Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores iÌ„ mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi iÌ„ m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. GermancruÌ„ Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion helâ— with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstaÌ„ding you may hear the Lord making this coÌ„plaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-halfe-Communion Coâ—poâ—eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe froÌ„ this charge til she can prove
Province which was not of old and from the begiÌ„niÌ„ng under his power If any have entred anothers Province have by force subjected it unto himself let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed nor the pride of worldly Authority under pretence of the Hierarchy enter into the Church and by little and little before we are aware we loose that Liberty which the Lord Jesus Christ the deliverer of all men by his blood hath procured Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved inviolated and the customes which were from the beginning No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell and Binius having recited only six Canons of it pretend that in the Vatican and some other Copies there be no more Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome may easily think that the Vatican can scarce brook a CanoÌ„n so directly crossing the present claimes of that See But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evident that he could not but relà te it and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duely inferre Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth determine that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it and that it may be made to appear that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod no nor for yeares after Christ much lesse from the beginning exercis'd over the Britâ—nick Churches therefore Rome can pretend no right over BritaÌ„nie without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves This priviledge of our Brittish-Church upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus will appear the lesse disputable from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord as the Legats of the English Nation at the Councell of Constance contend pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France and Spaine as having received the faith before them preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the Roman-Church at that City â—ay not into Italy till the second year of Claudius the Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome and by the authority of the Councell of Ephesus ought to continue so as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop or Court or ecclesiastical jurisdiction Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter and the administration of Baptisme for 't is not credible that the whole Brittish Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop as their lawfull Patriarch see the Primates vindication p. 100. c When I say that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us he reply's as he useth when he hath nothing to say that this is no Answer to which I thinke I need say no more but that this is no reply Clemens according to the title of the 4 ch of his 6 booke of Constitut might have taught him (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique but hâ— that forsaketh the godly He will not yield that we were forced to forsake Rome But is it not notoriously evident They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith are clearly the Schismatiques but so have the Romanists done as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo Moreover if it be Schisme as it is for a particular church to withdraw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church Rome as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholick faith nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismaticall He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith and herein we are like Rebells that storme at their King that seeks to reduce them We are not so fond in espousing opinions but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them assoon as we shall be taught that they are not agreeable to the Catholique faith * Psal 141.5 If the righteâ—us smite us it shall be a Kindnesse and if they reprove us it shal be an excellent oyle which shall not break our head But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spirituall punishments forasmuch as they reach when the Pope hath power our very souls and spirits so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire sword Gun-powder and all the instruments of cruelty that wit and malice can contrive they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops rather then the sacred Scriptures though St. Augustine (t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hâ—c placet si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticuÌ„ saeviatur Aug cont Cresc Iram l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such as were truely Heretiques affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men that Heretiques should be put to death and though he saw good reason to change his opinion and that the Imperiall Lawes were by their severity advantagious unto Christianity yet it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholique Church which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholicke and that will be when they shall convince us that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force will never concerne us till the Popes Authority over us be made evident and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient when it shall be his Prerogative to give us Commands When I say the Church of Rome hath
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
these doctrines Let the Replyer deny them if he please we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the romish-Romish-communion we need not prove what they deny not being indeed so farre obliged not to deny it as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons To assert a partiall apostacy is not to confound it with heresie the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed which heresie doth not he that never acknowledged the truth cannot apostatize from it but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith may be call'd an heretique though he were never Orthodox Rome is Apostaticall in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed 't is not her mistake only in the truth but her dereliction of it when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone but by workes also for this she believed not but the contrary when St. Paul wrote to her and taught her the right belief Rom 3.28 And when St. Clemens governed her as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians where he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. The next thing the Replyer conceiveth him selfe concerned in is to prove that thâ—s Enthymem or argument The Pope have fallen by heresie therefore the Church of Rome is no valid way of reasoning and withall an extravagant controversie leading to a new dispute coÌ„cerning the Popes infalibility ex Cathedrá the Replyer here is much mistaken so if it be demanded whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure t is no sin not to believe as the Pope believes except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies when he trifles and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence he hath answer'd my argument my reason is clear and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it Thus then I argue is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope or not if it be lawfull why are they censured that obey not his decrees if unlawfull why are they excused that erre not with him nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind and as Hart did in his coÌ„ference with Reynolds rather in despite of all evidence to to the contrary say the Pope cannot erre then plead that though he doth yet the Church is not bound to obey him and truly if it be obliged to obey him how it can stand when he falls I see not 'T is pretended also by the Replyer that the Church of Rome in ascribing universall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice and so not condemâ—ad by a Generall Councell to prove this he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath (c) De Roman Pontifice lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉 would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon so that if Bellarmine please the words in the Canon because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome shall import because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so id est as the Canon before speaketh that Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Concessions to that Bishop as to grant him Authority over those Provinces But why must the sence of Ruffinus be rejected who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasticall History saith that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt (g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised who give the same interpretation of the Canon The Replyer therefore is very bold when he saith that this sence of the Canon which I give is against the intention of it seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment and Learning have given of it before Moreover what a goodly account is given why this cannot be the Genuine sence of the Canon A Bishop governing Churches in the West saith the Replyer is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon No reason I Confesse efficient but yet a Morall reason it might be moving the Fathers assembled in the Councell to provide for the Unity of the Church by like expedient in the East as they saw it furnished with in the West Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation which may out of the Canon thus be framed The ancient Customes are to be retained but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is an Ancient Custome therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome who by the right of custome kept his Authority over the West the minor is evident by experience The Replyer I know likes not the major for he saith that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right Alwayes held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how did this word escape him I appeal to a competent Judge the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions whether Clemens Romanus or no I dispute not but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict in point of Fact for the age wherein he wrote doth not he in that forme of Supplication extant lib 8. cap 10. of the Constitutions sufficiently declare that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co. sâ—it lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray saith he for the Episcopacy of the whole world and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem and his Diocesse and for our Bishap Clement of Rome and his Diocesse and for Luod us of Antâ—och and his Diocess Let the Replyer heâ—e obseâ—ve that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World but as a Pastor over his own
and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there asseÌ„bled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illÃs de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimaÌ„ esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd tâ— this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canonâ— concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Franâ— of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus Aâ—astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofuâ—t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis daÌ„natur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at FraÌ„kford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeuâ— gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no
Authority but of perpetuall infamy through all ages after in the Church because it established Arianisme What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop when the first Nicene Councell might be pleaded for the Catholiques as the Councell of Ariminum was for the Arrians that may I say in the present controversy as to the second Nicene and the Councell of Frankford (t) Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praedicaturus proferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris scripturarum authoritatibus non quorūque propriis sed utrique communibus testibus resi cum re causa cum caulâ ratio cum ratione concerter Aug. con Maxim Arian Episc lib. 3. p. 733. neither am I concluded with the Authority of this nor thou with that let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses proper to neither parties but common to both If then we appeale to the Scriptures what more clear then the voice of God on Mount Sinai Exo 28.48 Thou shalt not make unto thy selfe any graven image or any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them nor serve them c. This service God reserves to himselfe as we are taught Deut 6.13 exclusively to all creatures as we are informed by Christs recitation and weighty interpretation of the place Math 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Exo 34.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt worship no other God The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angells The Replyer may learn if he know not that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture aswell the septuagint in the Old as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testāent are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that these words are all us'd promiscuously as well for religious and divine as for civill worship even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for civill worship to man De 28.48 the septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 20.19 St. Paul is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappinesse of the Galathians that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we may see that Dulia if it be religious worship ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature but Divines should not contend about words the Catholiques agree and I think the Papists cannot deny it that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this that the one is religious and the other civill The first an Elicite Act of religion as the Schools speak the second an imperate flowing from it as the effect from the cause both of them species of Justice as Lactantius hath excellently observed (u) Primum justicize officiū est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum religio dicitur hoc secundum miscricordia vel humanitas dicitur Lactlib 6. c. 10. The first Office of Justice is to be joyned with God the second with man That first is called Religion this second Mercy or Humanity Well then admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria we scruple it not as long as those words are granted to be names of worship differing not only in degree but in kind or nature for seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object ought to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine Worship and Humane or Civil that there is between God and Man But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man and therefore neither ought there to be between Divine and Civill Worship (w) Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vita coluntur sancti Homines Dei quorum Corad talem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta ōnia superata quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faeliciore victores quám in ista adhuc pugnantes at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur latinè un◠verbo dici non potest cum fic quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus nec colimus nec colendum docemus nisi unu◠Deum August contr Faust Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. Et mox longè minoris est peccati ebrium redire à martyribus quà m vel je junum sacrificare martiribus dixi non sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur uni Deo debetur St. August therefore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia did not admit Dulia to be a religious Worship above civill worship such as is given to living men though he acknowledgd it an higher degree of Dulia that we give to the dead then what we give to the living because we honour them after their victory more securely But the Papists conceive thēselves under the notion of Dulia priviledg'd to consecrate Altars Temples Chappell 's to Saints all which St. August judged to appertaine to Latria and speaking of the excesse of Christians that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivalls of the Martyrs he blames the Luxurie of such as were guilty but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far lesse then the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed though even to the Martyrs themselves This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own destinction into Latria and Dulia and much more abhor'd the doctrine of (x) Aquin p. 3. quest 25 Art 3.4 Aquinas and other moderne Romanists Who teach that the Image and the Grosse of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himselfe id est with Latria in its full extent had he lived to to see it (y) Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat c. 5. apud Reynold de Idolat Ecclesiae Rom. lib. 1. c. 1. which veneration when Greg. de Valentia observed could not be attributed to a Creature without Idolatry he spake plainly that some kind of Idolatry was lawfull The Replyer grants that the Church of Rome were sufficiently condemned though not by a Generall Councell if the diffusive body of the Church did condemne her and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church which owned none of those doctrines that the Papists
at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over out of their own Communion Is it not evident by St. Cyprian 63. Epist that the people received the Cup (z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr in calice Domino sanctificando plaebi administrando non hoc faciunt quod Iesus Christu◠Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus Author Doctor fecit docuit religiosum paritèr necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucharisticall Cup and administring it to the people mark no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes heare him speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament now so shamefully defended by the Romanists in his Exposition of the 98. Psal for in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech as the Trent-faith now doth he saith expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them (a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualter intellectū vivificabit vos etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Aug. in Ps 98 pag. 1105. edit froben Understand spiritually that which I have spoken unto you you are not to eat the Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they will shed who will crucifie me I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you being spiritually understood it will quicken you though it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated yet it is behovefull that it be invisibly conceived Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach that what mutation is wrought by consecration is mysticall and not such as the Romanists fancy grosse and corpoporeall when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words he saith (b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini lesu ut inciperent esse quae nō erant quātò magis operatorius est ut fint quae crant in aliud cōmutentur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus that those things which were not by vertue thereof should begin to be how much more effectuall is it to cause the things that were to be and yet to be changed into somewhat else id est to continue naturally what they were before the consecration and yet also after the consecration Mystically and Sacramentally to become the body and blood of Christ which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation * Revel 17.8 that was and is not and yet is others as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans to the Jesuits challenge p. 14. tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603. those words that so much troubled them and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner * Quantò magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make that those things which were should be changed into another thing To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle (c) Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe quem Dominus obtulit vinū suisse quod fanguinem fnum dixit Cyp. Epist 65. we find that the Cup was mixed the epistle was wri◠against the Aquarii that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone which the Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration for thus he writeth concerning that Mysterie (d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ coelesti sic corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having hope of the Resurrection When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation they are nothing but a Catachresis an abuse of words or hyperbolicall elevations familiar to all sorts of Writers not unusuall among the Ancients when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptisme as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist that it is no longer after the consecration common bread St. Chrissest and Greg Nussen say also of Baptisme Non est aqua communis it is not common water and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated by the efficacy of the spirit the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into another element It appears hence that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the Roman-Church as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches and the Papists in the Roman separation who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession before the Protestants departed from them or rather were forced and driven from them As to my assertion schisme is theirs who cause it he thinkes to say only let that passe a valid confutation and excepts against my instance when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the heretiques made the schism◠This is contrary as he pretends to 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain he retiques saith exierunt a nobis whic◠if true saith he then the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretiques and t◠Arrians and the Heretiques were Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye◠of a Jackdaw as infallibly as any on◠I ever heard of as if departure it sel◠did imply a crime without reference to the Society which a man leaveth b◠his departure Is departure from the blessed