to what these testimonies seem to speak nor doth he there say as our Author cites him Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants indeed one of the places tels us that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme and consequently if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio he will not be obnoxious to any thing agreeable to which is the place cited from venerable Bede but hence we can only infer that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with through the mercy of God but yet 't is evident he held they had a right to the Sacrament and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. he cites cap. 22. From an Antient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme and the body and blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them Now if this opinion which St. Austine saith was so deeply setled in the See Austin ep 95. De usu Patrum p. 263 264. Church of God and which was held by Innocent the first by St. Cyprian and others as Dally may inform you be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils Anathema upon those who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem let any reasonable man judge CHAP. X. The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquitie Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered Sect. 6. Of Tertullian Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian Sect. 8. St. Chrysostome Sect. 9. Eusebius Sect. 10. Epiphanius Sect. 11. An evasion confuted Sect. 12. St. Ambrose Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory Sect. 16 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered S. 18 19. IN this Chapter our Author tells us Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further Sect. 4. 5. 111 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord and also another which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin Now saith he if it can be demonstrated That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead it unavoydably follows that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hell and if so where are they Dr. Pierce speak like an honest man Sect. 1 Answer This is a shrewd Argument which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty or his Cause But sure the Case is not so desperate For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which yet is an evident untruth and were these Prayers used from the beginning and that through the Universal Church of God which cannot be proved yet would I defie his Conclusion and his Argument to infer it For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven then is there not one Saint one Martyr nay not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ Sess 9. De invocatione Sanctorum and then farewel the Council of Trent which talks of Saints reigning with Christ aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not from righteous Abel to that very day that they might rest in the Region of the living in the Kingdome of God in the delights of Paradise in the bosome of Abraham Isaac and Jacob And yet will our Authour say That there is not one of these souls in Heaven And so for the absolving of their sins which is his second instance The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that had gone before them for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Mansions worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance and prayes God to pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God in the hope of the Resurrection and Eternal Life Dall de Satisfact page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins Confes l. 9 c. 13 I know O Lord saith he That she was merciful and from her heart forgave her Debtors Do thou therefore forgive her debts if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme for so many years Forgive her Lord forgive her I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her And so on and yet the same Austin tells us what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome there his Mother is ibi vivit nam quis alius tali animae locus for what other place was fitting for her Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall ubi supra pag. 520. Now then is Abrahams bosome Purgatory Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory or if not is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory Sect. 4 2. We shall tell him in the sequel of the Chapter That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself partly upon other things which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers why then may it not be Heaven for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers as the Fathers generally affirm 2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers and the holy Councils hath taught us that there is a Purgatory and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed held and every where preached Now
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
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
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of
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
intimates and would have the learned Dr. guilty of the same blunder Mr. Cr. p. 309 albeit he hath not one syllable whence he can infer it But Calixtus the second who lived An. Dom. 1119. Sim. Dunelm in Chron. lib. 20. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. pag. 67 who in a Synod held at Rome An. Dom. 1120. Made this decree that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons should bee altogether interdicted the cohibitation of Concubines and Wives CHAP. XXIV Particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from their corruptions sect 1. Mr. C's limitations considered ib. The example of the Emperour Justinian for it sect 2. Of Carolus Magnus sect 3. Mr. C ' s. evasion obviated sect 4. The testimonies of Balsamon sect 5. The example of the Kings of Judah vindicated sect 6. Mr. C ' s. Objections answered sect 7 8. The History of the reformation sect 9. Wee might reform without Synodal concurrence sect 10. IN the consideration of this twenty fourth Chapter Sect. 1 I will use as few words as possible And First Whereas the Dr. had said that by the concessions of the most learned Popish VVriters particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church Mr. C. p. 285. as in the state without leave had from the See of Rome This saith he is willingly granted But then 1. He will not have them grant such a power of purgation against the consent of the See of Rome Answ As if they who have power to do this without the leave of the See of Rome might not do it with a non obstante to the contradiction of that See 2. Were all the decrees and statutes of the Germain Spanish Gallican Churches against the encroachments of the Pope his indulgences his bulls c. so largely insisted upon by Bishop Bramhal made by the consent of the Roman See did she not with greatest violence oppose them Secondly saith hee did they allow this liberty against the consent of the whole Church Catholick Ibid. Answ Wee have shewed that wee did not separate from the whole Church Catholick but being constrained by your obstinacy in imposing on us unjust conditions of communion refused to communicate with you the most ulcerated part of the Church Catholick upon these terms 2. When the Church in Athanasius his daies was over-run with Arrianism the Church of Israel in the daies of the Prophet Elias with Idolatry was it not lawful for particular Churches and particular Tribes to purge themselves from those corruptions 3. What promise have wee what evidence to assure us that there never was can nor will be any superstitions in all the Liturgies of the Church of God if you tell us that there be such promises we must call upon you to produce them if not then might there have been cause of our altering some things which were universally practised in the visible Church at the time of our reformation when we returned to that Primitive purity that was more or less deserted by it Thirdly Ibid. Not a Purgation quoth hee from the whole faith and discipline in any thing they thought fit to be rectified that by the authority of Councils and laws of Princes had been received and inforce ever since this Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves members of the Catholick Church Answ Every word is a misadventure for neither were the chief things reformed by us as the tyranny of the Pope the Idolatry of Images the Sacriledge in with-holding the Cup c. decreed by any Councils established by any laws of Princes or received by us at the first conversion of the Nation as wee have sufficiently evinced much less did the asserting of them declare us members of that Catholick Church which never owned them but detested them Fourthly Ibid. He tells us that we cannot produce one example either of States or Princes that ever made any laws to repeal any doctrines declared or disciplines established in the Church Answ If he speaks of a particular Church 't is so palpable an untruth that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think he needs an instance to the contrary if of the whole Catholick Church it concerns not us for never will hee bee able to evince that we have done so or if wee had done so in sleighter matters where they have swerved from Scripture and Primitive antiquity how are we blame-worthy in so doing hath not your Trent Council decreed against the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants which yet was the Doctrine of the universal Church in the fourth century have you not laid aside some Ceremonies which in the Primitive Church were practised universally Lastly Ibid. You say that the Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholick were to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of discipline that swerved from the decrees and ordinations of the Church and no other Answ The Purgations executed by our Princes were truly so and this wee constantly assert let Queen Elizabeth speak in her own behalf England saith she hath embraced no new religion Cambdens Annals of Eliz. p. 35 36. nor any other then that which Jesus Christ hath commanded that the Primitive and Catholick church hath exercised and the Antient Fathers have alwaies with one voice and one minde approved And 1. Sect. 2 touching the Emperour Justinian the first instance produced by the Dr. let it be only considered that it was he who banished Pope Silverius who created Justiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his imperial power who made so many laws contrary to the decrees of former Synods and for the correction limitation or right ordering thereof who made so many laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons and Benefices and holy Orders and appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie excommunicating all Hereticks and that of Nestorius and Eutyches in particular ordaining that if the followers of them did not return after warning given by vertue of his Edict they should have no favour L. cum recta C. de summa Tâ—â—â— or pardon but be condemned and punished as convicted and denounced Hereticks who made so many Laws touching Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all other matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance yea who expressely saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novel 133. that nothing comes amiss to the Prince every thing is under his Royal cognizance I say if this bee considered Justinian alone if all other Presidents were lost were sufficient to evince this Political supremacy of soveraign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions and consequently to justifie the Oath of Supremacy which Mr. C. tells us wee cannot hence justifie there being nothing ascribed to his Majesty thereby See Mr. C. p. 290. but onely Political Supremacy as is excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 290. Yea 2. To justifie our reformation it being onely to the casting out of
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
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
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
I ask whether the Scriptures Thus Bellarmine lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory appears from these words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3. He shall c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire and this he puts among the thing in which all agree upon which especially they build their Purgatory be not such as these They shall be saved yet so as by fire some sins are forgiven in this world some in the world to come And as for the Tradition of the Fathers is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins Well then if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented or something analogous thereunto 2. It must needs follow that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins 3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit that Purgatory is a place under the Earth in the lower regions of it wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings and in their Sermons ad populum And being so I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of If it be not then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught And if so either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge and so they live continually in a wilful sin or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church and then must our Author say that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops If it be then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Again are these things tending to Edification or not if not then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught contrary to the Council If they be then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of Again De Puigatorio Their Bellarmine will tell us l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned and prove it from the second of the Acts solutis doloribus inferni the pains of Hell being loosed which Saint Augustine saith he understands of Purgatory and that hence it is that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell and the deep Lake Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni de profundo lacu Yea secondly He will tell you from the venerable Beda That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell And thirdly that omnes fere Theologi almost all their Divines assert that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place and tormented with the same fire as the damned are Well then first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal de profundo lacu then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held Sess ult doc de Purg. Again I suppose your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it That if true penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission by fruits of repentance their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ or his Saints to the dead So then out of these things so deduced we have all that usually we charge you with First That there are some sins venial such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment Secondly That you hold that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it This is clear from the Council of Florence and these two Bellarmine joyns together De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins which are the hay and stubble mentioned 1 Cor. 3. and again for those that depart with the guilt of punishment the fault being formerly remitted Thirdly That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory to satisfie for these venial sins or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned Fourthly That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer however they may differ for Degree and Space Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead Sect. 5 And first whereas you say De Satisfac page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them here Dally telling you That of the custome of praying for the Dead Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age do make no mention so that it is credible it came in after that Age for Causes we shall hereafter mention Sect. 6 But to pass on to your proofs p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite by Confession of Protestants lived within the second Century after the Apostles when as even Bishop Forbs upon the Question tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century and it is clear that he speaks of Monks which had no being till the third Century of Temples and Altars which Origen and Arnobius who flourished in the third Century have told us the Christians never had And therefore whereas he sayes that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles his Divine Teachers this lye can sure avail you nothing but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand But as he is
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
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