I shall not easily fall out with him about it but rather endeavour a further approach by offering this fair Proposal I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make question of the matters of Faith for those they were taught from their Childhood but to consult about their adversaries proofs and what arguments should be alleadged against them to consult
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world 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 Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
Novelties we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them And it being supposed by the Archbishop c. that without such a certainty it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church The Doctor is bound and â—here adjure him to declare expresly as in the presence of Him who is Supreme Head of the Church and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it that he is demonstratively certain that in all these Points charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils she is manifestly guilty and that nothing appears in this or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance which deserves to be esteem'd so much as a probable proof to the contrary For my part I here protest on the other side that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon nor believe there can any be produced which can warrant him to make such a Declaration 10. The second Condition is That in like manner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity the main grounds upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism to wit these 1. That the universal Church â—epresented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors that a particular Church c. discovering such errors may be obliged to separate externally 2. That a particular Chrâ—stian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationaâ— Synod and assented to by it and that a Nationaâ— Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical or any of them in regard of an Oecumenical formerly accepted and admitted If these Assâ—riâ—ous he Innovations as in our perswasion they are it is clear they destroy all possible unity If they be not let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church 3. That a particular Church c. in opposition to the Vniversal can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons 〈◊〉 Communities c. and what not And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary 11. Thirdly if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church but only from the Roman then to make this good he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods they ever have or can repair And since at the time of their first Separation they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church and the Members of it be must shew how when and where they entered into any other new Communion Lastly 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 separated from both these he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly heretical with whom the English Church communicates 12. A fourth Condition is that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments to consecrate confirm preach God's Word c. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations Or if they be he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their Synods and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledg them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations 13. The last shall be that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils especially that of Trent If he will combate against her there he has a fair and open field and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense Otherwise he will declare himself as one who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed Now in exchange I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions But truly I know not where to find them except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children For the 39. Articles being almost all Negatives may as well be reputed the Doctrines of Iewish or Turkish Congregations since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Infallibility of Councils c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief as the Huguenots in France c. the Lutherans in Germany c only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith upon what motive I am unwilling to guess 14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable and even according to Protestants grounds also so necessary if the Replyer shall refuse to perform he will in the judgment of all discerning Readers be himself the Answerer and Conâ—uter of his own Reply and withall will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at but the satisfying his own or others interests passions and revenge against those who least deserve it All subterfuges all involved intricacies in answering all discourses which are not open candid and sincere will be confessions of guilt He may perhaps hide the weaknesse of his cause from credulous Women Trades-men or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry but to all considering Readers his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery Aristotle saies the Sepiâ— is the wisest of all Fishes because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour which hinders the sight of her But on the contrary Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent Quia cum se putat latere prodit seipso latibâ—lo for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour 15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans and from them other Reformerd took the name Protestants for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms Spires c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest What Edicts were made against them We Catholics might rather assume such a title if it were of any special honor having
and examining Antiquity and were as willing to make it speak on their sides as the Preacher was But as ill Consciences as they had they were convinced and forced publickly to confess that the Fathers were against them and focus And in particular Opposition to his Claim of Antiquity like Bishop Iewels for the first six Centuries Doctor Fulk is so far from concurring with him or Bishop Iewel that he is so choleric at the suspition of such a charge that he addresses himself to his Adversary in this civil language I Answer saies he if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for six hundred years next after Christ he lyeth in his heart 3. One passage there is of that famous Andreas Duditius which truly I cannot read without extream compassion and astonishment at the dreadful judgment of God and it may do Doctor Pierce much good if he sadly reflect on it Many years he had lived in great esteem for learning and prudence a Catholick Bishop of Petscben in Hungary called Quinque Ecclesiae present he was at the frameing the Decrees of the Council of Trent But at last falling in love with a Maid of honour in the Queen of Hungaries Court to marry her he quitted both his Bishoprick and Religion This poor man in his declining Age could not abstain from confessing in a Letter to Beza his unsatisfaction in his new Religion vainly hoping some either Cordial or Opiate for his distressed Conscience from one as deeply plunged and by the very same motives engaged in the same change I pray observe his words Si veritas est saies he quam veteres Patres c. If that be truth which the antient Fathers by mutual consent have professed it will entirely stand on the Papists side For if heretofore any Controversies out of a beat of Disputation arosâ— between the learned among them an end was presently imposed thereto by Decrees of Councils or even of the Pope alone But what strange people have we among us They are alwaies wandring toss'd with every wind of Doctrine and being hurried into the main Deep they are carried sometimes this way sometimes another If you would inform your self what their Iudgment to day is touching Religion you may perhaps come to know it But what it will be to morrow on the same Argument neither themselves nor you can certainly affirm Thus Duditius And what Cordial against this scrupulous Melancholly does Beza his good friend afford him Take it from himself Scio speciosum esse venerandae velustatis nomen c. I know the name of venerable Antiquity is very specious But whence shall we fetch the beginning of that Title but from the Prophets and Apostles For as for Writers that come after them if we will take their own advice we will believe them on no other terms but as far as they shall evidently make good what they deliver out of the Holy Scriptures That is in effect have but the Christian modesty and humility to prefer your own sense of Scriptures before all the Fathers and Councils of Gods Church and then nothing they say need to trouble you Antiquity venerable Antiquity will be on your side You may confidently say of all your Adversaries Doctrins From the Beginning it was not so 4. Many other Confessions of the like nature might be added but for brevity-sake I will content my self with onely one more and that is as it seems to me a secret acknowledgement of the Church of England in her publick Liturgy directly contrary to the Preachers pretension and applications of his Text by which she after a sort imputes Novelty to her self and confesses the Roman to be that Church which was from the beginning In the Order for Morning-prayer there are these Versicles and Responds V. O. Lord save the King R. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee V. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness R. And make thy chosen people joyfull V. O Lord save thy People R. And bless thine Inheritance Then follows a Versicle for Peace Now these as almost all the other Prayers are mafestly translated out of the Roman Office But that which ought to be observed is That in the Roman Office there is a Versicle and Respond immediately following these and going before the Versicle for Peace which the English Church has studiously left out and that is this V. Be mindfull of thy Congregation O Lord. R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Now the ground why this special Versicle or Prayer for the Church was left out is not so mysterious but it may be very probably guess'd at The first Reformers did not love to put God in mind of that Church which was from the beginning Or rather they were desirous the People should forget the Church which was from the beginning They had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church than for one that was from the beginning because apparently that could not be the Reformed Church of England whose beginning themselves saw 5. Notwithstanding such plain Confessions of these Pillars of Reformation yet the Doctor confidently stands with a little contraction and abatement to Bishop Iewel 's Challenge He indeed mentions 27. Points of which 22. are about circumstantial matters touching the Eucharist and two more of them viz. 1. That Ignorance is the Mother and Cause of true Devotion and Obedience 2. And that the Lay-people if he speaks of them in general are forbidden to read the Word of God in their own tongue are Calumnies The other are three indeed of the Preacher's points viz. 1. Supremacy of the Pope 2. Worship of Images 3. Common-prayers in a strange tongue though the only fault he can find in this last is That the later Church hath adhered too close to Antiquity that the hath not varied in the language of her Devotions from her Predecessors and after A. D. 600. continued to say her Prayers in the same Language she did before But then this Bishop as being somewhat better experienc'd in Antiquity than Doctor Pierce had not the confidence in this his Catalogue to reckon as Novelties either the Infallability of the Church Invocation of Saints Purgatory or Prayer for the Dead Celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass. So much more courage had the Preacher than even Bishop Iewel himself Well between both all antiquity is for them and nothing but novelty on our side No doubt but his admiring and believing Hearers assured themselves that some never-before-examined Witnesses some hitherto unknown or un-observed Records had been found out by their learned and confident Preacher to justifie their deserted claim of Antiquity I mean by way of aggression and not simple defence But when the Sermon is publish'd nothing appears in the Text or Margins but Assertions and Quotations an hundred times before produced and as often silenced many of which too as he explains them have no regard
the English Reformation because by the like examinatâ—on he finds that Roman Doctrins are 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 initio non fuit sic Therefore they as Jewish Divorces are 〈◊〉 abolished and that only to be confirmed which God instituted from the Beginning But he little considers that our Saviours saying It was not so signifies It was directly contray to SO as if he said You allow Divorces ob quamcunque causam in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning who said Whomsoever God hath joyn'd let no man put asunder This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reform'd Now if the Preacher would have made use of this indeed perfect Primive Rule of Refermation he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Beginning that is either in Scriptures or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils some expresse Authorities and Decisions directly contrary to Roman Doctrines which he calls Novelties He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures or some Councils or consent of Fathers such sayings as these 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bad nor ought to have any Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide not to be relyed upon against our private sence of God's Word 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living 4. The body of Christ is not substantially present on the Altar 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are essential to the Sacrament 7. All respect to Images is forbidden 8. Invocation of Sains is unlawful 9. The Scriptures must be given into all mens hands without any certain guide to interpret them 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue though interpreted are abominable 11. To forbid the use of Mariage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils 12. To separate Bed and Board among maried persons though when without danger of their lives they cannot live together is a practice condemn'd by our Lord. And after all 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church for Doctrines and Practises not in themselves causing Damnation but onely said to be false is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose they would have been pertinent to his Text But no such appear On the contrary it serves his turn to say again and again From the Beginning it was not so This is the burthen of his Song If he can shew that because this is the first time we hear or read such a Doctrine mentioned in any Ecclesiastical writer as Origen Tertullian c. therefore it is a Novelty it was never in the Church before the saies somthing to the purpose But let me ask him was there no Doctrine at all in the Church before it was written Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written And again is all that 's written in any Age still Extant and come to our hands Or do those Fathers who first writ it say That they or their times first introduc'd it No On the contrary they expressly declaim against Innovations Noveltie is their Prescription against all Heresies So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of or not received before had been to profess themselves Hereticks and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have condemned such Innovations Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian c for any Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher Whereas for other Errors they were sufficiently proscribed From whence 't is evident that through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Saviour in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees a warrant for him unjustly to condemn his Church Indeed in all matters left indifferent and no way commanded from the beginning nor contrary to any Divine Revelation the Church of later times may vary as she thinks sit either from the practice or injunctions of the former For example supposing Celibacy of the Clergy the 7th Point the Doctor instances in had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning yet if God had not commanded the contrary and the thing in it self be feasible of which more anon the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoyn it The Rule therefore holds only for matters of Faith and Divine Revelation In which 't is true That the Later times may not vary from the former But yet neither doth the Rule hold in these as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith but only as to the sense and substance It is not necessary that ab initio God the Son should be declared in expresse terms Consubstantial with the Father which was first put into the Christians â—reed by the Council of Nice But only that that Doctrine can be shewed ab initio which is identified in sense with this Nor can I think the Doctor upon second considerations will offer to gainsay so plain a truth But it is now time to Examin the particular Pâ—ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties and of each of which be saies as unwarrantably as our Lord against the Iewish Innovations said justly From the beginning it was not so CHAP. IV. The sum of Dr. Pierce's Discourse against the Pope's Supremacy enervated by himself The Churches Doctrin touching that Supremacy The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 1. IN the Doctor 's Catalogue of Roman Novelties the first is The Supremacy of the Pope Concerning which he tells his Majestie he has spoken most at large because it is a Point wherein the honour and safety of his Dominions are most concern'd And because by Bellarmin 's Assertion it is the chief if not onely hirge on which does hang the whole stresse of the Papal Fabrick This universal Superintendency or Supremacy of the Pope saies he hath been a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the 3d. to whom it was sold by the most execrable Phocas the greatest Villain in the world except Cromwel and Pontius Pilate not out of reverence to the Pope but in displeasure to Cyriacus Patriark of Constantinople c. 2 In contradiction to this Usurpation he adds But from the beginning it was not so For we find in Scripture the Apostles were equally foundations of the wall of God's City c. They were all as St. Cyprian saies Pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis And S. Hierom is as expresse And sure Paul who withstood Peter to his face was equal to him at the least And for any one Bishop to affect over his Brethren a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is a most impudent opposition both to the Letter and Sense of our Saviour's precept Mark 10. 42 43 44. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. But so shall it not be among you but whosoever c. Nay by the Canons of the two first
as shall be shewed And because new opinions arising do naturally cause debates and contentions from what causes soever they flow and contentions are apt to generate Schisms since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where if any particular Church were Independent of the whole there could be no remedy against Divisions hence it is that the Holy Fathers do assert the necessity of a Supream Authority and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to determine or at least silence Disputes about opinions 2. In those which are called majores causae as wrongful Depositions of Bishops c. either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd and punish the wrong-doers 3. To take care that Discipline establish'd by received canons be every where observ'd 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils and thereupon to summon all Bishops and as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet 4. These things thus premised now follow the Proofs demonstrating that before Boniface the thirds time suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Predecessors and submitted to generally in the Church I must not write a Volume therefore I will select a few examples in all Ages which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations and when he shall require it many many more shall be added 5. To proceed therefore ascendendo St. Gregory the Great Predecessor of Boniface the third though he would not admit an Vniversal Episcopacy yet at the same time he challenged and exercised an Vniversal Superintendency Hence saies he t is notorious that the See Apostolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all Churches And again more fully The care of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was committed to him and yet he is not called the Vniversal Apostle Again writing to the Bishop of Syracusa If any fault be found in any Bishops I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apostolic But when no fault exacts it we are all in regard of humility equal And this subjection saies he elsewhere both our most Religious Lord the Emperor and our Brother John Bishop of the same City do frequently protest And in an Epistle to Natalis Bishop of Salona If saith he any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople against a Priest of Chalcedon where he saies Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue John of Constantinople he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostolic and that the cause was determined by our Sentence A world of like examples more may be added And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpation 6. In the next place the immediate Predecessor of St. Gregory Pope Pelagius the Second in the very same Epistle in which he condemns the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop assumed by Iohn of Constantinople hath this passage writing to the Eastern Bishops The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority Therefore whatever you have decreed in your foresaid Conventicle by the Authority of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Speech of our Saviour who gave to Blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing I do command all things determined by you to be void and repealed c. Again his not immediate Predecessor Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction upon this occasion Pope Felix the second who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria unjustly dispossess'd by Peter an Eutichian whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated Moreover upon the complaints of the same Iohn he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear And upon his contumacy excommunicated him likewise in this Form Take notice saies he that thou art deprived of Sacerdotal honor and Catholic Communion and moreover that thou art segregated from the number of the Faithful having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authoriâ—y Yet this Sentence not having been as the former was denounced in a Synod some Eastern Bishops found fault with it Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dardania he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod as Sabellius c. there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers And that this was the case of Acacius who communicated with Peter and Timotheus Bishops of Alexandria Eutychians which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon In consequence whereto he adds these Words Neither do we omit to signifie which the whole Church all the world over knows very well that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sentences of any Bishops whatsoever as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order and not Supremacy of Iurisdiction 7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great who began his Seat in the year 440. and in whose time the General Council of Chalcedon was assembled How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction most of his Epistles witnesse and almost all Protestant Controverâ—ists complain He in his 53d Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus and the 55th to the Empresse Pulcheria vindicates the Derivation of his Authority not from the Imperial City but St. Peter Prince of the Apostles 8. Therefore whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon decreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities If he had had a mind to dealingenuously he would have cal'd it an
infamous Canon surreptitiously made saith Liberatus after the departure of the Iudges the Senate and of the Legats of the See Apostolic and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats and the Sentence of Pope Leo without whose consent according to the antient traditionary Law nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church A Canon this was so despised during that whole Age and more that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council but it was not inserted among the other Canons for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus and by the Testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian the Council of Chalcedoâ— publisht only twenty seven Canons whereas now this is reckoned the 28th Lastly A Canon this was that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople by whose brigâ—ing with some Bishops and violence to others it was compiled was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it as appears by St. Leo's answer to him And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms That the See Apostolic never consented to it the Emperor never imposed it Anatolius never made use of it and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic And therefore what the same See confirm'd remained in force and that which it receiv'd not could not have any firmnesse 9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy in citing that Canon For whereas it was thus conceived Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal priviledges As if excepting only the sitting in the second Chair he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See Apostolick A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops And indeed de facto after the fourth Council of Chalcedon the new Patriark by vertue of the exotic power given him presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council An attempt repressed by Pope Leo. And no doubt when afterward the usurped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop they would not fear to give the same Title of Oecumenical to their Councils too 10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Margin of the Sermon whereby the Eastern Patriarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs beyond the limits of their Provinces what is this to the Bishop of Rome He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an universal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was â—rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon and he will see more before it CHAP. VII The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian Decrees of Pope's had antiently the force of Lawes Yet with restriction The Pope's Supream Iurisdiction confirmd by Examples in the Eastern Church Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardica where were present British Bishops Of the first Council at Arles where British Bishops likewise were present The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice explain'd 1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third who began his Reign A. D. 424. directed to the Bishops of France importing that Whatever had been and should be establish'd by the See Apostolick should have the force of a Law to them and all others And this the Emperor saies is Secundum veterem consuetudinem Moreover to shew the grounds of that Law he further saieâ— That the Supremacy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of Episcopal Society and by the dignity of the City and by the sacred Authority of a Synod 2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a publick Testimony and how Christian Catholick Emperors never made Lawes touching Ecclesiastical matters but by the advice of Bishops and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Discipline and by no means for introducing of new ones we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pretention That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order and not Iurisdiction 3. Though this Law seems too excessively large commanding That whatever had been or should be c. Pope Leo who lived in the same Age limits the true sense of it when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent and all other his Predecessors should be observed namely such as are publish't touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons Or as Pope Hilarius expresses it What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all Gods Priests the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions 4. Examples of such publick Decrees of unquestion'd Authority even in the judgement of the most learned Protestants we finde made by Pope Zosimus Pope Innocent the First and Pope Siricius who governed the Church between the yeares 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by antecedent Popes they do except against them and perhaps not without ground He will not expect I should transcribe those authentick Decrees to weary both him and my self unnecessarily He knows very well where to find them I will only adde that such Decrees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain France c. Hence it is that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops say For what is to be observed by us in such Cases Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolick See and not follow our own but our common Fathers Instruction And the Council of Tours says What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolick Notwithstanding it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and examin such Decrees for if they were made upon misinformation even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended And much more if against the ancient Canons for saith Pope Zosimus ap Gratian. 25. q. 1. Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contrary to the Statute of the Fathers 5. As for the more Primitive times preceding these I will content my self with a few examples but such and of so great weight that if the Preacher will be ingenuous they will even content him In the recounting of them it will not be necessary I should observe exactly the Order of times in each of them And the first shall be a passage of
their Epistle To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto In which regard St. Martin Pope and Martyr makes this the Popes most proper Title that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum 14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon Adelphius Bishop of Maldon called then Colonia Londinensium with Sacerdos a Priest and Arminius a Deacon And the Canons of this Council were by Restitutus brought into Britany saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown nor un-acknowledged by the Britains long before St. Augustines days 15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th Canon of the first Nicene Council by which he says Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his This is now to be examin'd The words of the Canon are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church 16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriark of Alexandria presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God which I have shewed already and shall demonstrate the same yet further even in the times preceding this Council is extended to the whole world and was exercised over the Patriarcs themselves But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods correcting manners and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon Similiter autem apud caeteâ—as provincias In like manner in the rest of the Provinces that is those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided Honor suus unicuique servetur Let every one's Honor be preserved to him compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council shew clearly enough that not only Patriarkical authority but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes that those who object it against the Popes Primacy though they fortifie themselves even with Ruâ—â—inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis 17. But though I mention this Version of Ruffinus because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers and I expect Doctor Pierâ—e in his Reply will have recourse to it yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation or rather corruption of the Canon His words are Vt apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Egypti vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudiâ—em gerat Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it especially to the Doctor who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasmus and Scalager have observed of the Interpreter that it is his custom to omit pervert and change the Text as he pleases and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice sending withal a Confession of their Faith upon the approbation whereof and of the legality of their Election and Ordination He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them of which many examples may be produced Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome Nay it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire which besides Italy France Spain Germany Britany the six Maritime Provinces of Africa c. contained Illyricum Macedon Epyrus Greece and the Islands near it And all this by the confessions of Adversaries Zonaras Balsamon c. writing on this very Canon Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or chief of the Western Regious And St. Augustin says that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church And St. Hierom Let them says he condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest as an Heretic with Egypt that is with Damasus and Peter And Iustinian the Emperor affirms that all the Regions of the VVorld are subject to the five Patriarcs that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to VVestern Rome Constantinople Alexandria Thepolis or Antioch and Ierusalem Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest to what Patriarc was France Spain Africa c subject If not to Rome how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Popes Supreme Iurisdiction before the first Council of Nice How all Apostles and all Bishops equal and how Subordinate St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter The Popes Supremacy
not dangerous to States On the contrary c. Protestants writing in favour of it 1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary Yet they may be continued till we come even to the Presbyterians Independants and Quakers Beginning too that is the Gospels themselves To demonstrate this we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constantin whilst it was a mere suffering Church incapable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils But withal a Church lesse dispersed and torn by Heresies or contentions among Bishops and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms Supreme Authority 2. In these holy peaceable times therâ—ore before Silvester I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledgement of such a Primacy And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk whose words are Qualis ipsius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia c. Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced in judgeing the cause of Donatus by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues the Catholic Bishops in Africa in whom no crime could be proved And having censured most deeply Donatus alone whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those subdivided Scismatics that were ordained by Majorinus a Donatist Bishop in so much as his Sentence was that in whatsoever Cities of Africk there were two Bishops dissenters a Catholic and a Donatist he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick who was first ordained c. and that another Diocese should be provided which the other should govern O Son of Christian peace and truly Father of the Christian flock says St. Augustin 3. I will add to this three other examples in which though as to the use and administration of the Superintendency som Objections have been made yet they suffice to confirm the acknowledgement of such a Superintendency in the Pope as the Preacher denies The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyrdom concerning whom we read in Eusebius that he either inflicted or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization after Baptism received by Heretics And in the same quarrel between the same Pope Stephaâ—â—s and St. Cyprian himself matters were almost brought to the like extremity yet neither did St. Cyprian though wonderfully sharp nor even that violent Cappadocian Bishop Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority though as they thought unjustly employed 4. The other is extant in the same St. Cyprian who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles siding with Novatian His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province and to the people of Arlâ—s commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated and another put in his place And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope 5. The third is that so well known example of Pope Victor concerning whom Eusebius thus writes Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia as declining into Heresie and sends Letters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharply reproved as one that was carelesse of the commodity of the whole Church Particularly Ireneus reprehends him telling him that he did very ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches Now in such reproofs from Ireneus and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quartâ— decimani against St. Victor it was not impuâ—ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was â—ot sufficiently weighty 6. Having proceeded thus far our last step shall be to the utmost degree the very beginning it self our Lord and St. Peter in the Gospels And here we will acknowledge what the Dâ—ctor saies that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone sustaining the person of the whole Church was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles that as St. Cyprian saies the same that St. Peter was the rest of the Apostles likewise were pari consortio praediti c. endowed with an equal participation of honor and power And as St. Hierom affirms that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium Canterbury or Rochester are of the very same merit c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to interpret it self and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves We grant therefore that all the Apostles and all Bishops their Successors enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either But for the external administration there may be and alwaies was acknowledged a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both among the Apostles and Bishops Let him not find fault with this distinction for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition affirms that Archbishops quoad Ministerium do not differ from other Pastors but touching Government page 303. And afterward page 386. Answering the same Argument out of St. Hierom who equals the meanest Bishop with the Pope he saies that they are equal quoad Ministerium but not quoad polittam 7. Let him take therefore an example illustrating this at home What Function what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Canterbury exercise I mean according to their Tenets which the meanest of his subordinate Bishops cannot perform He can ordain Bishops and Priests So can they the former with him the other without him He can visit his Prâ—vince they their Diâ—cesse He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation So can they He can assemble a Provincial Council They a Diocesan He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops c. They over Priests He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself they can do as much Yet nothing of all this excludes him from
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
put his trust in it as expecting any good from it as if he knew not what Divinitie Vertue or Sanctitie was in that carved piece of wood Notwithstanding because he had heard that such a scandalous imputation was by some misperswaded persons laid on the Church he would then and there undeceive them Thereupon he spit upon the Crucifix threw it scornfully to the ground and trampled it under his feet 14. You see Mr. Bagshaw what kind of Idolaters the Papists are Against this Idolatry let us see what expresse Scripture you can produce This is the great crime for which there can be no expiation but oppressions Imprisonments and Gallowses Now if what hath been here said give you no satisfaction in case you have a mind to reply do not practise your old way of snatching a phrase or expression out of a single Author a School-man or Controvertist making the whole Church answerable for one mans indiscretion But search what the Church her self has declared in the Council of Trent Imagines Christi c. in Templis praesertim retinendae c. Images of Christ c. ought to be reteined in Churches especially and due honor and veneration exhibited to them not that there is believed any Divinity or Vertue in them for which they ought to be worshipped or that they are to be petitioned for any thing or any confidence to be repos'd in them but because the honor exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes they represent Dispute against this as well as you can and be assured you shall either be answered or told you are unconquerable CHAP. XV. The Roman Churches Prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the Unlearned The miseries of this Kingdom justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence Of Prayers not in a Vulgar Tongue The Causes and Grounds thereof That practise not contrary to St. Paul I. DOctor Pierce his next which is a double Novelty regards not any Doctrines but only a Point of Discipline in the Church which is The with-holding Scripture from the Vulgar and practising public Devotions in an unknown Tongue Concerning the former he saies The Scriptures were written in Hebrew the mother-tongue of the Iew and in Greek a Tongue most known to Eastern Nations And afterwards were translated into the Dalmatick by St. Hierom into the Gothick by Vulphilas into the Arminian by Chrysostom c. and the Vulgar Latin was anciently the Vulgar Language of the Italians c. 2. Truly the Doctor has if it be well consider'd made choice of a very proper season to renew a quarrel against the Roman Church upon this Point and to endeavour the engaging his Majesty in it as if the calamities already hapned both to the Royal Family and the whole Nation were either too little or not to be imputed chiefly to that Error He and all Christendom has seen the blessed effects that this prostituting Scripture to the passions and lusts of the rude and common people of all Conditions Ages and Sexes has wrought the last twenty years in this Kingdom What was it but Scripture as it was used and of which ill use themselves were the first causes and hereafter will never be able to prevent that justified Discontents against the Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical that put Swords and Guns into the hands of Subjects against their Kings and all that were faithful to them that dissolved the entire frame of the Kingdom that encourag'd men to Plunder and all manner of Rapines that Arraign'd and Murther'd our last most Excellent KING that endanger'd his now living Son our most gracious Kings life and forced him into a long necessitous banishment that has revived and given strength to old and new Monsters of Heresies to the astonishment of Man-kind some of which are no where else to be seen and the rest in no where place so venomous as in England Let but the Doctor remember how much mischief the perverse interpretation of this one Text which none but the ignorant could mistake produc't in this Nation Having a form of godlinesse but denying the power thereof How did this ring in their ears and stir them up to reject and hate all set-forms of Prayer How with this Text alone often repeated and industriously enlarged and zealously apply'd by the holy Lecturers were their very hearts set on fire to burn the grand Idol of the Common Prayer Book And yet after all this the Doctor makes or renews quarrels with the Roman Catholic Church because she is unwilling by imitating them to give a birth from her bowels to such mischiefs as these 3. Yet cannot be deny'd that Doctor Pierce was subtile for having a design in recompence of the service Roman Catholicks have done them to expose them to the common rage of all these Monsters he could not make choice of a subject more proper for his purpose than this in which alone they were all interessed not for the good they reap by Scripture but because without it they would not have the advantage to do half so much mischief 4. Yet must he not think he can so blind mens eyes but they know well enough that English Protestants are in their very Souls grieved That 't is now too late for them to eâ—deavor how they may imitate both the Prudence and Charity of Catholic Churches in the dispensing of Scripture Our Pastors do not as he wrongfully seems to charge them forbid the Translation of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues since there is scarce any Nation but hath it There are Catholic Translations of the Scripture into English French Dutch Italian Spanish c. for the use of those of the Laity who are by their Spiritual Guides judged such as that they may reap benefit and no harm by the reading thereof And what more doth the Preacher shew in the practise of the ancient times in saying that the Holy Scriptures were then translated into the Dalmatick Tongue by St. Hierom then I shew in justification also of the later times which he would here condemn in saying as truly that the Holy Scriptures are also found translated long ago in Wicliffs the Reformers time by the allowance and Authority of the Catholic Church of which thus Dr. Fâ—lk That the Scriptures were extant in English both before and after Wicliffs time and not of his Translation beside your conjecture out of Liâ—dâ—ood it is manifestly proved by so many ancient â—riters Copies of the English Bible differing in â—â—anslation yet to be shewed of which Wicleffs Translation could be but one Or in saying That the same Holy Scriptures have been Translated also of late since Luthers a second Reformer's time with the allowance of the same Church Catholic by the industry of the Rhemish Divines But Catholic Governors knowing how impossible it is for ignorant Persons to understand it and for passionate minds to make good use of it esteem it more conduceing to their edification and the common peace that such
matter stands in this Point with the Roman Catholic Church 9. We Roman Catholics I. do willingly acknowledge that in the Primitive times the Public Service of God was generally speaking perform'd in a Tongue better understood than now it is yet not then for many places and Countries in their vulgar or native or best understood tongue For it is evident by St. Augustin that in Afric it was in the Latin tongue not in the Punic which yet was the only Tongue the Vulgar understood So the Liturgy of St. Basil was used in the Greek Tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches And yet it appears as well out of later History as out of the Acts 2. 8 9 10. c. 14. v. 11. That Greek was not in those antient times the vulgar tongue of many of those Eastern Countrys no more than Latin was of the Western 2. We professe it was not nor yet is the intention of the Church that the Public Devotions should therefore be in Latin because it is not vulgarly understood but this has hapned as it were by accident besides her intention and onely because the Latin Tongue in which it was first written by revolution of times and mixture of Barbarous Nations in Europe has been corrupted and ceased to be a so commonly understood Language by unlearned people for indeed probably it was never so well understood as that other native Language which they used before it or with it 10. Matters standing thus yet the Church does not think fit to change with the times but continues Gods publick Service as it was at first And this we may conceive she does 1. Because no example can be found in antiently-established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods public Service entirely The Greeks now use the Antient Masse of St. Chrysostom written in pure Greek as much differing from the Vulgar as Latin from the Italian Spanish c. The like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. among whom the Mass is celebrated in the oâ—d Language far from being vulgarly understood Yea the Iews continue their Devotions to this day in the Hebrew understood by few among them 2. Because though the Latin be not now in any place a vulgar Language yet there is no Language so universally understood in Europe as that And a great fitnesse there is that the most Public Service should be in the most public Language in which all Nations may joyn every where And by those who most frequently recite the Divine Service in the Catholic Church viz. the Clergy and other Religious for whose proper use a great part of this Service was composed the Latin Tongue is well understood 3. Because the Latin â—ongue now that it is not vulgar being thereby becom unchangeable the Churches Doctrins contain'd in her Litâ—rgies are so much the more freed from the danger of being innovated Whereas vulgar Languages almost in every age become un-intelligible or at least sound very unpleasing in mens ears as we now see in King Edward the sixth's Common-prayer-book would it not seem an odd translation now to read that Saint Philip baptiz'd the Gelding and Paul the Knave of Iesus Christ yet this was once the English Scripture Nay more within this twenty years we find many words and phrases have quite changed their former sense So that all Nations must be ever and anon altering their Liturgies to the great danger of changing the Churches belief And which is not altogether inconsiderable for the present good husbandry of the world to the infinite expenâ—es of moneys in printing c. 11. I doubt not but he will reply that not any one or all these commodities can answer and satisfie for an express and as he calls it a scandalous opposition to the plain sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. I grant it All these commodities are to be despised rather than so to oppose the Apostles Doctrin But what is his Doctrin For I evidently perceive the Doctor has not well search'd into it much lesse rightly apply'd it The Apostle says If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays but my understanding receives no benefit c. And how can an unlearned Person say Amen to such Prayers In which passage seems involved a tacite prohibition at least of publick Prayers in an unknown tongue All this is granted but yet with this exception mention'd by the Apostle himself unless either he that prays or some other interpret Therefore before he took on him to charge the Catholic Church with a scandalous opposition to this passage of Scripture he ought to have examin'd better her doctrin and practise otherwise he himself will be found guilty of a Scandalous opposition to God's Church Now for a tryal of the Churches sence let him observe the Ordinance of the Council of Trent touching this very Point the words are these Though the Mass contain instruction for Gods faithful people yet it seem'd not expedient unto the Fathers that it should be celebrated every where in the vulgar tongue wherefore retaining in all places the Churches antient Rite approved by the holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches lest Christ's Sheep should hunger and Children asking bread none should be found to break it to them the Holy Synod commands all Pastours and all that have care of Souls that during the celebration of Mass they should frequently either by themselves or others expound some part of those things which are read in it and among other things let them explain the mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice especially on Sundays and Feasts The Preacher here may see that the Church does not make such a secret even of the most sublime Mysteries of her Office as the Court believ'd upon his report 12. Likewise between this speaking in an unknown tongue mention'd by St. Paul and the Churches publick Latin Service there is this great disparity that this later is always a known Language to several of those present if not to all and there are alwayes those who understandingly say Amen And again being a known set-form in one set-language recurring continually the same according to the Feast those who are ignorant of it at first need not continue so but by due attention and other diligence may arive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof they having also in their Manuals Primers Psalters c. ready translated both the Psalms Hymns and Prayers c. and there being several Books both in English and all vulgar languages that expound the Church-service even to the meanest capacity Neither is the Latin tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar tongues and of the constant use hereof a language unknown to such a degree in Catholick Conntries as our English Nation imagin it and therefore is so much scandalized Neither is there the same motive for some dispensation of a change in those places as perhaps would be in a Country less
would make petitions to these Saints to exercise their Rhetorick and yet without any cautioning their hearers that they did it in such a manner which if done seriously would have been an injury to God to Christ our Redeemer yeâ— Idolatry c. And lastly since the Doctor may find Vossius and Forbes for some of them at least condemning this evasion 11. To these Testimonies I may adjoyn the expresse confessions of Protestants That Invocation of Saints was commonly in use in the Greek Church long before the 3 d. and 4 th General Councils For which besides the confession of Chemnitius Vossius also is clear whose words are About the year of Christ 370. those to whom the care of instructing the people was committed did by their practise lead them to invocate the Saints departed And indeed in the Greek Church the first or at least very near the first of those which gave such Examples were Basil Nyssen Nazianzen And in the West at the same time Ambrose of Millain a diligent Reader and Imitater of the Greeks followed the same custom Now since Dr. Pierce professes so ready a submission to the Judgment of the four first General Councils and must grant that several of these Fathers whom Vossius acknowledges to have been Patrons of Invocation and to have used it even in the publick Assemblies for which they were never censured did precede many years two of these General Councils I would gladly know if such a Question had been made before the third or fourth Council concerning Invocation of Saints as was before that of Trent Whether he can perswade himself that those Fathers would not have justified such Invocation for lawful in those Councils which they practised as lawful out of and before them and would not have produced at least as high a stating of that Point as the Council of Trent did And indeed a particular knowledg and agency of Saints deceased in in human affairs seems to be acknowledged in the fourth General Council and Invocation in the third Person Whose words are Let Flavian be had in everlasting memory Behold Vengeance i. e. on his murderers Behold the Truth Flavian lives after death Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us 12. It remains in the last place that an Answer be given to the only Aâ—gument out of Antiquitie produced by the Doctor against this Doctrine and to prove it's Noveltie For saies he St. Augustin denies invocation of Saints to have been in his daies And his only proof that he does so is from those words of his The men of God that is Sainâ—s departed are named indeed in their due place and order but they are not invoked by the Priest who Sacrifices 12. To this passage our Answer it 1. That sure the Preacher had forgot he was to reckon presently after the Sacrifice of the Masse among Novelties introduced after the fourth General Council when he produced this Testimony that expresly proves the contrary Here is a Sacerdos brought in and here he is brought in both praying and Sacrificing and yet saies the Doctor no such thing as any Christian Sacrifice Or if a Sacrifice only a Sacrifice perhaps of praise and thanksgiving But St. Augustin will contradict him who as hath been said calls this indeed a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving in regard of glorified Saints commemorated in it but a Sacrifice propitiatory in regard of the faithful departed with some stains of sins remaining 2. The same thing St. Augustin means here i. e. That Saints are not soveraignly invocated by way of Sacrifice as the Supream Donors and Fountain of all good that descends to mankind is taught by the Catholic Church even where she professes Invocation of Saints in the same sense as St. Augustin allows it that is as of our fellow-members and citizens making efficacious intercessions for us to this Supream Deity to whom we Sacrifice For thus saies the Council of Trent Although the Church be accustomed to celebrate Masses somtimes in the honour and memory of Saints yet she does not teach that the Sacrifice should be offered to them but to God alone who has crown'd them And hence it is that the Priest is never wont to say O Peter O Paul I offer this Sacrifice to thee but to God to whom he gives thanks for their Victories and implores their patronage that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven whole memory we celebrate on earth A part of which Decree is taken out of S. Augustin himself in the same Treatise quoted by the Preacher 3. Dr. Pierce could not possibly have made a worse choice of a place from whence to select a Testimony as he would have us believe denying all Invocation of Saints whenas in the two Chapters of the same Book immediately preceding this many stories are largely recounted to certifie the great good that Christians had found by the intercession of Saints and all this whilst in their Oratories they begg'd their intercession 4 Perhaps he will not yet be content but with Bishop Andrews will urge it is not here said by St. Austin That the Saints are not Sacrificed to but that they are not so much as invocated at the Altar And if it be unlawful to invocate them there it will be as well unlawful any where else Hereto it is answered That all this taken in a right sense is granted For first To this day in the Masse there is no kind of Invocation of Saints yea more according to the Council of Carthage till the Consecration be perfected there are no Prayers directed to the Son of God nor to the Holy Ghost but only to God the Father 2. But this argues not that if the Church had so order'd it it might not have been lawful even at the Altar to have Invocated the Saints by such an inferiour Invocation or Compellation as the Church has determined which is only according to Card. Perron prier pour prier to desire them to pray for us As even in the Masse it self the Priest requests the Assistants saying Orate fraires ut meum ac vestrum Sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum c. To whom the people Answers Suscipiat Dominus Sacrificium de manibus tuis c. 3. But as for the Supream sort of Invocation which St. Austiâ— only intended in this passage and which he calls Culium latriae this is only due to God and without impiety cannot be made to Saints And thus St. Austin writing against Faustus the Manichean fully justifies what he saith in this passage 5. But after all this that St. Austin allows Invocation of Saints in an inferior way do but examin only these places in him c. 4. De curâ pro mortuis a Book which he wrote in Answer to a Quere of Paulinus Whether it doth benefit any one after his death to have his body buried in the Memorial of some Saint When as saith he such consolations of the living are
Hierons Fulgentius the fourth Council of Carthage at which St. Augustin was present c. And it is not contradicted by any one Antient Doctor nor any except antient Hereties Iovian Vigilantius c. And this surely will suffice to demonstrate it no Novelty in God's Church much lesse that it was esteem'd a Doctrin of Devils to forbid Marriage to Persons consecrated to God's service Forbid it I say not the Gnosticks Manichees c. forbad it as an unlawful thing in it's self but only as an impediment and distraction in a spiritual Vocation Now whether Widows are esteem'd by the Preacher to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine service by the Office of Deaconesses then men by Priesthood 't is expected he should declare 3. But for better clearing of this Point touching the prohibition of Mariage to persons in holy Orders c. in charity I must suppose the Doctor will not professe the Heresie of Iovinian who taught that Virginity does not excel Matrimony An Heresie so contrary to reason that as St. Augustin tell us it was presently extinguished and never could attain to the deceiving so much as one Priest This Heresie formally contradicts St. Paul teaching thus There is difference between a wife and a Virgin The Virgin unmarried woman careth for the things of our Lord that shew ay be holy both in body and spirit But she that is maried careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband Which saying of the Apostle certainly at least declares a state of Virginity and continency much more advantagious to promote the service of God and keep the mind fixed on spiritual and heavenly imployments than a Married state encombred with worldly cares and carnal appetites Thus much I doubt not will by the Preacher be granted 4. But now the Question must be whether Eunuchism for the Kingdom of Heaven that is a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all carnal lusts may lawfully be by Priests c. made the matter of a Vow That it is a Council of Perfection is evident from our Saviours speech Qui potest capere capiat But upon supposition that Continency is a special gift of God not bestow'd on all and that it is infinitely difficult for any one certainly to know he has this Gift for these and such like reasons the Roformed Churches in opposition to the Roman Catholic have generally condemned the practice of such Vows at least consider'd as extending it self generally to any whole Order or state of men and especially an Obligation imposed on them to this practice 5. On the other side the Roman Catholic Church though she acknowledges Continence to be a special Gift of God and that there may be some difficulty to attain and preserve it yet esteems not these to be grounds sufficient to relinquish the obligation of Câ—libacy in Priests c. which she submitted to from the Preachchers Beginning that is in the primitive times of the Church at least within the four first General Councils 6. It is granted then that Continency that is an ability to abstain not from all motions of Concupiscence but from putting in execution all motions either by a voluntary morose delectation in them or much more by outward unclean practises of them is a Gift of God a fruit of his Holy Spirit and cannot by natural means be obtained so as to be practised in obedience to him But so are all Christian vertues So is Faith so is Repentance so is Charity all which notwithstanding we vow in our Baptism And why do we vow a practise of those vertues which are pure Gifts of God Because we are assured the same God who commands that Vow will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it in all those that sincerely beg those Gifts of him by earnest Prayers made in Faith and by avoiding all known and possible-to-beavoided impediments to the practise of those vertues 7. But it will be said that great difference is to be made between that Continence which is a Christian vertue necessary to all viz. a Continence from all unlawful Lusts and such a Continence as is now treated of which is an Abstinence from Marriage that is from the lawful Remedies of unlawful Lusts which Abstinence is so far from being necessary to all that it is no more than a Council to those that aspire to perfection which are but few even in the opinion of the roman-Roman-Church This Abstinence certainly is a far more special Gift of God say they and not too easily and commonly to be presumed on 8. All this likewise understood cum grano Salis is acknowledged by us Yet withall Protestants know that even this Abstinence from Marriage or from exercising the lawful Acts in Marriage is a Gift bestowed on very many and in some cases necessary to almost every one For otherwise it would be utterly unlawful for Parents to keep their children unmarried after the time they are capable and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts since it seems they are not sure they have such a Gift it would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellers to make long voyages abroad and leave their Wives at home deprived of the necessary lawful Remedies against Lust and Temptations to which they are exposed All Statutes of Colledges ought to be repealed which forbid Marriage still to all Fellows and heretofore to all Presidents upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence A long Sickness inflicted by God on either of the married Couples would be far more dangerous to their Souls than their Bodies so as if such an Abstinence as is now spoken of were such an extraordinary Gift of Perfection England would have more Saints or more Adulterers c. than she is aware of And here good Doctor I desire you tell me a thing that perhaps you have not thought on yet will easily perceive its meaning assoon as you think on 't What is the reason that the Ministers of England generally marry not till they are above thirty years of age Can they abstain all that while when their passions are stronger and their reason weaker and then after so long a Continency begin to plead 't is impossible for them to hold any longer unlesse they had the gift of Chastity which God bestows not on every one shall I give you my Conjecture I doubt they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice and then assoon as they can maintain a wife they get one is not this meer hypocrisie to talk of Marrying out of tenderness of Conscience to allay their Concupiscence when the danger is almost all past and make no provision to prevent the sins of the unrulyest part of their age Methinks they should either marry earlyer when they may justly suspect their Chastity before they have tryed themselves or live longer Batchellors when they may prudently hope by the grace of God to persevere after so much experience of their
do otherwise is not to observe the Canons but to follow our natural inclinations soon weary of such a burden And â—ow the Doctor may do well to consider what a Novelty he has found out to entertain his Auditors with especially since all the forecited Canons and Practices Which are within the time of the four first Councils were in force in England at the Reformation as England was a Member of the Western Patriarchat and therefore could not without a transgression of all Ecclesiastical Order be repealed by this single National Church much less could this Church without a criminal formal Schism make such a generally received practice a pretence for separation 16. His Allegation out of Clemens of Alexandria that some of the Apostles had wives is granted But did they after their executing their Office of Priesthood lie with them Did they leave any young Apostles behind them As for the Apostolick Canon which forbids Priests c. to cast off their Wives what would he infer from hence Does he think married persons are husbands and wives only in the night That which the Canon intended was that Ecclesiastical persons should not make their office a pretence to cast off the care of providing for their wives or to be divorced from them that is such as â—ere married and had wives before they entred into Orders who afterwards must not refuse cohabitation with them except when they officiate unless with their wives consent in the Eastern Câ—urches That the Priests under the Law were married cannot be denied since Priesthood necessarily descending by generation marriage was thereore necessary But sure he does not think such a carnal umbratick Priesthood is fit to be a Pattern for our Christian Priesthood wholly spiritual and withal Elective Yet he may take notice that even in that Legal Priesthood at the times when they solemnly attended on the Altar they had no Matrimonial Commerce with their wives They came not reeking out of their beds into Gods Sanctuary as may be gathered from 1 Sam. 2. 4. and the prohibition in Exod. 19. 15 22. Be ready the third day and cannot at your wives On which place St. Ambrose discourses thus Filios susceperunt id tanquam usu veteri defendunt There are Priests and Deacons in some secret places that defend their use of marriage by the Practice of old when the duty of sacrificing had its interval of dayes And yet then even the people were sanctified by abstaining from their wives two or three dayes before and washâ—d their garments that they might approach puâ—â— unto the Sacrifice Si tanta in figura observantiâ— quanta in veritate If the observation of châ—stity were so strict in the figure what ought iâ— to be in the truth Disce sacerdos atque Leviâ— quid sit lavare vestimenta tua â—t mundâ—m corpus 〈◊〉 lebr and is exhibeas Sacramentis 17. To conclude Celibacy to the Clergy being only injoyn'd by an Ecclesiastical Law as being a thing at the least no way repugnant to the Divine Law nay much recommended therein it is certainly lawful enough though from the beginning it had been otherwise For the Church hath liberty of making Laws concerning such things from time to time as she sees fit and her subjects are obliged to obey them CHAP. XVIII Of Divorce The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Preacher 1. THe Doctors last Novelty is the Church of Romes allowing Liberty of Divorce betwixt man and wife for many more causes then the cause of fornication contrary sayes he to the Will of our blessed Saviour revealed to us without a Parablâ— as if they meant nothing more then the opening a way to rebel against him A heavy charge But for the Legality of it he alledges in the Margin an express Canon of the Council of Trent which whether he reads à toto or à toro says nothing at all to his purpose proper Divorce being therein not so much as thought of And he himself saw and proved it made nothing to his purpose yet serv'd his turn because Chemnitius a malicious Lutheran said falsely and ridiculously That the Papal separation from Bed and Board 〈◊〉 in many ways a dissolution of the Conjugal Tie He would â—ain have Maldonate thought to speak on his side too but it is apparently otherwise 2. Truly this is a Quarrel so properly al' Alamand that one would think the Doctor took only an occasion thereby to let the Court see his critical diligence in observing the false and true Impressions of the Canons of the Council of Trent in some of which he has read â— toto which makes no sence and in others a toâ—o which only could be the Councils â—xpression But we hope an undiligent Prinâ—ter who for all that may be good Roman Catholic shall not make the Roman Church it self causally Schismatical and thereby excuse the Preachers separation 3. It is pitty to lose time about such a trifle which I think never before this Sermon was by any English Protestant reckon'd among the pretended Criminal Novelties of the Roman Church Yet I may be mistaken for there are a world of Sermons and Treatisâ—â— like his in intrinsic value which never had the fortune to be made so current Howe're left he should be angry if so materlal a part of his Sermon be neglected a little pains shall not break squares between us 4. He may therefore take notice that in the businesse of Marriage there are among Catholic Writers distinguish'd four sorts of Separations 1. A Iewish Divorce which in Latin we seldom call Divortium but Repudium 2. A Christian Divorce properly so called 3. A Separation a toro 4. A Separation both a toro cohabitatiore 5. Touching the first if we have regard to the direct intention of God and his Servant Moses it was no other nor ought to have been put in practice upon other grounds then the Christian Divorce allow'd by our Saviour that is for Fornication only But by the permission in the Old Law there might follow that Divorce a second Mariage by either of the parties whether innocent or guilty Yet not upon every cause aâ— the Iews practisâ—d it but besides Adultery only propter turpitudinem for some notorious uncleannesse extreamly distastful Now notwithstanding such permission which was meerly for the hardness of Iewish hearts their Divorce â—or any other cause and especially their second Marriage after it was not excused from sin but only from a legal punishment And the principal motive was left worse effects as poysoning or any other way of murdering c. should be practised by the discontented party in case a total separation might not be permitted This Supremest Degree of Jewish Separation or Repudium does not intirely dissolve the Matrimonial Contract which being consummate of its own nature iâ— indissoluble for the parties being by Matrimony become One flesh and one Principle of a new stock cannot by any following act or
the Church is a General Council The same holy Father treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Cyprian and after by the Donatists says That for that Doctrine which was truly Traditionary the Donatists were Hereticks but St. Cyprian not Why Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate and without breaking Communion to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils Till in a General Council the true Orthodox Doctrâ—ne were without all further doubts confirmed Which Authority says he St. Cyprian if it had been declared in his time would without any doubt at all have believed 9. In the next place as touching Decisions of Controversies about not expressly Traditionary Doctrines but clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines it is absolutely necessary oft-times for the Church to make such Decisions for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given to maintain freely any thing that does not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or in Tradition Thus many of the Articles of the Nicen Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions which Articles in the Terms wherein they were there conceived were not absolutely necessary to be believed before the arising of Heresies forced the Church further to explain the Faith And hence it is that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith in many Doctrines otherwise not necessary to be so generally known must and will encrease to the worlds end in case New Heresies arise 10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide or objects of our Faith For though it be most certain that the Church neither hath nor pretends to have any New Revelations of Christian verities but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles is still the Faith of the Church and no more There are no Additions made no new Articles invented Notwithstanding the same Articles by occasion of Heresies arising may in succeeding times be further explained and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered In like manner some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the Church when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks are often explicitely declared in Councils to be Traditions by which Declaration there is no new thing taught but that which was formerly involved is more clearly manifested and that which was taught by practice is declared by words and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians becomes extended to all Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. have been in later Councils made Articles not de novo as the Doctor misapprehends but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed and so are all other new decisions of later Councils Points of ancient Faith either in themselves explicitely or in their necessary principles implicitely And if after such decisions of Councils there ariseth a new obligation that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error and that in a matter of Divine Revelation Such Points were alwayes matter of faith if we would believe in those particulars what was Divine Truth though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement to which judgement we could have no obligation before she declared it Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians in relation to Her of believing it else to what end does the state it Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters without the guilt of disobeying the Church but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now which perhaps we did not formerly and that in a time when we are in more danger from Seducers of falling into the contrary Error And now behold these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith this is her chief accusation and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality which was not found in their former Creed as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council and by the Eutychians against the fourth And therefore why may not the Council of Trent for its defence return the same answer to the Preacher as the fourth General Council which he professeth to allow did to the Eutychians A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient say they for the benefit of sincere Believers But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine 't is necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach and to provide fit remedies to their objections For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the Nicene Faith and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation it were meet for the posterity of the Church to excogitate in their Councils no new additions But because there are many that decline from this right line through the crooked paths of error we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church Not as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness as though the former faith were defective but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them Thus that Council whose words clearly demonstrate that Councils may define not only traditionals in matters of Faith but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them And here let the equal Reader judge whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles or the Council of his and his Predecessors new Errors Out of which evil yet the wisdom of God in the several ages brings this good as Evagrius â— accutely observes to the Pagans scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished and more entirely compiled and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed by the springing up of several Heresies in those days had enlarged the Apostolick 11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils we Roman Catholicks do esteem
our selves obliged to the assent unto which is far more then not to contradict And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church derived from the promises of Christ whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresie and an open contradiction to which Authority is formal Schism 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils And hereto we must add that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarks who live under the Tyranny of the Turk and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities as the four first were wherein all the five Patriarks were present at least by their Deputies Yet notwithstanding all this we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity Since therefore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected as was during the times of the Roman Empire the Supremest that can now be had ought to have the force and vertue of obliging which the former ones had the Anathemas of it must be as valid the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismatical as of any Council that ever went before Therefore Doctor Bramhal Lord Primate of Armagh in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church that is to a free General Council most rationally adds this clause or to so General as can be procured 13. Thus of General Councils As for inferior subordinate Councils though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable yet an obligation in both these respects they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to except they be evidently erroneous or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod And all by an Oecumenical of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to For if a Provincial Synod could annul 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 profess in our Creed Vnam Catholicam Add to this that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide so that the fewer however they may be esteem'd the better or more learned must submit to them These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated 14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Vnity is the only true unering Touch-stone by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better let it be produced but that being impossible he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church and all other Congregations that call themselves Reformed But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical Independent or Fanatick Congregations because they renounce both all such Laws and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them Therefore leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them I will consider the Controversie as the Preacher stated it between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches I say as he hath stated it because being to treat of Schism he hath given the right notion of it and not mispent time and paper as some others have done with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation c. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion unless men also have with the Presbyterians c. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church CHAP. XXI The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd Dr. Feild c. Of Points Fundamental and Non-fundamental Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sanedrim Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that by which they were Enacted is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose but written in the hearts of all mankind that consider what Government is and it is as to Church-matters particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine when he declares the Order that is in the Church and which alone can keep it in unity Particular Writings of Bishops saies he if any Error be in them may be corrected by others more learned or by Synods and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils and oftimes former Plenary Councils may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils 2. This most Irrefragable Rule is that by which Schism may most certainly and undeniably be discovered And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants I mean the wisest and most learned among them yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation they put such restrictions exceptions to it as utterly take away all use of it For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supream Authority of the Church to reside in plenary or general Councils because he withal implies that such Councils may be corrected they therefore take the liberty to reject them at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance and by that means altogether inervate their Authority Not considering that in case the Decisions which he saies may be mended should regard matters of belief which perhaps upon better consideration may be expressed more commodiously and so as that they may be less liable to misconstruction yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority To demonstrate this I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants such as Doctor Field the late Arch-Bishop Lawd c. acknowledg in general Councils and withal how they circumscribe the same Authority 3.
visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of same observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate And sect 56. What do you conclude saith he from â—ence but that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted where note that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners but also in Doctrines and Lawes for from several of these he will not deny Luther to have made a discession Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church Well let this be granted what will come of it That Luther must be a Scismatick By no means I say it is evident as these confess that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves from the whole world that is from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age Since not one Church upon earth antecedent to their separation can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion not one which has Laws or Governors in common with them not one that will joyn with them or with which they will joyn in publick Offices Lyturgies Sacrifices and Synods The English Church doth not pretend a Communion with Churches manifestly Heretical as the Armenian Coptite Abissine Nestorian Iacobite Georgian Churches c. And for the Grecian the Reformers at their first separation were actually divided from her and sure they will not say that by separation from the Roman they became ipso facto in communion with the Grecian or if they would say so the Grecian would protest against them as we see their Patriark Hieremias did c. 17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve which a late learned Protestant Writer in his discourse of Schism insists upon when seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus which was a Church independent of all other and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch For though this pretention could be made good which is impossible yet this would not serve their turn considering the English Church ever since her Conversion acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate But though she had indeed such a priviledge and never renounced it who will say the Cyprian Church because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction as Ordinations Visitations c. could therefore independently of all the world frame or change Articles of Faith or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Councils though onely Patriarckical CHAP. XXII The limitations of the Churches Authority made by Arch-Bishop Lawd c. examined Objections against the Proceedings in the Council of Trent answered Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation Secular and Carnal ends in it 1. HAving shew'd the indispensible obligation of even an internal assent that Roman Catholicks acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils as being infallible and which Protestants ought also to perform though they acknowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental since the Church her self hath not declar'd which of her Decisions are Fundamental and which not for she hath affixed Anathemas to many which in themselves are not Fundamental and hath said only si quis dixerit not si quis non crediderit concerning Doctrines which are unquestionably Fundamental and necessary We will now examine the foremention'd Limitations or cases in which it is said particular persons or Churches may and ought to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental or even for not contradicting them which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd Doctor Field c. 2. In the first place An assent even internal say they is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines only as are Fundamental or Points of necessary Faith because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends But who shall or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with respect to all particular states of men or Churches when the Church her self hath not made any distinction between them and perhaps cannot Surely Prudence and a most necessary care of our own Salvation by continuing in the Unity of the Church would dictate to us that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible and therefore cannot mislead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her Decisions as if they were of necessary Faith for only by doing so we can be sure not to err in necessary Points and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism 3. Secondly As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary if we could find them out the same internal assent say they is due except in two cases i. Vnless Scripture or evident demonstration come against them whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined in which case it is unlawful to assent yea it is permitted rather to contradict and separate But let any Christian mans conscience judge whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which express Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced This licence being admitted who shall be judge whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration be really one or no Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided None can judge of the thoughts of another So that upon these grounds whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred must be believed or however cannot be found fault withall for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church What Presbyterian writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church will doubt to say that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors And if he say so who can demostrate that he does not think so And if he think so he may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and God's Church too by the Archbishop's warrant for he taking notice page 245. that such an Objection will be made resolves it thus That a General Council he means another General Council must decide whether it be a demonstration or not Hence it will follow 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called 2. But if another General Council must decide it why hath not the last General Council which he disobeys decided it Or if this may not oblige him why should the next But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough For
according to the foresaid limitations One may be excused from assenting to Decisions of General Councils about Points not of necessary Faith in case they be gainsaid by men of worth place and esteem So that if any such persons do contradict General Councils whether in or out of the Council He mentions not ignorant men may lawfully join with them and in comparison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth place or esteem What a broad Gate yea how vast a breach have these Doctors with all their learning and prudence made in the walls of God's Church to let in all manner of confusion Can any Protestant now deny Smeâ—â—ymnuus Mr. Prinn the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth place and esteem At least the generality of England once thought them so and themselves challenged those Titles and whilst they were the strongest enjoy'd them To what miserable straits a necessity of justifying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men 4. In the third place according to the same Writers Position all manner of Decisions made by Councils both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines cease to be obligatory in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council out of passion interest want of liberty c. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings Among Catholicks when there are perhaps suspicions of some irregular proceedings yet if the Points decided be embraced by the particular Catholick Churches generally speaking they then have the force of unquestion'd Catholick Doctrines But as for those who are enemies to Councils in which their Doctrines have been condemn'd such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice The Nestorians against that of Ephesus The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon 5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent against the proceedings of which therefore very loud and very unjust clamors were made by Protestants imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to intimidate the Fathers of the Council or to induce them to favour and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authentick Records yet extant will be satisfied 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurr'd thereto the Pope himself forbad it meerly because the French Bishops inconsiderable for their numbers did joyn to oppose it 6. But there is no necessity that Catholicks should trouble themselves with making Apologies for that Council 1. Because all the Doctrines of it opposed by Protestants as Novelties were manifest in the general Writings and Practise of the Western Church long before that Council and most of them in the Eastern 2. Because they are now actually embraced by all Catholick Congregations as Declared Doctrines of the Church in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions they are to be esteem'd infallibly true 3. Because the principal Doctrines censur'd in the Preacher's Sermon had been expresly determin'd by former either General or at least Patriarkical Councils admitted in this Kingdom as Transubstantiation Veneration of Images Prayers not in a vulgar tongue Communion under one Species Celibacy of Priests the universal Iurisdiction of the Pope c. 4. And lastly because in condemning the Protestant Doctrines opposite to them the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found even by Padre Paulo's Relation no favourer of that Council unanimous in their Judgment which the Reader may there see if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points Neither did nor needed the Pope or his adherents to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part And this is in that History of his only pretended to be done in other matters of Contest among Catholicks themselves 7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Consciencious Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings and the disinteressedness of their first Reformers I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations which in all Countreys have been usher'd in with Tumults Rebellions Murders Rapines Dissolution of Monarchies c. but of the English Reformation only which though free from such horrible Crimes yet how legal it was how free from worldly and carnal Interests let their own Historians be Judges 8. And first This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin In Queen Elizabeths time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled I need not mind the Reader here that all her former Bishops save on had deserted her and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy went that way to work in Her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Iewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God And to that end she published her Injunctions Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. All leading unto the Reformation with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan and some other Godly Prelats who were then about Her these were those newly Ordained the former Bishops being ejected by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to Her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus that Doctor the sum of which is That the Queen finding no foundation to build upon because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother had been utterly demolished by her Sister Queen Mary and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy as well as her Bishops except such as the caused to be made de novo to be generally averse from her proceedings was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work her self assisted with some of her New Bishops without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority till having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy she saw she could securely now do Church-work by Church-men 9. But Mr. Fuller is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings which he extracted out of the authentick Synodals 1559. He tells us then That in the beginning of her Reign the
But he discourseth so as if the Christian Prince were herein infallible when yet he supposeth that all his Clergy may be herein deceived As if Queen Elizabeth understood the Scriptures and ancient Tradition aright in these Lawes whilst her Bishops and Convocation erred in both till she had new-moulded them Is not this a strange way to justifie a Church-Reformation For the Kings of Iudah it shall be spoken to by and by and as to what he urgeth concerning the power of Kings it is by no means denied that these have Supremacy proper to them to command obedience from all their Subjects and that as well from a Clergy-man as any other to the Lawes of Christ and his Apostles with the civil Sword and with temporal penalties a Supremacy to which the Church layes no claim But when any doubt or controversie ariseth what or which these Lawes be as there was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign in many points Secular Princes as well as others are Sons of the Church and are to learn this from the Expositions of their Spiritual Fathers the Church-Men I mean that body of them which hath the just and Superior Authority of deciding such controversies And let this suffice to shew the legality of the first proceedings of the Reformation in opposition to the unanimous Votes of the whole Clergy or of those therein who clearly had the decisive power of Ecclesiastical Controversies either concerning the sense of Scriptures or Truth of ancient Tradition 12. Then comparing this Reformation with the Council of Trent in regard of worldly or carnal interests let any indifferent man judge between them Was not the liberty obtained by King Henry the Eighth to bring into his Bed a new handsom Wife instead of his former vertuous Queen a very carnal Interest Was not his invading all the possessions and treasure of Monasteries a great secular Interest was not the dividing the said Lands among the Nobility and Gentry at very easie rates a very great interest In King Edwards daies was not the Protectors seizing on the remainder of Church-spoils a great Interest Was not the freeing of Clergy-men from a necessity of saying daily and almost howerly long Ecclesiaâ—â—ical Offices from lying a lone without bedfellows c. Matters of great both carnal and secular Interests Was not the exempting of all both laity and Ecclesiasticks from the Duty of confessing their sins and submitting themselves to penitential satisfactions from rigorous Fasts out of Conscience and Religion and other austerities a matter of considerable interest to flesh and corrupt nature Can any such interests as these be proved to have been operative in the Council of Trent How far all these interests of the world and flesh had influence on the first godly Reformers we may rationally suspect but God only knows and themselves long before this time feel God is not mocked 13. By what hath been hitherto said appears but even too clearly how that Fundamental Rule of all Government and subordination was utterly neglected in England at the time that the pretended Reformation was contrived and executed Here is a new and thorow moulding of a Church both a Doctrines and Discipline called a Reformation wherein all the Synodical Acts of this Church since Christianity entred among us are as to any obliging power by their Authority reversed wherein all the Decisions of Patriarchical Councils yea of Oecumenical Synods are call'd into examination all their Laws so far as seemed meet reform'd the whole regard that England had to all other Catholick Churches as a Member of the whole is utterly broken by one National Church Nay not so much but by one luxurious King by one Child and by one Woman even when the whole Body of the Clergy protested against it And yet after all this if Doctor Pierce may be believed thus to reform was to write after the Coppy which had been set to the Reformers in his Text by the blessed Reformer of all the World which was so to reform as not to innovate and to accommodate their Religion to what they found in the Beginning In the mean time accusing the Church of Rome as he expresseth it but indeed the whole Catholick Church as he must and as others grant of not only horrible corruptions in point of Practise but hideous errors in matters of Faith too such as trench upon Foundations 14. But the Preacher must not expect his confident asseveration without proof can seduce the judgement of any considering man to believe him against evidence and experience Nothing is more plain then that the Catholick Church by observing the foresaid Fundamental Rule is and will be eternally free from danger either of causal or formal Schism And as plain it is that no Churches can be separate from the Catholick Communion but by transgressing that Rule For if Diocesan Churches and Synods would submit to Provincial and Provincial to National and these to Patriarchical and all to Oecumenical how could Unity be dissolved But on the contrary if subordinate Councils shall take on them to reverse the Acts and Decisions of Superior ones especially of Oecumenical how can Schisms possibly be avoided And with what shew of reason can any particular Churches thus breaking Ecclesiastical Orders charge other Churches with Schisms because they will not break them too CHAP. XXIII An Answer to the Doctor 's Proofs alledged to justifie the lawfulness of the English Separation As 1. From the Independent Authority of our Kings 2. From the Examples of Justinian and other Emperors 3. From the practises of fourteen of our Kings 4. From the Examples of the Kings of Juda. In what sense New Articles of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent 1. IT remains now that I answer the examples produced by the Preacher to justifie their Separation to be no Schism he sayes That by the concessions of the most learned Popish Writers particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church as in the State without leave had from the See of Rome This is willingly granted But do those Writers concede such a purgation as their first Reformers administred to this Kingdom not only without but against the consent of the See of Rome nor only of Rome but of the whole Catholick Church A Purgation from the whole Faith and Discipline in any thing they judged fit to be rectified that by the Authority of Councils and Laws of Princes had been received and in force ever since the Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves Members of the whole Catholick Church On the contrary from the beginning of Christianity he will not be able to produce one example either of States or Princes except profess'd Hereticks such as the Emperors Constantius Valens Zeno c. that ever made any Laws to repeal any Doctrines declared or Disciplines established in the Church The Purgations conceded and executed by Princes
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
how to express the Catholick Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people and prevent Hereticks from abusing them Hence it was St. Athanasius said We meet here not because we wanted a Faith i. e. were incertain what to hold but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth Which Rule if Councils observe I think the Doctor would scarce refuse to obey them and our only difference in this point I hope is he thinks they do not observe this Rule and I think they do CHAP. XXVI The Preacher's boasting Catholicks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their Doctrines Conditions necessary to be Observed by the Doctor in case he Reply Of the Name Protestant 1. THus I have gone through and examin'd except to those who love to be contentious sufficiently all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholick Church I have likewise brought to the Test all the Allegations made by him either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Roman Catholick or at least to perswade us not to call it Schism And it seems to me I have demonstrated him unsuccessful in both Nay more which is a great misery if he would consider it with that seriousness which Eternity deserves I think I have prov'd that the fearful crime of Schism will lye heavie upon his Church though he had shew'd all the Points by him mention'd to be Novelties And having done this I must say with St. Augustin Vtinam verba ista infuderim non effuderim But considering the present temper of this Age I doubt I shall have reason to fear according to the same holy Father's expression lest when I beg them to afford their ears they should make ready their teeth 2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to complain as he doth in his Sermon of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the Four first General Councils Truly this Speech of his seems to me so vain and rash and shameless a boast that I cannot but blush for him when I read it and tremble for him when I see Truth so little consider'd by a Preacher sustaining God's Person as he pretended 3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of shâ—wing that Iota as to which they have left c. If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiquity or that we believe not even since we have seen their Answers that our demonstrations are unanswerable there are extant whole Libraries of our Controvertists sufficient to overwhelm him Particularly before he say so again let him enquire out and consider a Book written by Simon Vogorius Counseller to the French King entituled An Assertion of the Catholick Faith out of the Four first Oecumenical Councils and other received Synods within that time Or even let him review what is quoted against him here concerning one of his own Points Celibacy of the Clergy out of the Four first General and several other as ancient Provincial Councils Before all which Councils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his dayes about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an Iota with him How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive and Antiquity Antique enough to use his words Unless he will shrink up Primitive Antiquity from the 6th Age to the 4th from the 4th to the 3d. where few Writings being extant less of the Churches Doctrines and Customs can be shewn in them Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times as the Presbyterians in the Plea of Antiquity treat the Prelatists For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers when they are straitned with proofs are wont to retire So Bishop Iewel long ago made a bold challenge to be tryed by Antiquity for the first 600 years But after many hot Encounters between the Controvertists and after Antiquity better discover'd to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first A. Bp. Lawd more cautious contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrower to the Fathers of the first 400 years or thereabouts The Protestants saith he offer to be tryed by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years and somewhat further And since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years For the particular Doctrines saith he wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils And again We profess saith he to believe so much and not to be convinced by all the Reasons and Authorities and Proofs from Scriptures or the first Christian Writers those of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils Where by submission to the Four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost not obliging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these Four Councils and sate in them For though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age yet he claims a tryal by the Fathers only to the end of the 3d Age. Again by this submission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only he bars most of the chief Fathers and all those that are more large and Voluminous from bearing any witness against Protestants and leaves scarse half a score Authors of Note now extant and several writing only some short Treatises or Epistles whereby they are content to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity 4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity let us hear two or three bolder spirits that speak plain and freely What sayes Doctor Willet Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of supposed antiquity as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites and the reason is given for Anti-christ began to raign in the Apostles dayes in St. Pauls dayes What says Acontius Some of us are come to that that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers which I would to God they had performed with prosperous success as they hopefully attempted it c. I onely think this
4. From the Example of the Kings of Judah 7 8. In what sense new Articleâ— of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent 10. 11 12 13. CHAP. XXIV page 291. Of Causal and Forâ—al Schism and the vanity of their distinctions 1 2. Considerations for a clear Examination on which side the guilt of Schism lies 3 4. The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 5. CHAP. XXV page 298. The Doctors desire of Reconcilement and the Conditions of it 1 2 3. The necessary Preparations to it 4 5. Of the Court and Church of Rome 6. CHAP. XXVI page 307. The Preachers boasting 1 2 3. Catholiâ—ks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their doctrines 6 7. Conditions necessary to be observed by the Doctor in case he Reply 8 9 10 12 13 14. Of the name Protestant 15 16. FINIS ERRATA PAge 11. line 15. read wllful 〈◊〉 p. 15. 〈…〉 Prov. 16. 7. Sanderson's Hist. pag. 349. out of the Records of the House of Commons 1640. Eccles. 9. Melanct. in 1 Cor. 3. Pet. Mart. 1. devotis p. 477. Id. ib. p. 490. Id. ib. p. 476. Beza Epist. Tâ—eol 1. Fulk in Rejoynd to Bristow page 4. Andre Duditius in Epist. Theol. Beza 1. Ibid. Common-Prayer-book Memento congregationis tuae Domiâ—e quam pâ—ssedisâ—i AB INITIO Stat 1 Eliz. Quest. 1. Quest. 2. Quest. 3. Quest. 4. Epist. Dedicaâ— Serm. pag. 10. Page 16. Page 17. Page 18. Ibid. Page 19. Ibid. Page 20. Page 21. Sess. 25. Concil Floren. Page 17. Mark 10. 45. Hebr. 5. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. A. D. 606. Pelag. 2 Epist. Card. Palav Hist. del Conc. de Trento lib. 19. c. 15 16 c. lib. 20. c. 3. 9 c. lib. 21. c. 4 c. Ius Divinum Ministr Evang. in Appâ—â—d prep 5. A. D. 590. Greg. M. lib. 2. all Indict 11. Ep. 3. Idem lib. 7. jud 2. Epist. 64. Id. lib. 7. jud 2 Epist. 64. Id. l. 2. Indict 2. Ep. 63. Id. l. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 37. Id. l. 5. Indict 14. Ep. 24. A. D. 577. Pelag. 2. Ep. â— A. D. 494. A. D. 484. Felix 2. in Ep. ad Episc. Dard. A. D. 440. A. D. 451. Leo M. in Ep. 53. Idem Ep. 54. Idem Ep. 55. Serm. pag. 19. Liberat in Brev. cap. 13. Socrat. Hist. l. 2. c. 5. Theodor. Anag in Syng Can. Leo. Ep. 55. ad Anat. Gelas P. Tom. de Anathem Vinc. A. D. 381. Conc. Constantinop 1. Can. 3. Serm. pag. 18 Concil Const. 1. Can. 2. Novel Theodos. Tit. 24. A. D. 424. Ibid. Ibid. Leo in Decret T. 5. Hilar. P. in Ep. â—d Ep. Provinc Vien A. D. 385. to 418. Zosim in Decret c. 1. 2 Innocent in Decret c. 21. tit 45 46 47. Conc. Tolet. 4. Conc. Turon 11. Can. 20. Basil. Ep. 52. A. D. 343. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. â— cap. 5. Apud Athanas Apol. 2. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c 9. Novel Theod. tit 24. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉 3. c. 2. Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. Corâ— Eph. p. 2. 〈◊〉 5 in relatâ—d Calest Epist. ad Theodos in pâ—eamb Conc. Chalced. A. D. 345. Concil Sardic can 3 4. Athan. Apol. â— Hist. l. 3. â— 3. Greg. 9 ep 61. A. D. 314. Conc. Arlat can 1. Serm. pag. 18. Conc. Nicen. 1. can 6. De concord Sacerd. Imperii â— 7. n. 6. * Erasm Prâ—â—f in Hilar. ‖ Scalâ—g in Chron. Euseb. Baron Spond Annal. 325. Peron rep to K. Iam. c. 33. Basil. Epist. 10. August l. 1. cont Julian c. 2. Hieron Epist. 77. Justin. Novel 123. Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. A. D. 311. Aug Epist. 162. A. D. 258. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. c. 4. 6. Cypr. Epist. 75 Id. Epist. 67. Id. Epist. 68. A. D. 19â— Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Serm. page 18. Hierom. cont Jovin lib. 2. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Ibid. Ibid. Optat. cont Parm. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Act. Ap. cap. 1. hom 3. Id. in cap. 21. Joâ—n hom 87 Serm. page 17. August lib. 2. de Bapt. cont Donat. Ibid. August Ep. 92. Serm. Pag. 20. Cypr. Epist. 76. Epist. Ded. Ibid. Contrary to thâ— Statute 37 Hen. 8. c. 17. â— Ed. 6. c. â— Reform Leg. Ecclesiast c. De Offici Iurisdictione p. 190. Fulk against Bristows motives p. â—48 Whâ—tg Defence cap. 59. Ibid. p. 173. Centur. Eâ—ist Thâ—ol Epist. 74. Covel Exam. page 106 107. Ibid. Serm. pag. 8. Ib. page 22. Deut. 7 8 9. Ainsworth in Deut. 17. 9. Serm. page 22. Math. 28. 20. Math. 18. 20. Math. 16. 18 Math. 18. 17. Geg M. l. 1. Epist. 24. Act. Conc. Nicen. Dr. Hamond of 〈◊〉 sect â— n 1. sect n. 15. sect 13. n. 2. sect 14. n. 6. Bishop Bramâ—aâ—l Reply to Bishâ—p Chalced Prefaâ—e and Vindic. ca. 2. p. 9. Artic. 19. Serm. p. 22. Ibid. Hieron Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. Hierom. Aug. l. 2. de Civ D. c. 7. Aug Ibid. Hieron l. 4. Aug. l. 1. de pec merit cap. 20. Innocent in Epist. Aug. â—b c. 19. 21 22. lib. 2. cap. 28. c. Bed ad 1 Cor. c. 10. Gratian Consecr dist 2. cap. Qui passus est Dr. Fern in certain Consid. in Preface Serm. p. 8. Concil Trid. Sess. 25. Ibid. Can. Missae Memento 〈◊〉 Commun Dion Ar. de Eccles. Hierarchia c. ult Ibid. Tert. de Mon. cap. 10. Id. de Coron Mil. cap. 3. Ibid. cap. 4. Cypr. Ep. 66. Euse. de vit Const. l. 4. c. 71. Epiph. 3. haeâ—â—â— Ibid. Chrysost. in Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. hom 3. Id. hom in 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 46. Forb de Purâ—â— c. 3. §. 27. Spal l. 5. cap. 8. P. 9. Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 11. Aug. Ser. 32. de verb. Apost Id. Enchirid. c. 110. Epiph. l. 3. haer 75. Aug. de cur pro mort c. 5. Serm. p. 9. Ibid. p. 23 24. Profess Fid. Pii 4. Calvin in â— Cor. cap. 11. 24. Casaub. â—p ad Card. Per. 1 Cor. 11. 29. Blondel Lâ—turg S. Basil. Cyril Hier. Catech. Myst. 5. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 10. hom 24. Optaâ— lib. 6. Cyâ—il Al. Ep. ad Calosyr Ambâ— de Spis lib. 3. cap. 12. Aug. in Psal. 98. 5. Id. Epist. 120. Luke 22. 14 18. lbid 10. 19 20. Matth. 26. 29. 〈◊〉 Serm. pag. 14. Serm. pag. 25. Greg. Nyss. orat Catech. c. 37. Serm. pag. 9. Ibid. pag. 25. Tertull. lib. 2. ad Uxo Cypr. l. de lapsis Ambr. orat 1. in obitu frat Aug. lib. 2. lit Petil. c. 23. Euseb. lib. 5. lib. 7. Beda in Mart. ad 15. August Niseph hist. lib. 18. cap. 6. Ambr. de ils qui Myster c. 9. Conâ—yl Eph. in Epâ—st ad Nestor August in Psal. 33. Cyril Alex. lib. 12. in Ioan. cap. 32. Conc. Tâ—id Sesâ— 22. in fin Serm. Pag. 13. Fulk conâ—ut of Purg. page 362 c. Ascham Apol. pro câ—na Dom. Ignat. Ep. ad Smirn. cent 2. cap. 4. Iren. l. 4. c. 32. Cypr. Epist. ad Cyril Hier. on Tiâ— cap. 1. Chrys. 21. hom Aug. lib. 20. de Civ