who will keep his eyes open is in no more danger of losing his way then in the walks of his own garden for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to salvation are clear and easie unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles obscure and ambiguous and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental those being clearly revealed and so of a necessary belief to determine their sense there is no more need of a judge then for any other perspicious truth What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God that this God cannot lye that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world that he was crucified and rose again that without faith and obedience we cannot come to heaven these and such like are the truths we entitle Fundamental and if the sense of these need an infallible judge then le ts bring Euclids Elements to the barr and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four Then for points not fundamental their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation we may err about them and not err damnably and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other taken from its necessity to determine controversies for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines or any other evident truths our Church can censure him without pretending to be infallible what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresie that shall deny the resurrection of the dead which yet some of your own Popes have not believed if some of your own Historians may be believed Then for Doctrines not fundamental being not clearly revealed our Church doth not take upon her to determine these but if any disputes arise about such points it s her work to silence and suppress them and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion yet she expects they should be so modest as not to contradict her which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infallibility Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Churches infallibility and our submission to it Sect. 10 where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider upon what little arguings what pittiful sophisms what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fabrick of the Papal Infallibility and Authority but also their whole faith religion and eternal salvation seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations on which stands their Churches Infallibility so that when their weakness is discovered all must unavoidably fall To proceed then His argument why we must stand to the Churches decisions under pain of damnation is because in Deut. 17.8 9 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Appeal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously and would not hearken to the Priest should be put to death To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument only take notice 1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin only in civil and private quarrels as is evident by the eighth verse If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroke and stroke being matters of controversie within thy gates c. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits Mr. C. jumps from them and cites 2 Chron. 19.8 where this is not so plain though plain enough too Now what to his purpose can follow hence unless he will make out this consequence We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them together 2. What more can be deduced hence then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiours and this what Protestant denies do not we plead for it as well as you but what like an Inference can be drawn from this for an internal submission of judgement Nothing at all till he can make good that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges unless we believe them just and true An assertion ridiculously false But 3. You tell us that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of judgement but how Sir will you prove this I dare not take your bare word for it notwithstanding your solemn protestation at the begining of your book Sect. 8 And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence If so then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood for it was possible you say they should give wrong sentence and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right But 4. You tell us that this assent and submission of judgement must be given otherwise the obedience would be against conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisie unless we assent to its equity suppose they should mistake as you say they might the innocent for the injurious must the party think himself a knave because they think so like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lye with his wife yet did penance for saying so and was forced to say Tongue thou lyest This is such an assertion that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of When we appeal to judges our meaning is not we will think as they think but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine Again t is still more strange that when false judgement is given the contending party must either believe a lye or must confront his conscience in not believing it for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions he goes say you against his Conscience and if he doth he must believe against the truth when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not Arg. 1. Sect. 11 Next follow his arguments for his Churches infallibility The first runs thus Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles that he would be present with them always to the end of the world therefore fince not any of them outlived that age this infallible promise must be made good to their successours Answ 1. I might
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
Consider what these Psalms mean The same General Practice and the like Intention of the Church therein is expressed and earnestly urged by him in the same Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Do we not praise God and give thanks unto him for that he hath now crowned him that is departed for that he hath freed him from his labours for that quitting him from fear be keepeth him with himself Are not the Hymnes for this End Is not the singing of Psalmes for this purpose All these be tokens of rejoycing Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for the dead Thou sayest return O my soul unto thy rest for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee and dost thou weep Is not this Stage-playes Is it not meer simulation For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest thou lamentest idly But if thou playest and dissemblest and thinkest those things to be Fables why dost thou then sing why dost thou suffer those things that are done wherefore dost thou not drive away them that sing And in the end he concludeth somewhat prophetically That he very much feared lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church Whether the Doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome that the Children of God presently after their departure out of this life are cast into a Lake that burneth with Fire and Brimstone be not a spice of this disease and whether their practice in chanting of Psalmes appointed for the expression of joy and thankfulness over them whom they esteem to be tormented in so lamentable a fashion be not a part of that Scene and Pageantry at which Saint Chrysostome doth so take on I leave it unto others to judge That his fear was not altogether vain the event it self doth shew The Citation out of Eusebius touching the prayers of the people and clergy not without tears and groanings Sect. 10 De vita Constan l. 4 c. 9. for the soul of Constantine what doth it infer more then this that they were earnest with God that his soul might be partaker of some of those various benefits which we mentioned before and none of which at all refer to Purgatory But yet notwithstanding that they thought the Emperour in a State of Bliss must needs be granted if we suppose them to have believed what he told them being at the point of death that he had now attained the true life Euseb de vita Constant l. 4 c. 63. and that none but himself did understand of what happiness he was made partaker and that therefore he hastned his going immediately to God As to that of Epiphanius Sect. 11 telling us That prayers made fâ—â— the dead profit us albeit they do not blot out entirely all mortall sins First if this word stand which he puts in then must it be granted that they alleviate even Mortal sins and are well made for those that dye under the guilt of them and then he is necessarily to be understood in Saint Chrysostomes sence or else he contradicts the known Doctrine of the Church of Rome which is that those prayers are not made for any that dye under the guilt of Mortal sin And indeed if this be the sence viz. That prayers for the dead are profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit they do not wholly blot out the sins of those that are prayed for then must it be said that some are prayed for whose sins are not yet wholly forgiven Secondly the Case stands thus Aerius had objected if the Prayers of those here do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altogether profit the dead then let him procure some to pray for him after he is dead that those heinous sins he hath committed may not be required at his hands and then there will be no need of his being good Now Epiphanius thus Answers He that would see more of the sence of Epiph. in this place may Consult Bishop Usher from p. 236. to 246. where he shews evidently that the Romanists are Aâ—rians not we Although the prayer for the dead do not cut off all their sins which is the onely thing thou goest about to prove yet doth it profit notwithstanding for another purpose Now from this Sentence can it not be infer'd that Epiphanius thought these prayers profitable to the cutting off of any sins which the person had committed in his life time But this is onely added because Aerius went about to prove this only that prayers made for the dead did not cut off all their sins Now whereas Sect. 10. our Author would avoid the Answer usually return'd upon their Arguments Sect. 12 By telling them that Prayers are made for Martyrs Apostles yea all Saints p. 115 Sect. 11. by the Fathers which yet they dare not say are still in Purgatory with this old Salvo that such prayers as are made for remission of sins refreshment c. are not made for them but imperfect sinners ' This reply hath been obviated already by me by shewing that such prayers as these he mentions were made for the Martyrs and Apostles as 't is more largely done by Dally Page 501. and 507. as to refreshment with such abundant Evidence as I am confident Master Cressie will not be able to reply unto it and as to remission of sins with convictive Evidence Yea further they prayed for them that they might be delivered from the punishments of Hell and obtain everlasting bliss as appears from the Liturgy of Saint James That they might pass by the Gates of Hell and the wayes of Darkness From the prayers used of old in the Roman Church For all departed in the Confession of the Holy Trinity that they might be separated from the punishments of the wicked and obtain everlasting bliss And from what the Romanists say daily in their Mass Desiring the Lord Jesus that he would deliver the souls of all the Faithful that are departed from the pains of Hell and from the deep Lake and from the mouth of the Lion that Hell do not swallow them up that they fall not into darkness Sect. 13 Well but our Author proceeds and tells us that indeed many of these prayers did regard the day of Judgement p. 115. Sect. 11. and the glory ensuing yet withall that they thought to some souls a present refreshment did accrew in the intermedial condition is evident from what Saint Ambrose saith He would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperour till he found a deliverance by them And we answer him Where is it that Saint Ambrose saith so And of what Emperour Doth he think we have nothing to do but to read over Authors to find out his Quotations Quotations did I say or falfifyings For let us hear Saint Ambrose thus speaking Let us believe that Valentinian is ascended from the desert that is to say De Obitu Valent Imp. from this dry and unmanured place unto those flowry delights where
yet is it a more cogent Argument they being men so notorious for the abuse of the Scripture as never were the like What brought up their Phylacteries but an abuse of the place fore-cited What caused their obstinacy against the Gospel but the mis-interpretation of the Law And a supposition falsely deduced from Texts that it was eternal How much of this may any body see in Buxtorf Selden Lightfoot and others that concern themselves in these matters Our Saviour pardon the expression was either not so wise as to know this was the way to make them worse or else so malicious as to set them in that way which would be so pernicious to them Origen as great a Scholar as he was Hom. 2. in Esai knew not the danger we are now acquainted with when he so vehemently cries out De Baptismo l. 2. cap. 4. In cap. tertium ad Colos I would to God we could all do what is written viz. search the Scriptures Nor Saint Basil when he requires the same duty from us Nor did Saint Chrysostome consider this when he so passionately called upon the people O all ye secular men get you Bibles the physick of the Souls else sure he would have bid them throw them away as the poyson of the Soul but the good Father had not learn'd to blaspheme the Scripture Yea even Saint Paul himself was ignorant of this Divinity so necessary to prevent the murther of Kings the dissolution of Governments the Schismes and Ruptures of the Church the swarmes of Heresies that fly about if we may believe this Advocate of the Church of Rome For this is the Encomium that he gives to Timoth 2.3 That from a youth he had learned the Scriptures and makes it a part of nobility in the Beâ—eans that they compared his Doctrine with the Word of God brought it to this touch stone to see if it could abide the proof And lastly writing to the Corinthians assures them 2 Ep. 1.13 that the matter of his Epistle was no other then what they read and did acknowledge But let our Confuter proceed p. 167. he tells us Sect. 9 That Catholicks knowing how impossible it is for ignorant persons to understand it and for passionate minds to make good use of it think it more conducing to Edification that such easily misled Souls should be taught their duties rather by plain Catechismes and inst ructions prudently and with all clearness gathered out of Scripture Answ Be it so but let them not perswade us to think that the one must exclude the other when we protest against them still for doing so let them not be angry if we with our blessed Saviour and his Apostles think both expedient and very much conducing to Edification if we adhere in this to the Primitive Church and among other instructions exhort them diligently to read the Scripture Nor do we think any person so ignorant that can read as not to know the Essentials of his Christianity and to find things plain and easie which will suffice for his Salvation Nor is it therefore fit to be restrain'd because we have some of passionate minds which whilest such are not like to make good use of the Word of God no more then they are to be hindred from a good Sermon Catechisme or other means of instruction because whilst such they are not like to make good use of them or to be deprived of their goods because they are apt to abuse the creature But rather they are to read the Scripture that they may learn thereby to lay aside their passion 'T is true Sect. 10 what he tells us Sect. 6. That the abuse of Scripture by ignorant and passionate Laicks is not so certain and probable to follow in the Catholick Church where men are bred up in a belief of that most necessary duty of submission even of their minds to her authority for the delivery of the onely true sence of Scripture whereas in our Church no person can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by us can challenge an internal assent or that it may not with sin be contradicted But then we say First If this be so how can you plead the danger of your peoples erring as a pretence to restrain Scripture when as this would more confirm them they being bred up in a belief that what sence you put upon Scripture is the mind of God What an evident contradiction therefore is there in these two pretences Secondly We dare not thus Lord it over the Consciences of men as not thinking we have any such assistance of the Scripture as will guide us infallibly into the true sence of Scripture and therefore supposing our selves fallible we do not bind our people to an internal assent unto our interpretations upon our sole authority lest we should bind them to believe an Errour Glad would we be to find the Roman Church indued with this infallibility how fast would we nestle into her bosome were it so But we know that challenge is vain and idle Yet seeing they pretend thus much is it not a wonder that this Church which hath authority given her to deliver the true sence of the Scripture should never do it To what end I pray you hath God given it but that your people should have the benefit thereof Why then are parties at so great a variance among you about the true sence of Scripture and your Church still neglects the exercise of its authority in putting an end to those strifes by her declaration of it But speak your Conscience do you not know or fear that this would be a most convincing Argument against that infallibility you so much boast of When we should make it appear as no doubt we could that some of your interpretations were false and contrray to the infallible Rule of Scripture Thirdly Therefore albeit we do not require of our people that they should assent to such an interpretation of Scripture because that we who interpret it are guided by an infallible Spirit yet do we say that the people ought to receive the interpretation of doubtful places from the Pastors God hath placed over them not contradicting them without evident reason but submiting to them that when they are by some passage of Scripture induced to think otherwise they ought not presently to condemn the Church of Errours but reflect upon their own weakness and seek for better information from men of Learning and Judgement and acquiesce in it unlesse they can evidently shew that they err in their interpretation And indeed I could never perswade my self that the vulgar Jews were bound to accept all those false and corrupt interpretations which the Scribes and Pharisees put upon Scripture And indeed had they been so obliged then might they have refused to give maintenance either to Father or Mother by telling them that it was Corban by which they should be relieved yea then they were bound to believe that our Saviour Christ was not
Ministers a vow of Celibacy which is a snare the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kinde which is open Sacriledge the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue which bids continual defiance to the Apostle there is a necessity of our separation from her and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical This being so Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church Mr. C. p. 232. had been guilty of Innovation in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession those points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her communion will be in Gods esteem very Schisme For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned as the truths of Christ and the practise of such of them as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God as the Dr. every where asserts he apparently affirms that albeit it be required of us to beleive what we count an errour which is impossible to assert an Innovation to be the truth of Christ which is to lye to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God which is to live continually in Hypocrisie and disobedience to the revealed will of God yet cannot these conditions bee refused but we must incur the guilt of Schisme And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt he must consequently enjoyn us to lye to live in continual Hypocrisie and disobedience to his will as being necessary to this end albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes which is horribly blasphemous And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book As 1. Where he saith Mr. C. p. 259. that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing not fundamental contrary to the sense of the Law the Jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of judgement and internal assent to such commands that they are agreeable to Gods law because it would bee utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the subject beleived to be contrary to Gods law Ans And sure it may be reasonably thought that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbies which the Jewish Nation did afford some might believe that to bee contrary to Gods law which indeed was so and then poor creatures they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty to an impossibility viz. of yeilding internal assent to that as agreeable to Gods law which they beleived to bee contrary thereunto is it not wonderful that the decision of seventy persons contrary to Gods law to the belief of which all Jury was obliged should not only disanul the obligation of seven hundred thousand of giving credit to that law but force them upon the utmost penalty to beleive the contrary that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those who say Ezek. 13. the Lord saith when he hath not said it should yet enjoyn his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe to say so too That he who sends them to the Law and to the testimonies telling them that those who speak contrary unto them have no truth in them should yet oblige the same persons upon the utmost penalty to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies as the truths of God Credat Judaeus Apella Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears saith he in this Sect. 5 Ibid. that it was a less evil and inconvenience that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed then that contentions and disputes should be endless Answ God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters as his breach upon Uzzah and the sons of Aaron doth evince 2. How unwarrantable is it to plead an inconvenience against a Precept for whereas hee talks of a command we shall consider that pretence hereafter might not the greatest Rebels who pretend Religion for their Rebellion plead with parity of reason 't is a less evil and inconvenience that some petty precepts of subjection to Governours should be transgressed then that Religion should bee hazzarded But 3. What is this but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing and to keep close to his precepts were the way to make contentions endless or that if the disobeying of any of Gods precepts might conduce to the ending of contentions we might do so in pursuit of such an end And is not this apparently to do evil that good may come on it to say that God hath need of our lye and disobedience to preserve the unity of his Church The like wee have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect 14. where he tells us that albeit upon supposition of the Churches fallibility in non fundamentals she should erre in such decisions which he is pleased to call not much concerning and by consequence our assent would be erronious yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenced with the most acceptable virtue of obedâ—ence love of peace and unity which accompanies it Answ Let him not talk of obedience till he can shew a precept something from God which obligeth us to beleive an errour or to tell a lye when their Church commands us To disobey God and play the Hypocrites that we may perform obedience to her injunctions to deny his truths out of humility and to purchase peace and unity by these means 2. Seeing fundamentals that is doctrines See Mr. C. c. 19. sect 6. without an explicite belief whereof none can be saved are very few doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God yea of assenting to what is contrary to it if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions and is this agreeable to Gods frequent injunctions to try all things and hold fast the truth And whereas he further tells us Sect. 7 that both truth and errour in such things lyes only on the Churches Ibid. and not at all on their account This cannot bee built upon any other foundation then this that wee are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church of Rome or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schisme though contrary in our judgements to reason and the Word of God which is the very thing in question 2. If this be truth why doth Christ call us out of Babylon least we should be partakers of her sin and consequently from any other assembly with which wee cannot communicate without sin seeing their sins whether they be erronious practises or opinions lie only on their account not ours Seeing therefore it is evidenced 2 Proposition that we are free from the guilt of Schisme it follows undeniably Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must bee the Schismatick as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust and this
the plaguy Lutheran Heresie Lastly Mr. C. ibid. hee adds that the Doctrines of this Council are now actually embraced by all Catholick congregations i.e. all Papists wherefore by the Arch Bishops concessions viz. that when the decisions of a General Council are embraced by the universal Church spread throughout the world they are infallible they are to be esteemed infallibly true Which Argument is built upon this supposition that the Arch-Bishop even when defending the reformed Churches against the imputations of the Church of Rome should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God CHAP. XXII Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils sect 1. The Reason of it sect 2 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it Answered sect 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us sect 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men sect 6. The reasons of it sect 7 8. THe sixth Proposition shall be this Sect. 1 That we are not obliged to yeild obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils 6 Proposition but may reject them when ever they contradict the word of God For the eviction of this which is the main Pillar of our Authors Fabrick I will premise 1. That such Councils are not infallible this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superiour to the Pope that of Lateran the contrary the second Council of Nice decreed for Images the Council of Constantinople contradicted that from the evident errours determined by them thus the corporiety of Angels by that of Nice the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum Seleucia and elsewhere from the want of any promise of infallibility from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power and many other things 2. That such conventions of men thus fallible Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions and unlawful practises upon the Churches which are members of that Patriarchate seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others their decrees which by reason of their fallibility may bee Heretical and unjust Yea further the decrees of one Patriarchical Council may be contradictory to another and consequently if the National Churches of these Patriarchates bee bound to assent unto them they must bee bound to bee Schismaticks even in the judgement of the Church of Rome thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kinde celibacy of Priests the worship of God in an unknown tongue the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and other of the Eastern Church assemble such a Council would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these and then according to Mr. C's own rule must not all the National Churches under them be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council and consequently to be Schismaticks yea if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions must they not lye under a necessity of asserting any errour or practising what ever they define though never so contradictory to the law of God Once more it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia were at least Patriarchical or equivalent to such and will you add that therefore every Province from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations You will say no because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice Ans True but doth not your Rule assure us that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow and were not the Bishops at Ariminum more numerous then those at Nice 2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox VVas there any impossibility but it might have been so He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph might have done it if he pleased in the former Centuries Lastly Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should bee Orthodox and the greater Schismatical and erronious and sticklers for that which God hath contradicted in his Word In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will encline and must the Orthodox party then bee necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod and to assent to their determinations and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word Thus in the Trent Council matters stood and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresie as they called it of the Lutherans By these things wee may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist Sect. 4 Mr. C. p. 237. viz. That if any law custome or doctrine in any Diocesse bee discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province or any Provincial law what is in force in the Patriarchate such a law ought not to be made or being made ought to be repealed Now apply these former instances to the Rule and it will follow that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and decree Communion in one kind legitimate c. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome Thus again under the Old Testament when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God more yet to decree it to be so and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ and held him the Messias that was to come had they given him the veneration due unto him yea decreed it should be so all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim The onely Argument which hee useth to uphold this fundamental Rule as hee is pleased to call it Mr. C. p. 246. is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we professe in our Creed unam Catholicam Which Syllogistically runs thus if there bee one Catholick Church then must a National Synod bee subject to a Patriarchal But the first is true the sequel depends upon this assertion that without such subjection there could not be one Catholick Church Answ This is manifestly untrue For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful but such may be the submission of a National Church to the decrees of a Patriarchal as our instances sufficiently declare Again
that not one of them should say it plainly so much as once but leave it to bee collected from uncertain principles by many more uncertain consequences 5. Sect. 6 Wee say that it cannot bee proved that the English Church separated from the external Communion of the Church Catholick let Mr. C. produce any one thing which wee alledge as a reason of our separation and shew that it was held as a matter of faith or practised in the publick Worship of all other Churches and then wee shall acknowledge it 2. We have not separated from the external Communion of the reformed Churches much lesse from the Communion of our selves and therefore not from the universal of which both they and we are parts And thus Mr. Chil. explains himself and tells you that his meaning was onely this P. 295. that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part Luther and his followers might bee said to forsake this external Communion of the visible Church But that properly speaking hee forsook the whole visible Church viz. As to external Communion you must excuse mee if I grant not and my reason is this because hee and his followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to bee so by their reformation now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church and what other plea could have been made by the Church of Jury in the dayes of Elijah or the Church of Christ under the prevalency of Arrianisme I understand not And what hath Mr. C. to evidence the contrary 1. Saith he p. 262. a separation from any one true member of the Catholick Church for doctrines that are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that member is indeed a separation from all Churches Ans But the Church of Rome hath separated from the Church of England a true Member of the catholick Church for doctrines commonly held by other churches in communion with her Ergo shee hath separated from all Churches 2. The Argument evidently supposeth some of these untruths 1. That a true member of a Church or a particular true Church cannot require unjust conditions of communion or at least cannot have any other to consent with her in these conditions or that if she do it is unlawful for others to separate when such conditions are required Yea lastly it supposeth the very thing in question that all true Members in the Church Catholick must necessarily communicate externally with each other 2. Ibid. Reply p. 47 48. He tells us that Calvin confesseth this separation which confession is considered by Bishop Bramhal 3. Saith he no Church can be found antecedent to our separation p. 263. with which we are joyned in external communion Answ What inference do you make hence seeing wee are joyned in internal communion with all the Churches of God and are willing externally to do so if no unjust conditions be required 2. What think you of the Churches which reformed before us Ibid. Again he adds no Church hath Laws or Governours in common with us Answ What of all this is it necessary to our external communion that all the Laws or Governours of other Churches should be the same with ours 2. Have not the Eastern Churches the same Governours with us Ibid. Repl. they are manifestly Heretical Answ This wee constantly deny as you may see in Bishop Bramhal Reply p. 349. Bishop Mortons Apol. Dr. Field Mr. Pagits Christianography and others He proceeds not one Church can be found Ibid. which will joyn with us in publick offices or wee with them Answ Who told you so Bishop Bramhal informs you that albeit the Eastern Churches use many rites that we forbear yet this difference in rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to bee for any thing he knoweth if distance of place and difference of language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion seeing wee agree in the acknowledgement of the same Creeds and no other nor do we require agreement in lesser matters as a condition of communion in which the Church of Rome is extreamly Schismatical Obj. But their Patriarch Jeremiah refused communion with us To this Bishop Bramhel Replies in two full pages that the thing is not true and 2. that since his time Cyril the Patriarch hath professed communion with us Lastly Saith he surely they could not become ipso facto in communion with the Graecian Church by separating from the Roman Answ Surely wee may so as having since left off to require those unjust conditions or practise those unlawful things which before wee did require and practice 6. The reason of our separation from the Church of Rome Sect. 7 is not so much because they maintain errours and corruptions as because they impose them Chill p. 267. sect 40. and will allow their communion to none but to those that will hold them and have so ordered that either wee must communicate with them in these things or nothing Now this I hope is not a reason common to you with other Churches for what they hold they hold to themselves Id. ibid. p. 306. sect 106. and refuse not to communicate with them that hold the contrary so that we may continue in their communion without professing to beleive their opinions but in yours we cannot Lastly Sect. 8 were wee Schismaticks for separating from the Church of Rome for doctrines which were common to her See Pagits Christianography with other Churches yet can it not be hence infer'd that we must close with the Church of Rome in all her unjust demands but only in those doctrines if there were any in which she hath the consent of the Eastern Church and all others which we esteem the Church of God Again p. 287. sect 12. Sect. 9 wee are told that the Articles mentioned by the Dr. most of them had been expresly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England whence he infers that the English separation made from the Roman Church should have been made on the same grounds from the universal Church above a thousand years since seeing it is evident that in St. Gregories time both Eastern and Western Churches were in perfect unity Where not to take notice either 1. Of his false supposition that Christianity in England was no older than St. Gregory or Austin the Monk when it was above two hundred years older than the very being of a Monk Nor 2. Of his rediculous assertion that these Articles which we contend against are not new because most of them declared in former Councils when as I am confident he must sink down as low as a thousand years to make this good let him cite any Council expresly declaring for any of these Articles excepting the Celibacy of Priests and the worship of Images which is as evident an innovation as any possibly can be Nor 3. To minde
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
Lateran Council where there were Eastern Bishops manifestly Schismatical according to your Principles 2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox or if she did is it not rediculous to suppose that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained 3. Were we Schismaticks in this what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome 4. 'T is very impertinent to trouble us with an Objection which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers beyond the Seas in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England when what is said by them hath been refuted then may this question be seasonable As impertinent is that which you object to us ch 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal Rep. paulo post init and Dr. Crakanthorp in several chapters of the same Defence as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question do it if not why do you trouble us with it afresh Lastly Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholick Church the opinions of particular writers which wee have observed albeit your reason that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council is a very poor one for who knows not that as too many of the points in controversie your Church hath not declared her self but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed her self thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images what are wee the nearer seeing shee hath not declared what veneration is due when she declares for a proper Sacrifice shee hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice when she defines for merits whether shee means meritum de condigno or in that large sense in which the Fathers used the word shee hath not told us The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies c. and is this sufficiently to declare her self Again is it the doctrine of your Church that the Pope is above a General Council then doth not the Church of France hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine or if neither bee how hath she sufficiently declared her self who in that which is most material hath been silent And thus wee have considered your conditions Sect. 9 wee come next to propound what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply And 1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given to any of your Arguments for as long as any single Answer remains firm your Argument must be invalid 2. In the doctrine of the Popes supremacy you must prove these three things 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles and over all the world 2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors 3. That it was to bee conferred by Divine Right upon his successors at Rome and not elsewhere because all this is necessary to prove the Popes supremacy by Divine Right 3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers or if you will not dispute that then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture otherwise that kinde of disputation must be impertinent 2. If you accept of this then secondly I require 1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture for otherwise your discourse will bee rediculous as bottomed upon that which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it 2. That you answer the Questions proposed touching this matter above 3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original seeing translations do very much vary from them 4. That you cite none which Rivet Cocus and other Protestants stile spurious unless you answer their Arguments for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary 5. That you be so ingenuous as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you for citing old Editions which no body can meet with partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered And 1. Mr. C. p. 227. Wee are told that few who have any liberal education in that great light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual superiours pennances and retirements from the world c. can bee excusably ignorant of the one holy Catholick Apostolick Church that is that the Roman Church is this Church Where 1. As to continued succession when they are told by men as pious and as learned as any of the Papists 1. That the Papists have no such succession but that it hath been interrupted many times when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie When they are told 2. That it is not succession of persons but of Doctrines which is a mark of the true Church nor the want of it of a false for if hee bee a true Platonist that holds the Doctrines of Plato Chil. p. 356. sect 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section albeit hee cannot assign any one that held it before him for many Ages together why should not he be a true Christian who believes all the Doctrine of Christ though hee cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him When 3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Hereticks viz. the Eastern Church have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have can this bee such a demonstrative evidence that you are onely the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable Again can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them when 1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned for speaking the language of the Protestants And 2. They find it evident that it is not impossible that errours may be held with as great an unity as you can shew Seeing they find the Grecians yea the professors of Mahometism at greater unity
teach all Nations and out of those whom they taught to ordain some Pastors whereever they came which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ and a power to exercise it and so much for the second proposition 3. Hence it follows that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter for Par in parem non habet potestatem Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise is evidently to exercise power over him And hence it follows that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter And indeed that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet not exercise one act of it upon them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it as strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to and yet the Apostles after these words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man No less a wonder was it that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself as that 1. Mentioning him often he should do it without any title of honour yea further that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles How is it that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles Act. 11.23 so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James 4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all for he saith only this that Quoad ministerium viz. as to Preaching Administring the Sacraments Absolving and Remitting and such things which are done by Pastors and carrying not Jurisdiction in them but Ministry or Service they are equal but Quoad Politiam as to Government they are unequal and what is this to the purpose Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter For 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop as Dr. Feild and Dr. Hammond will tell him 2. If he be said to have it 't were ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority Jurisdiction or Power with him seeing he hath Power over them which Par in parem non habet To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures Whereas 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion nay the words seem unconsistent with it for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter bid him seed his sheep told him that what he bound should be so and that upon him he would build his Church he presently adds That he did this Pari consertio praediti houoris potestatis sed exordium ab uaitate proficiscitur albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest but only to shew the necessity of unity And then for St. Jerome he doth not only say that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles and that one City though Rome it self is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild p. 548. In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathians we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for And 1. Whereas he mentions James Cephas and John and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest because he mentions him in the middle for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles why should it not be as good a plea against it that the Apostle St. Paul when speaking of the chiefest Apostles should not do so 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them if we may believe St. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecum Aquinas Hugo Salmero Justinian Cornelius a Lapide and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting no difference at all betwixt them And that 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were plâ—ased to admit of it and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles whose Authority they urged against him had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles how had it concerned his design to have told us not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in particular that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy and perswades me to believe with the Doctor that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers Again ver 7. the Apostle tells us that even these Pillars saw it evident that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter and that hereupon it was agreed that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Jews or circumcision Now 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul was it not by Christ by him that wrought effectually in them both ver 8. Now then if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision to St. Peter the circumcision is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland the inferior Governors under him yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him sicut Petro circumcisio In locum Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
to bee the Messias when none of the Rulers thereof beleived on him when Nicodemus was so twited by them for offering to speak for him yea P. 259. did they not with their President condemn him Mat. 26.57 Oh! but say they Christ was now come and their infallibility was ceased and God now permited them to be deceived Answ But was it not necessary that they should bee acquainted with the will of God for how else could the Senate be accused or the people for following their determinations when the Senate by the vertue of this promise as they interpret it must needs suppose themselves to be infallible in their judgement and the people being bound also to esteem them so must necessarily assent to their determination and had just cause to help forward his condemnation insult over crucifie and blaspheme him 2. Christ accuseth them of committing the like errour long before in killing and condemning the Prophets sent to them Mat. 21.35 36. compared with verse 45. And Stephen which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted slaying them which shewed before the coming of the just one yea our Saviour tells them they were blinde guides such as would neither go into Heaven themselves nor permit others Mat. 5. 15 23. His next Argument from Scripture is very rediculous Sect. 4 if God hath promised Gen. 49. that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor the Law giver from betwixt his feet that is that they should alwaies have a civil Government as all interpreters that ever I met withall do agree then must the Church or Ecclesiastical Government be infallible But the former is so and therefore the consequence must be good But did this Paragraph speak of the Jewish Church as undoubtedly it doth not yet what hath it of infallibility or if it would infer infailibility in some portion of the Jewish Church must that necessarily bee the Sanhedrims When Mr. C. is able to make these things good I shall hee contented to let this passe for a demonstration 3. Sect. 5 Our Author in his chapter touching the infallibility of the Roman Church produced in a Parenthesis that passage of the first Ep. c. 3. v. 16. P. 100. Tim. where the Church of Ephesus is stiled the Pillar and Ground of truth which because it was altogether impertinent in that place I have referred hither And Answ 1. With Mr. Chillingworth That it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy and the sense of the place run thus that thou mayest know how to behave thy self as a Pillar and Ground of truth in the Church of God This exposition offereth no violence to the words at all but only supposeth an Ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek very ordinary neither wants it some likelihood that St Paul comparing the Church to an house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house according as he had given other principle men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church an house to name it presently a pillar which seemeth somewhat Heterogeneous 2. The Church which St. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and that not the Roman now such you will not have to be infallible That this is the very truth is manifest from an impartial consideration of the place for the Apostle writeth to Timothy and giveth him directions that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of Ephesus and not the universal in part of which St. Paul was when he wrote this to him and consequently in a particular Church Now the same Church in which he directeth him to behave himself the Apostle calls the Pillar and Ground of truth therefore he gives this title to a particular Church 3. Mr. Chill Should wee grant you this on courtesie yet must wee put you in remembrance that many attributes are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not of necessity what the thing or person is but what it should bee Yee are the fait of the earth faith our Saviour to the Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to bee so for if it could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of being cast upon the dunghil as unsavory so the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet it may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 4. We say that this part of the verse may bee connexed with the following after this manner The Pillar and Ground of truth and without controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And that 1. Because Irenaeus seems to have read it so for in the beginning of his third book hee tells us that the Apostles had delivered to them the will of God which they before had preached in the Scripture to be the pillar and foundation of our Faith 2. Otherwise the Apostle would begin a new sentence with a conjunction copulative which is somewhat harsh 3. The Jews were wont to introduce those doctrines of their Church which were of greatest moment and consequence with such a form as this is thus Moses Aegyptius in the beginning of that great work which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks thus the foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdome is the knowledge of the first and supreme being 5. We say that if this also were allowed yet must this sentence be understood of the Church diffused which will be alwaies the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truths that being essential to her very being not of a representative Church collected in a General Council What hee adds farther that our Saviour enjoyned obedience to all the commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair cannot bee serviceable to him to prove an infallibility in the Sanhedrim For 1. How will it appear that he speaks of them considered as members of the Sanhedrim and not rather as teachers in their Synagogues in which case sure they were not infallible 2. If he plead for the infallibility of the Sanhedrim seeing he the Shilo was already come the Sanhedrim must bee held infallible after his coming which as it is contrary to Mr. C's assertion in this very place so it laies a necessity on us to acknowledge that either their decree against our Saviour was to bee believed by the Jews or that to believe in the Messiah was no fundamental But 3. This clause of yeilding obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees is to bee limited to what they taught from and according unto Moses and the Prophets For elsewhere hee puts in a cave at against the doctrine of the Pharisees Mat. 16.6 12. calls them blind guides whom to follow
he further tells us that no inferiour power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superiour Answ True and thence we inferre that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most soveraign power the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yeild to them and consequently when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law wee must refuse our obedience to which 2. Wee add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation but by permission and consent of Princes and other Governours thereof and therefore antecedently to their permission cannot bee called a power superiour to our provincial Synods VVhat hee adds from the restimony of St. Austin is nothing to his purpose but much to ours It being the very design of St. Austin there to evidence that Fathers and Councils and all humane VVriters must yeild to Scripture and that his evidence thence must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries for speaking of the Donatists who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian and some councils for them he thus goes on Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis De Bapt. cont donat l. 2. c. 3. ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in eare peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per concilta licere reprehendi Si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat And yet were this assertion granted Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful See the Author of the review of the Trent Council l. 4. c. 7 8. Dr. Taylors duc dub p. 285. as that of Lateran and Florence or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed In which case by our Authors Fundamental Rule that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council must not contradict a General p. 250 they must necessarily be null My seventh Proposition shall be this Sect. 6 That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion 7. Proposition at least whether the determinations of Councils whether particular or general are to bee received as doctrines of faith and are not without all enquiry to submit to them For 1. If God had intended to appoint them such an infallible Judge above and beyond his Word in whose determinations they must acquiesce then would hee have infallibly told them which and where to find him if a General Council hee would have named him told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it what persons ought to bee members of it how far they were infallible 3 Proposition and in what not with many other things above mentioned The reason is because the certain knowledge of these things can bee your onely security that the determination of this Judge will bee infallible For my obligation to receive this Judge as such can bee no other then Gods revelation of it to mee or my certain knowledge that his VVill is such Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yeilding internal assent to a Generall Council or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason authority and authority 2. That cannot bee the rule of Faith to private persons Sect. 7 which cannot be known to bee so by them for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith which hee cannot bee assured to bee so But such is the authority of the Church for if there can bee any surety of this to a private person then either from the VVord of God the Judgment of the Church Reason or Revelation hee cannot pretend to it from Scripture For of the sense of this say you he must not judge nor can he know that the Scripture is the VVord of God but by the Church and consequently hee cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all much lesse that it is infallible till hee hath admitted that it is infallible 3. If the Church must judge it can bee no other then the true Church and where and how shall this be found by a private man 2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility 3. Where shall such finde the Church thus speaking in her private Doctors many are unable to consult them and if they should 1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers 2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed 3. How will they bee assured by them that the whole Church in their daies taught agreeably to their doctrine Yea 4. How will they bee assured what works of the Fathers are true what spurious what interpolated what not what is by the fraudulency of men substracted seeing both parts acknowledge and complain that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them 5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges yea or no and which whether all or some And if all what must hee think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further then they bring their evidence Is not this enough to crack their credits with him If some what some and why they more then others and who must determine concerning them Must hee hear the Church speaking in a general Council But 1. This hath never been determined in a General Council 2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot erre and then hee hath no need of this determination or believes it may and then he is but where hee was after this determination must he come to reason 1. The definitive sentence of
would not bee members of the church because not united to some Organical part of it Yea 2. In the daies of Elijah there would have been no Church there being no such organical body And 3. Under the prevailing of Arrianisme those Righteous souls who renounced Communion with the Arrians and fled into dens and caves must have renounced the Church Catholick as being Members of no such Organical Body Now hence it follows that the unity of the Church Catholick cannot be external which Mr. C. every where supposeâ—â— and takes for granted but onely internal or that of faith and charity and consequently to prove our separation from the holy Catholick Church it must bee proved that we have not that faith obedience and charity which is requisite to make us members of that Church which is a taske so hard that Mr. C. durst not set upon it 3. Sect. 4 That to be united in external Communion with some such part of the Church Catholick cannot bee necessary to my being a member of it Mr. Chilling p. 255. sect 9. this is evident 1. From the instances now produced 2. Because a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches external Communion and yet hee is still a member of the Church And this also strengthneth the former Corollary 4. Sect. 5 Id. p. 264. That not every separation but onely a causelesse separation from the external Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme This we have sufficiently proved above VVhence it evidently follows that those Protestants who say they forsook the external Communion of the Church visible that is renounced the belief and practise of some few things which all visible Communions besides them did believe and practise cannot precisely upon this account lye under the imputation of the sin of Schism any more then the seven thousand that refused to bow the knee to Baal or those in the primitive times that refused communion with the Arrian Churches As doing it upon conviction from Scripture Reason and Antiquity that all the visible Churches of the world had in these observances swerved from the Word of God Reason and Antiquity which is every where their plea. Mr. Chil. p. 265. sect 32. Now hence it follows that to leave the Church and to leave her external Communion is not the same that being done by ceasing to bee a Member of it that is by ceasing to have faith and obedience the requisites to make us such which can never bee necessary this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick worship and indeed were these the same it must of necessity follow that no two Churches divided in external communion can bee both true parts of the Catholick Church Mr. Chil. p. 271 sect 50. and consequently that either the Church of Rome which is thus divided from all other Christians is no part of the Catholick Church or which is more uncharitable that all the Churches of Christendome besides her must bee excluded from being parts of the Church Catholick as being divided in external communion from the Roman yea when the Western and Eastern Churches refused communion with each other one of them presently must bee excluded from the Catholick Church Yea it will follow that either there is some particular Church that is by promise from God freed from ever admitting any superstitions or corruptions into her Liturgies and publick services or else that to separate from superstitions and corruptions crept into these particular Churches is to become no Churches which is as rediculous as to say that to purge any person from those distempers which others labour under were to unâ—man him Indeed I know that the Roman Church pretends to bee the guide of the faith of others to be secured from these corruptions and consequently to bee the Root of Union to other true Orthodox Churches but this pretence is so assaulted by Mr. Chil. P. 337. sect 20. that I am confident they are not able to stand out against the evidence of his Reason Thus then hee Is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not one amongst all the Apostles who were men very good and desirous to direct us in the surest way to Heaven instructed by the Spirit of God in all necessary points of Faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this most necessary point of Faith should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Meethinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them especially this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary St. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Meethinks St. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their priviledge to them Meethinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which he saith also of the Thessalonians he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms that their faith was the Rule for all the world for ever but then sure he would not have put them in fear of an impossibility as hee doth chap. 11. That they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Jews ahd done Meethinks in all his other Epistles or at least in one of them hee could not have failed to have given the world this direction had hee known it to have been true that all men were to bee guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Meethinks writing so often of Hereticks and Anti-Christ he should have given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that St. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successours the Bishops of Rome How was it possible that St. James and St. Jude in their Catholick Epistles should not give this Catholick direction Meethinks St. John instead of saying hee that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God the force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the Sons of God should have said he that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it hee is a good Christian and by this mark you shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if hee consider as hee should the pretended necessity of this doctrine to salvation ordinarily can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation should be so deeply and affectedly silent in this matter as