These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of same observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate And sect 56. What do you conclude saith he from â—ence but that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted where note that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners but also in Doctrines and Lawes for from several of these he will not deny Luther to have made a discession Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church Well let this be granted what will come of it That Luther must be a Scismatick By no means I say it is evident as these confess that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves from the whole world that is from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age Since not one Church upon earth antecedent to their separation can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion not one which has Laws or Governors in common with them not one that will joyn with them or with which they will joyn in publick Offices Lyturgies Sacrifices and Synods The English Church doth not pretend a Communion with Churches manifestly Heretical as the Armenian Coptite Abissine Nestorian Iacobite Georgian Churches c. And for the Grecian the Reformers at their first separation were actually divided from her and sure they will not say that by separation from the Roman they became ipso facto in communion with the Grecian or if they would say so the Grecian would protest against them as we see their Patriark Hieremias did c. 17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve which a late learned Protestant Writer in his discourse of Schism insists upon when seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus which was a Church independent of all other and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch For though this pretention could be made good which is impossible yet this would not serve their turn considering the English Church ever since her Conversion acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate But though she had indeed such a priviledge and never renounced it who will say the Cyprian Church because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction as Ordinations Visitations c. could therefore independently of all the world frame or change Articles of Faith or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Councils though onely Patriarckical CHAP. XXII The limitations of the Churches Authority made by Arch-Bishop Lawd c. examined Objections against the Proceedings in the Council of Trent answered Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation Secular and Carnal ends in it 1. HAving shew'd the indispensible obligation of even an internal assent that Roman Catholicks acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils as being infallible and which Protestants ought also to perform though they acknowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental since the Church her self hath not declar'd which of her Decisions are Fundamental and which not for she hath affixed Anathemas to many which in themselves are not Fundamental and hath said only si quis dixerit not si quis non crediderit concerning Doctrines which are unquestionably Fundamental and necessary We will now examine the foremention'd Limitations or cases in which it is said particular persons or Churches may and ought to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental or even for not contradicting them which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd Doctor Field c. 2. In the first place An assent even internal say they is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines only as are Fundamental or Points of necessary Faith because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends But who shall or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with respect to all particular states of men or Churches when the Church her self hath not made any distinction between them and perhaps cannot Surely Prudence and a most necessary care of our own Salvation by continuing in the Unity of the Church would dictate to us that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible and therefore cannot mislead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her Decisions as if they were of necessary Faith for only by doing so we can be sure not to err in necessary Points and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism 3. Secondly As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary if we could find them out the same internal assent say they is due except in two cases i. Vnless Scripture or evident demonstration come against them whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined in which case it is unlawful to assent yea it is permitted rather to contradict and separate But let any Christian mans conscience judge whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which express Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced This licence being admitted who shall be judge whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration be really one or no Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided None can judge of the thoughts of another So that upon these grounds whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred must be believed or however cannot be found fault withall for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church What Presbyterian writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church will doubt to say that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors And if he say so who can demostrate that he does not think so And if he think so he may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and God's Church too by the Archbishop's warrant for he taking notice page 245. that such an Objection will be made resolves it thus That a General Council he means another General Council must decide whether it be a demonstration or not Hence it will follow 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called 2. But if another General Council must decide it why hath not the last General Council which he disobeys decided it Or if this may not oblige him why should the next But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough For
custome is most dangerous and altogether to be eschewed What sayes the witty Whitacre The Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Errors sewn together And again to believe by the Testimony of the Church not excepting any Age is the plain Heresie of the Papists To conclude for I might quote all day long upon this Subject what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy Luther There never was any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted And now what shall we say our selves in this confused variety Against some of our Adversaries we must cite antiquity or else we do nothing against others if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptized we do nothing God deliver them from their cross and incertain wandrings and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase 5. But if the Doctor means by shewing that Iota as to which c. that we have not so shewed it as to stop their mouths or to force them to confess and repent of their fault then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another as long as the dissention lasts between them In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers c who after all their Books Canons Acts of Vniformity c. which those Sects call Antichristian tyrannical Popery as the Protestants did ours still persist in separation from them Then neither the Apostles antient Fathers or Councils ever shewed one Iota to antient Pagans or Heretics because for all their shewing others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward And yet even in this particular though a very unreasonable one we Cathâ—lics can confidently affirm that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversie that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology the Triple Cord c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions This is truly if well considered an advantage strange and extraordinary for I believe never did any of the Antieâ—t Hâ—retiâ—s so far justifie the Catholic Church No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antieâ—t Fathers which shews that above all former examples the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by their own Consciences 6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota in which they who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity or the four first General Councils aâ— it belongs to them who have thus divided themselves not only to shew but to demonstrate first most clearly that there is such a discession from those Scriptures Fathers and Councils by that former Church which they deserted not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession and by our Adversaries own Confession has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchaâ— yea of the Vniversal Church and this as far as any Records can be produced He is now after so many Ages question'd and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church nay by one single Woman and her Counsel the universality of her Clergy protesting against her proceedings and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning establish'd among us and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wiclef or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle c. manifest Heretics and Traytors Now it is against all Rules of Law Iustice and Reason that such as are Possessores bonae fidei should be obliged to produce their evidences This belongs only to the Plaintiffs and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Vsurpation yea such an Vsurpation as cannot either be exercised or submitted to without sin 7. The Doctor is likewise to consider thaâ— if ex super abundanti we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fathers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them and justifie our Possession Such Proofs of ours though considered in themselves were only probable yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants But on th' other side unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us they are not so much as probabilities all this by their own confession For as has been shew'd they lay it for a ground and acknowledge the Catholic Church of which according to their own Doctrin the Roman is at least a Member to be in all fundamental Points infallible and that in all other Points now in debate which are not fundamental it would be unlawful for particular Churches to professe any dissent from her without an evident demonstration that she has actually and certainly erred in them yea moreover that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion except such as though against their Consciences and Knowledge will subscribe to her Errors Errors so heynous as to deserve and justifie a separation 8. These things premis'd my last care must be to provide that in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise it may not be such an one as may abuse the world The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction so much as to any Protestant who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason or thinks Schism not to be a sleight Pâ—ecadillo Therefore that he may know what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable I here declare that in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alledged by me to disprove the charge of Noveltiâ—â— by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church and the excusing of Schism in his own he will be a betrayer of his own Soul and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him unless he observe the Conditions following 9. The first is since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins for which they separate are indeed such pernicious errors and
general were allow'd them That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries this will not excuse them for dissenting from the Church in any particular Doctrines actually decided by a General Council Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even internal is unlawful without a certain demonstration that the Church hath actually erred in such and such Doctrines But which way possibly can any particular person or Church arrive to such a demonstration It must be by producing express Scripture or universal Tradition formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared Who can think who dares believe that those supreme Guides of all Christians who were by our Lord placed in the Church and graced with such promises who are the only Guardians of the Scripture it self and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and manifestly contrary to express Scripture or evident demonstration And as for universal Tradition there can be no Iudge of it but the whole Church particular persons or Churches are utterly uncapable of making such a judgment especially in opposition to the whole Church 11. It were happie therefore if Protestants considering the Promises of Christ and the necessity of unity in the Church would allow but as much submission to the Supreme Tribunal of his Church as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim to which no such Promises were made For then though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible yet they would acknowledge that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbidden but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisions 12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore produced in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals And indeed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh that is the Messias came By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed For as to the outward proâ—ession and practises of the Mosaical Law it was alwayes continued in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair I say as to the outward practises of it For in the Spiritual sense of it the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself typified therein But now Shiloh was already come and God's promise of Indefectibility rested in this New High Priest and his Successors 13. Notwithstanding all this yet Errors might creep in about non-fundamentals as the Rabbins confess when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place and without all tergiversation be obeyed So as though they being indeed in such things fallible should command any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law the Iews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of Judgment and internal assent to such Commands that they were agreeable to God's Law because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great importance should be transgressed than that Contentions and Disputes should be endless 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority than the Iews did to their Sanedrim which was infallible in fundamentals but subject to Error in non-fundamentals they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council but ought to submit their internal Judgment to them For since it is impossible they should have any demonstrative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred I mean in matter of Doctrine all other inferiour Judgments all only probable Arguments against them ought to cease the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opinions altogether improbable So that though upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions and by consequence their assent would be erroneous yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience humble submission of Judgment love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it Besides that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches and not at all on their account 15. But since Protestants find an extraordinary difficulty more than Catholicks to submit their Judgments to Authority and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges Let it be supposed that their first Reformers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions should thereupon have been excommunicated by the Church In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience and not voluntarily forsake her Communion and much less ought they to have set up or repair to an Anti-communion For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism 16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church and the unlawfulness of separation from it I do not mean a Church of one denomination no not the Roman as such for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her But I intend the Vniversal Church which we call Roman Catholick because all true Orthodox Churches an union of which constitutes the Universal Church acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Root of their Unity Therefore Protestants in vain seek to excuse their separation upon pretence it was onely from the Roman not from the Vniversal Church because 1. A separation from the external Communion of any one true Member of the Catholick Church for Doctrines which are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that Member is indeed a separation from all Churches which is manifestly the case of the English separation 2. Because it is evident that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves a toto mundo A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melancthon in these words Nec non parvi refert c. For it doth not a little concern us that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us descend to posterity For it were a thing more then absurd after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world if we in our very beginnings should also divide from one another And which Chillingworth also confesseth in several places cap. 5. sect 55. As for the external Communion of the
Novelties we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them And it being supposed by the Archbishop c. that without such a certainty it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church The Doctor is bound and â—here adjure him to declare expresly as in the presence of Him who is Supreme Head of the Church and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it that he is demonstratively certain that in all these Points charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils she is manifestly guilty and that nothing appears in this or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance which deserves to be esteem'd so much as a probable proof to the contrary For my part I here protest on the other side that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon nor believe there can any be produced which can warrant him to make such a Declaration 10. The second Condition is That in like manner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity the main grounds upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism to wit these 1. That the universal Church â—epresented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors that a particular Church c. discovering such errors may be obliged to separate externally 2. That a particular Chrâ—stian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationaâ— Synod and assented to by it and that a Nationaâ— Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical or any of them in regard of an Oecumenical formerly accepted and admitted If these Assâ—riâ—ous he Innovations as in our perswasion they are it is clear they destroy all possible unity If they be not let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church 3. That a particular Church c. in opposition to the Vniversal can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons 〈◊〉 Communities c. and what not And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary 11. Thirdly if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church but only from the Roman then to make this good he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods they ever have or can repair And since at the time of their first Separation they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church and the Members of it be must shew how when and where they entered into any other new Communion Lastly Since the English Church by renouncing not only several Doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby separated from both these he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly heretical with whom the English Church communicates 12. A fourth Condition is that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments to consecrate confirm preach God's Word c. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations Or if they be he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their Synods and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledg them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations 13. The last shall be that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils especially that of Trent If he will combate against her there he has a fair and open field and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense Otherwise he will declare himself as one who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed Now in exchange I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions But truly I know not where to find them except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children For the 39. Articles being almost all Negatives may as well be reputed the Doctrines of Iewish or Turkish Congregations since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Infallibility of Councils c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief as the Huguenots in France c. the Lutherans in Germany c only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith upon what motive I am unwilling to guess 14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable and even according to Protestants grounds also so necessary if the Replyer shall refuse to perform he will in the judgment of all discerning Readers be himself the Answerer and Conâ—uter of his own Reply and withall will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at but the satisfying his own or others interests passions and revenge against those who least deserve it All subterfuges all involved intricacies in answering all discourses which are not open candid and sincere will be confessions of guilt He may perhaps hide the weaknesse of his cause from credulous Women Trades-men or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry but to all considering Readers his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery Aristotle saies the Sepiâ— is the wisest of all Fishes because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour which hinders the sight of her But on the contrary Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent Quia cum se putat latere prodit seipso latibâ—lo for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour 15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans and from them other Reformerd took the name Protestants for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms Spires c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest What Edicts were made against them We Catholics might rather assume such a title if it were of any special honor having
apprehension of the least danger from us to his Majesties Person or the State Nay so publickly and constantly have we asserted the innocence of our Religion in the Point of fidelity to Princes and such unquestioned proofs thereof have we given by our actions that the Honorable Peers of this very Parliament were in an immediate preparation of mind to antiquate all the Sanguinary Laws against us God Almighty give repentance and pardon to the unhappy obstructors of that grace Yet for all our innocence Preachers must be satisfied They cry aloud their fears of the increase of Popery when as for one new-professed Catholic who forsakes their Churches hundreds of all other Sects relinquish both their Churches and Allegiance too They impute as a Crime to us what all other Sects impute to them and themselves glory in that we receive our Ordinations from Rome that is that we are not a separated Sect but members of the true Catholic Church For if there be indeed a Catholic Church Ordinations must be derived into particular Countries from a Common Principle and Fountain otherwise the Cement of Union and Subordination is dissolved But what esteem our former Princes had of this pretended Crime will appear by a late example given by his Majesty of happy memory He had graciously reprieved a Priest condemned at the Old Bayly Hereupon the Commons in the late unhappy Parliament A. D. 1640. by Mr. Glyn request the Lords to joyn in a Petition to his Majesty to be informed who should dare to be instrumental in retarding Justice in the face of the Parliament To which the King by the Lord Privy Seal 28 January tels them the cause of the reprieve was because the man was found guilty as being a Priest only upon which account neither King Iames nor Queen Elizabeth ever exercised the penal Lawes Notwithstanding his Majesty left the Prisoner to their wills to live or dye according to their Votes and thereby he escaped for even they had not the courage to say Let this mans blood be upon us and our Children This MADAM is our condition A condition though according to the World's estimation to be bewailed yet if we look up to Heaven it is a condition to be triumphed in Now we are sure a reward in Heaven expects us since we are thus recompenced upon Earth It becomes us all therefore bending the Knees of our Hearts to give infinite thanks to our gracious God since it is now evidently and confessedly for him onely and the Catholic verities revealed by him for the unity of his Mystical Body and the religious fear we have of being guilty of Schiâ—m that we do and shall hereafter suffer This Madam is now our onely crime and this I am now actually committing and am so far from being asham'd except only of the imperfect manner of executing it that I have assumed the boldness to desire and hope your Majesties approbation and defence both of the crime and criminal Person it is our whole common Faith delivered by God to the Church that both at Court and all over the Nation has been publickly traduced some Doctrins have been charged to be contrary to the honour and safety of the State others to be Doctrins of Devils all of them to be Novelties and usurpations our whole Catholic Church is made to pass for a Sect a separated Schismatical congregation But from what other Church neither can our Accuser tell nor any one imagin Perhaps the present temper of the Times and delay of an Adversary appearing had encouraged the Preacher to think his Sermon un-answerable not for any weight in his proofs but because it may be in his power to reply with an Instrument sharper than his Pen. Notwithstanding as Prudence did justly restrain that impetuosity which zeal to Gods truth might move in the hearts of Catholics to retort this Cartel of Defiance which he has published against His Church so to remain utterly silent after so many reimpressions of that Sermon in several forms and after such diligent Translations of it into forraign Languages after that incredible avidity with which so many thousand Copies of it have been snatched out of the hands of the Readers and from the Stalls of the Sellers this would be a confession of our own guilt and a distrust in our Cause as publick as his challenge and provocation has been this would be indeed to be ashamed of Christ and his truth before men For this reason shutting my eyes to all external frights or discouragements I presumed to undertake an Answer to his Allegations hoping that some others of my Brethren would do it with greater efficacy and fruit than I dare promise to this imperfect work And having this resolution I took the boldness to inscribe your Majesties Name in the Front being assured that nothing could be more acceptable nor a greater refreshment to your most tenderly Christian heart which bears an equal share in this our common oppression then to see that Faith which you valew above Crowns at least not betray'd and truly I confidently hope demonstrated to remain unprejudiced by any thing alledged in that Sermon With this perswasion I most humbly beg leave to cast at your Majesties feet both my self and Work which as it was undertaken not upon my own single judgment so that it may not appear in public without your Majesties approbation and protection is the most humble Suit and only Petition of 14 May 1663. MADAM Your MAIESTIES Most humbly Devoted Servant in our Lord S. C. CHAP. I. Of Doctor Pierce's Sermon in General What was probably the inward design of it I Cannot forbid my self to wonder that a Book so universally esteem'd so often reprinted and not only reprinted in our own but translated into foreign Languages should yet lye open to so many and so plain Exceptions Not one period can I find that seems to me Extraordinary Not one Instance but has long since been often objected both with closer Reason and neater Rhetorick So that now by experience as well as faith I see 't is true that the Scripture sayes The Race is not to the Wise nor the Battle to the Strong nor favour to men of Skill but Time and Chance happens to them all 2. And are we not come to a fine passe when not onely a dozen perhaps of the greatest and subtilest Controversies in Religion shall be crowded into a short Sermon but exprest with such vanity and affectation of exotic and abstruse Phrases as if the end of Preaching were nothing but to talk an hour of hard things in harder words Ask the great Auditory of Lords and Ladies that heard this Doctor Persons of clear and ingenuous apprehensions who like good sense though not delivered in Greek who penetrate into the connection of Things though they have not mis-spent their lives in studying Words Ask that Illustrious and Noble Assembly what they think of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Emperor Zeno or of the
itching to be as old as the Iulian period begun before the Protoplast Some of them perhaps may have heard of the Palladium of the Conclave but for the Embroidery of the Theopneust Aholiab or the Antiquaryes Keimeliah I believe the Ladies at least were a little puzled on the sudden how to understand them yet if those pompous Sounds were translated into plain English not one of them but would easily see the sense without other Dictionary than their own Cabinet 3. As for the Doctor 's profession in his Epistle Dedicatory That his Resolution was the Sermon should never have been expos'd to the World had not his Majesty commanded it I readily beleeve him for a Victory is easily and very cheaply got if a Controversie be to be decided by a flourishing Speech confidently pronounc'd by a Person in esteem for Learning and Sincerity in a Place where none must contradict especially when he protests he has Proofs unquestionable for all his Assertions But till those Proofs be examin'd the Conquest is only over the Hearer's passions not their reason It may be and I pray God this Sermon was not meant so a good preparation to usher in the Calvinistical zeal for executing severities on innocent Persons who sincerely abhor the crimes deserving such Rigors and the unchristian Principles the Fountains of those Crimes that is on Persons against whom the Law-givers themselves have publickly professed they never intended those punishments This kind of Iustice he may hope for from his Sermon but a rational conviction will never be the effect of it 4. Truly Doctor Pierce must not blame us if we fear he had some such thoughts in his mind when he preached this Sermon so differing from the style of Court-Sermons in the times of his Majesty of glorious memory and of the late as he styles him immortal Archbishop But have we since those dayes deserved such a change in the Tongues and Pens of any Protestants especially the Clergy By what crimes Is it because we have ever since been ready and are so still unanimously to sacrifice our Blood and Fortunes for his Majesty by which also their Church hath been maintained and setled against all the irreconcileable enemies both of monarchy and It Methinks they might forgive us this fault both for past and future For we shall fall into it again if they do not take care by destroying us to prevent it 5. This suspition of ours is much encreased when we reflect on that bitter passage in his Epistle Dedicatory where he sayes I suppose my discourse however innocent in it self will yet be likely to meet with many not only learned and subtile but restless Enemies men of pleasant insinuations and very plausible snares nay such as arâ— apt where they have power to confute their Opponents with fire and faggots Indeed it is possible his Sermon may somewhere fall into some such hands But unlesse he will renounce all Charity justice and humanity he must not impute particular mens actions to Catholic Religion and for their faults expose us to the common hatred and violence Let all the received Canons of the Church be searched and if one be found that justifies the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion he may have some pretence for such an indefinite odious reflexion upon innocent suffering Christians Let all the practises of the World be examined and it will clearly appear 't is not Catholick Religion that 's chargable with these Excesses since in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not And though for some few of these later Ages the Civil Magistrates of some Countries have exercis'd a greater severity then anâ—iently was us'd Yet now even they have entertain'd a more calm and tractable Spirit and seem to hope by other Arguments sufficiently to secure their Religion However why must our England imitate the rigidest of other Nations against whom for that very reason we so loudly exclaim rather than the moderate proceedings of those who are nearer us both in scituation temper and interest Why thus continually be harping upon one string that jarres and never touch the rest that move in harmony 6. Our late unhappy wars have made the Preacher and many others besides him Travellers We appeal to their consciences and experience if they would be pleased to speak as Persons of honour and integrity Did they in any Catholick Countries even ROME it self though here much spoken against for cruelty ever apprehend any danger for their opinions or refusal to joyn in the exercise of Catholick Religion so they would abstain from publick scandalous affronts to the Church they had freedom not only with all quietnesse to enjoy their consciences but civilly to justifie their Doctrines All expressions of kindnesse tendernesse and compassion they received from their Catholick Opponents but surely not the least hard usage that might imprint terrour in their minds 7. Thus much may be permitted us to alledge in our own Defence upon this occasion gives us by the Preacher especially considering we are the onely persons expos'd to the publick hatred and rigour though we onely of all the Dissenters from the Religion of the Kingdom least deserve it For we are no Innovators but Professors of the same Religion that made this Nation Christian. A Religion though now too generally decryed yet in those times confirmed by great Miracles as even Protestants acknowledge A Religion which for almost a thousand years was onely known and professed here When the Reformation entred though almost all Subjects were Catholicks yet seeing the change was introduc'd by a Supream Authority no opposition was made to it by any other Aâ—mes but Prayers and Tears Whatsoever Treasons have been acted by a few wretched persons even our Princes themselves have acquitted the generality of Catholicks thereof and our Religion from allowing them There cannot be framed any Formes of professing or acknowledging due Supremacy and Allegiance to our Kings but we are ready to subscribe them in the same sense that the most learned Protestants themselves ordinarily say they intend them Publick atttestations of our fidelity and zeal in serving and defending our Princes and even the Religion of the Kingdom almost destroy'd by a Conspiracy of all other Dissenters have been made in our behalf even by some who now are most sharp against us Yet after all this of them who are not able to alledge any one of these excuses for themselves some are rendered in a capacity to Triumph over our Suffrings unrepentant Traytors are among our Accusers though it is known the thing which most enrages them is our fidelity their Invectives how false soever are believ'd and they hope to become popular for their attempts to destroy us CHAP. II. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics Schism imputed to Catholics Why necessary the Sermon should be refuted by Catholics The Answerers protestation of sincerity 1. THe Doctours Sermon for as much as concerns us Roman
Catholicks pretends a double Design First Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants Secondly In consequence to this that not they but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism 2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine which he saies are Novelties and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope 2. The infallibility of the Church 3. Purgatory 4. Transubstantiation 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse 6. Communion under one Species 7. Worship of Images 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 9. Invocation of Saints 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication 3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism he acknowledges that a real Schism there is but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church which made erroneous Novelties new Articles of their Creed which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority So that though they separated from the then present visible Church yet they ought not to be called Schismatics but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical which caused them to separate 4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her that heretofore was this Churches Mother and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes the Roman Catholick Church Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard and with what a general greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks if being confidently perswaded as truly for my part I am that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause And therefore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes 5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon I will follow his own order before summarily set down And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments adjoining to each Point respectively the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins And having done this I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism 6. And knowing very well what candor sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause and the cause of his Church I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called piaâ— fraudes corruptions of either And both in my Answers and Objections I will alledge nothing but what I am perswaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced that is I will bring nothing as a proof which I for the present think can be answered 7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation If he did I am very glad for his own sake that he forbore to print what he then spoke because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity yet I believe he will find by this short Paper that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution which certainly if ever was most requisite in a cause so important especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING God's own Viceâ—erent 8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies and such as his Text neither invited much lesse compelled â—im to undertake or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty that is whether such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy I leave to the Preachers own Conscience If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so becomming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face The University-â—ulpit or some City Congregations where such behaviour is in fashion might well enough have contented him CHAP. III. Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics The Doctor 's notion of Beginning He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament 5 Eliz. Five Questions proposed touching that Notion 1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel derided by his Adversaries and condemned by his Brethren it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin than for himself sincerely to acknowledge However that both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers both in grosse and by retayl through all the particular Points by him mentioned 2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes Presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith encreased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships In like manner Peter Martyr affirms That in the Church errours did beg in immediately after the Apostles times And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall alwayes be conversant in the same errours In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle I have said more than once and I suppose not without reason that comparing the antient times of the Church even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours they had better Consciences but lesse Knowledge On the contrary We have more Knowledge but lesse Conscience This is my Iudgement c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had They spent their lives in reading
and examining Antiquity and were as willing to make it speak on their sides as the Preacher was But as ill Consciences as they had they were convinced and forced publickly to confess that the Fathers were against them and focus And in particular Opposition to his Claim of Antiquity like Bishop Iewels for the first six Centuries Doctor Fulk is so far from concurring with him or Bishop Iewel that he is so choleric at the suspition of such a charge that he addresses himself to his Adversary in this civil language I Answer saies he if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for six hundred years next after Christ he lyeth in his heart 3. One passage there is of that famous Andreas Duditius which truly I cannot read without extream compassion and astonishment at the dreadful judgment of God and it may do Doctor Pierce much good if he sadly reflect on it Many years he had lived in great esteem for learning and prudence a Catholick Bishop of Petscben in Hungary called Quinque Ecclesiae present he was at the frameing the Decrees of the Council of Trent But at last falling in love with a Maid of honour in the Queen of Hungaries Court to marry her he quitted both his Bishoprick and Religion This poor man in his declining Age could not abstain from confessing in a Letter to Beza his unsatisfaction in his new Religion vainly hoping some either Cordial or Opiate for his distressed Conscience from one as deeply plunged and by the very same motives engaged in the same change I pray observe his words Si veritas est saies he quam veteres Patres c. If that be truth which the antient Fathers by mutual consent have professed it will entirely stand on the Papists side For if heretofore any Controversies out of a beat of Disputation arosâ— between the learned among them an end was presently imposed thereto by Decrees of Councils or even of the Pope alone But what strange people have we among us They are alwaies wandring toss'd with every wind of Doctrine and being hurried into the main Deep they are carried sometimes this way sometimes another If you would inform your self what their Iudgment to day is touching Religion you may perhaps come to know it But what it will be to morrow on the same Argument neither themselves nor you can certainly affirm Thus Duditius And what Cordial against this scrupulous Melancholly does Beza his good friend afford him Take it from himself Scio speciosum esse venerandae velustatis nomen c. I know the name of venerable Antiquity is very specious But whence shall we fetch the beginning of that Title but from the Prophets and Apostles For as for Writers that come after them if we will take their own advice we will believe them on no other terms but as far as they shall evidently make good what they deliver out of the Holy Scriptures That is in effect have but the Christian modesty and humility to prefer your own sense of Scriptures before all the Fathers and Councils of Gods Church and then nothing they say need to trouble you Antiquity venerable Antiquity will be on your side You may confidently say of all your Adversaries Doctrins From the Beginning it was not so 4. Many other Confessions of the like nature might be added but for brevity-sake I will content my self with onely one more and that is as it seems to me a secret acknowledgement of the Church of England in her publick Liturgy directly contrary to the Preachers pretension and applications of his Text by which she after a sort imputes Novelty to her self and confesses the Roman to be that Church which was from the beginning In the Order for Morning-prayer there are these Versicles and Responds V. O. Lord save the King R. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee V. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness R. And make thy chosen people joyfull V. O Lord save thy People R. And bless thine Inheritance Then follows a Versicle for Peace Now these as almost all the other Prayers are mafestly translated out of the Roman Office But that which ought to be observed is That in the Roman Office there is a Versicle and Respond immediately following these and going before the Versicle for Peace which the English Church has studiously left out and that is this V. Be mindfull of thy Congregation O Lord. R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Now the ground why this special Versicle or Prayer for the Church was left out is not so mysterious but it may be very probably guess'd at The first Reformers did not love to put God in mind of that Church which was from the beginning Or rather they were desirous the People should forget the Church which was from the beginning They had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church than for one that was from the beginning because apparently that could not be the Reformed Church of England whose beginning themselves saw 5. Notwithstanding such plain Confessions of these Pillars of Reformation yet the Doctor confidently stands with a little contraction and abatement to Bishop Iewel 's Challenge He indeed mentions 27. Points of which 22. are about circumstantial matters touching the Eucharist and two more of them viz. 1. That Ignorance is the Mother and Cause of true Devotion and Obedience 2. And that the Lay-people if he speaks of them in general are forbidden to read the Word of God in their own tongue are Calumnies The other are three indeed of the Preacher's points viz. 1. Supremacy of the Pope 2. Worship of Images 3. Common-prayers in a strange tongue though the only fault he can find in this last is That the later Church hath adhered too close to Antiquity that the hath not varied in the language of her Devotions from her Predecessors and after A. D. 600. continued to say her Prayers in the same Language she did before But then this Bishop as being somewhat better experienc'd in Antiquity than Doctor Pierce had not the confidence in this his Catalogue to reckon as Novelties either the Infallability of the Church Invocation of Saints Purgatory or Prayer for the Dead Celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass. So much more courage had the Preacher than even Bishop Iewel himself Well between both all antiquity is for them and nothing but novelty on our side No doubt but his admiring and believing Hearers assured themselves that some never-before-examined Witnesses some hitherto unknown or un-observed Records had been found out by their learned and confident Preacher to justifie their deserted claim of Antiquity I mean by way of aggression and not simple defence But when the Sermon is publish'd nothing appears in the Text or Margins but Assertions and Quotations an hundred times before produced and as often silenced many of which too as he explains them have no regard
the English Reformation because by the like examinatâ—on he finds that Roman Doctrins are 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 initio non fuit sic Therefore they as Jewish Divorces are 〈◊〉 abolished and that only to be confirmed which God instituted from the Beginning But he little considers that our Saviours saying It was not so signifies It was directly contray to SO as if he said You allow Divorces ob quamcunque causam in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning who said Whomsoever God hath joyn'd let no man put asunder This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reform'd Now if the Preacher would have made use of this indeed perfect Primive Rule of Refermation he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Beginning that is either in Scriptures or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils some expresse Authorities and Decisions directly contrary to Roman Doctrines which he calls Novelties He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures or some Councils or consent of Fathers such sayings as these 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bad nor ought to have any Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide not to be relyed upon against our private sence of God's Word 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living 4. The body of Christ is not substantially present on the Altar 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are essential to the Sacrament 7. All respect to Images is forbidden 8. Invocation of Sains is unlawful 9. The Scriptures must be given into all mens hands without any certain guide to interpret them 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue though interpreted are abominable 11. To forbid the use of Mariage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils 12. To separate Bed and Board among maried persons though when without danger of their lives they cannot live together is a practice condemn'd by our Lord. And after all 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church for Doctrines and Practises not in themselves causing Damnation but onely said to be false is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose they would have been pertinent to his Text But no such appear On the contrary it serves his turn to say again and again From the Beginning it was not so This is the burthen of his Song If he can shew that because this is the first time we hear or read such a Doctrine mentioned in any Ecclesiastical writer as Origen Tertullian c. therefore it is a Novelty it was never in the Church before the saies somthing to the purpose But let me ask him was there no Doctrine at all in the Church before it was written Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written And again is all that 's written in any Age still Extant and come to our hands Or do those Fathers who first writ it say That they or their times first introduc'd it No On the contrary they expressly declaim against Innovations Noveltie is their Prescription against all Heresies So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of or not received before had been to profess themselves Hereticks and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have condemned such Innovations Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian c for any Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher Whereas for other Errors they were sufficiently proscribed From whence 't is evident that through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Saviour in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees a warrant for him unjustly to condemn his Church Indeed in all matters left indifferent and no way commanded from the beginning nor contrary to any Divine Revelation the Church of later times may vary as she thinks sit either from the practice or injunctions of the former For example supposing Celibacy of the Clergy the 7th Point the Doctor instances in had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning yet if God had not commanded the contrary and the thing in it self be feasible of which more anon the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoyn it The Rule therefore holds only for matters of Faith and Divine Revelation In which 't is true That the Later times may not vary from the former But yet neither doth the Rule hold in these as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith but only as to the sense and substance It is not necessary that ab initio God the Son should be declared in expresse terms Consubstantial with the Father which was first put into the Christians â—reed by the Council of Nice But only that that Doctrine can be shewed ab initio which is identified in sense with this Nor can I think the Doctor upon second considerations will offer to gainsay so plain a truth But it is now time to Examin the particular Pâ—ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties and of each of which be saies as unwarrantably as our Lord against the Iewish Innovations said justly From the beginning it was not so CHAP. IV. The sum of Dr. Pierce's Discourse against the Pope's Supremacy enervated by himself The Churches Doctrin touching that Supremacy The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 1. IN the Doctor 's Catalogue of Roman Novelties the first is The Supremacy of the Pope Concerning which he tells his Majestie he has spoken most at large because it is a Point wherein the honour and safety of his Dominions are most concern'd And because by Bellarmin 's Assertion it is the chief if not onely hirge on which does hang the whole stresse of the Papal Fabrick This universal Superintendency or Supremacy of the Pope saies he hath been a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the 3d. to whom it was sold by the most execrable Phocas the greatest Villain in the world except Cromwel and Pontius Pilate not out of reverence to the Pope but in displeasure to Cyriacus Patriark of Constantinople c. 2 In contradiction to this Usurpation he adds But from the beginning it was not so For we find in Scripture the Apostles were equally foundations of the wall of God's City c. They were all as St. Cyprian saies Pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis And S. Hierom is as expresse And sure Paul who withstood Peter to his face was equal to him at the least And for any one Bishop to affect over his Brethren a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is a most impudent opposition both to the Letter and Sense of our Saviour's precept Mark 10. 42 43 44. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. But so shall it not be among you but whosoever c. Nay by the Canons of the two first
General Councils every Patriark and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his And a strict Injunction is laid on all the Bishop of Rome not excepted that they presume not to meddle in any Diocesse but their own And the chief Primacies of Order were granted to Rome and Constantinople not for having been the Sees of such and such an Apostle but for being the two Seaâ—s of the two great Empires Witnesse the famous Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon c. Nay the immediate Predecessâ—r of Boniface the third Pope Gregory the Great calls the Tiâ—le of Universal Bishop a wicked prophane and blasphemous Title importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand c. Further adding That if any one Bishop were universal there would by consequence be a failing of the universal Church upon the failing of such a Bishop Which is an Argument ad homines not easily to be answer'd whatsoever infirmity it may labour with in its self c. And upon that occasion he makes an excursion about the Pope's infallibility and his falling into Heresie c. nothing to the Point Lastly He concludes that Whosoever shall read at large the many Liberties of the Gallican Church and the published confessions of Popish Writers for more then a thousand years together touching the Papal Vsurpations and Right of Kings he will not deny that the Supremacy of the Pope is but a prosperous Vsurpation 3. This is the substance of his Discourse upon this Point of Novelty the Supremacy of the Pope In answering which he must permit me yet without any prejudice to the Cause yea rather for a better clearing of it not to bind my self to his Order Assuring him in the mean time that I will not purposely omit any thing material either in his Reasoning or Quotations 1. And first in general he must give me leave to tell him that by the Conclusion of the foregoing Discourse he has entirely enervated all that went before For by arguing and asserting That the Gallican Liberties and Popish writings against Papal Vsurpations do demonstrate that the Supremacy of the Pope 〈◊〉 but a prosperous Vsurpation He clearly shows that his fore-mentioned Reasons do not touch the Catholic Cause at all He acknowledges those Writers to have been Roman Catholics None can deny the French Church to be a Member of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged for such by the Pope himself and professing a subjection to him as to the Supream Spiritual Pastor of God's Church Therefore it is evident that what they deny to the Pope is not simply his Supremacy in Spiritual matters which is all that will be required of Protestants but an extending of that Supremacy beyond what they conceive the received Ecclesiastical Canons do warrant and this the English may as well be permitted to do as the French 4. To the end therefore he may no longer mistake this so important an Argument I will clearly set down the Churches Doctrine concerning this matter This Doctrine is contained in that profession of Faith compiled by Pius 4. and extracted out of the Council of Trent I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Iesus Christ on Earth I acknowledg the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches And more largely in the Decree with great circumspection framed in the Council of Florence and subscribed by the Greeks We do define that the Holy Apostolic See and Bishop of Rome does enjoy a Supremacy through the whole world And that the Same Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles the true Vicar of Iesus Christ the Head of the Vniversal Church the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that in the Person of St. Peter he hath received from our Lord Iesus Christ full power to feed rule and govern the whole Church in such manner as is express'd in the Acts of Oecuminical Councils and the holy Canons This is the Decision of the Council of Florence The substance of the Doctrine of which Decree by which the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is acknowledg'd to have a Jurisdiction over all Christians to be regulated by the Ecclesiastical Canons is so received even in France notwithstanding all the Gallican Liberties that whoever denies it will not be esteem'd a Catholic See what Cardinal Palavicino writes touching the Cardinal of Lorrain and his French Bishops proceedings about this Point in the Council of Trent 5. This Jurisdiction the Preacher positively denies both to the Pope and St. Peter affirming It to be an impudent opposition both to the Letter and sense of our Saviours forecited precept Mark 10. But I heartily with Dr. Pierce would look well on this passage of the Gospel once more and ask his own reason though he should not be able to exclude all the fumes of passion from it Is Ecclesiastical Authority in Superiors and Subordination of Inferiors forbidden in this Text Will one that calls himself a Regular Son of the Church of England by vertue of this Text pronounce the Sentence of Decapitation according to his own pleasant expression upon his own Church whosoever passes for the Head of it whether his Majesty or my Lord of Canterbury On the contrary I dare pronounce that not the affecting but lawful exercising a Supremacy of Power and Iurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to this Precept that it is establish'd by it For in this very Text expresse mention is made of some that are great yea some that are the chiefest And if he would have adjoyn'd the next Verse to his Quotation he would have published to the most ignorant of his Hearers of Readers his manifest abusing this passage of Scripture Our Saviour immediately adding For even the Son of man came not to be ministred unto but to minister Surely he will not deny but that our Saviour had Authority yea a Supremacy of Iurisdiction over the Church and only here proposes himself as a Pattern of humility to be imitated by his Apostles and their Successors And what were the Apostles Church Governors without question How then are they to imitate their Supream Governor In renouncing Superiority Did he himself do so By no means But as he did not glorifie himself to be an High Priest But he that said unto him thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech And being high Priest he did not forget his meeknesse and humility consistent very well with the vigour of Spiritual Jurisdiction In like manner his Apostles and all that succeed him are commanded not to affect Superiority and when they are lawfully invested with it not to exercise it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Eph. 1. Can. 8. they must neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor
arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles both to the Emperor to Iohn himself and others which being already produc'd by him need not be repeated Yet for all this neither Pelagius nor St. Gregory notwithstanding their detesting this Title did therefore quit their right to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church and their Iurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarks too nay they assert it in these very Epistles wherein they are most sharp against that Title as shall be shew'd 6. The reason of this 't is manifest the Preacher does not understand therefore let him not disdain to be inform'd The like Order that is observ'd in the Church of England he may conceive is observed in the Catholic Church that is that the same person may be both a Bishop an Archbishop and a Primat I will add also the Supreme head of the Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Eccâ—esiasticks For as for his Majestys Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs it is not in this place to be treated of Now my Lord of Canterbury is just like other Bishops merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bishops in it but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves which are not removeable by him unlesse they incur crimes that by the Canons deserve it Lastly he is a Primat over both Provinces that is the whole Nation yet without prejudice to the other Metropolitan in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose though he have a power to summon him to a National Council c. And in this regard he may be stiled the Vniversal Pastor of England and by being so makes the Church of England to be one National Church which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads Yet if any one should stile him the Vniversal Bishop of England it would not be endured because he can exercise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own By considering this well the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church 7. For though this Title of Vniversal Bishop taken in some sense might draw after it such ill consequences yet being apply'd to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church it might innocently signifie no more but such a general Superintendency as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors and with such an innocent meaning as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon without any contradiction of the same Council to Pope Leo Boniface the Third did accept it from Phocas yet having done so it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of Iurisdiction by it more than himself and his Predecessors had enjoy'd And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge If he can find any proof to the contrary let him produce it and I will immediately recall what I have said 'T is true as appears in the History of the Council of Trent written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates against naming the Pope Bishop of the Vniversal Church who in conclusion absolutely gained the silencing of that Title But this happened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church or over all Churches taken disjunctively for this they willingly acknowledged but they opposed this Title only as the Universal Church might be taken in a collective sense that is to say as united in a General Council whereby a right of Superiority over a General Council may seem to be determin'd to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil which in this matter they allowed CHAP. IV. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predecessors viz. St. Gregory P. Pelagius P. Felix P. Gelasius P. Leo. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon illegal Of the 2d Canon of the first Council of Constantinople 1. BEing now to demonstrate more than a Primacy of Order a primacy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third extending it self to all Christians all particular Prelates and Churches yet a Supremacy not unlimited for then General Councils would be useless but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church I will first to make it appear reasonable declare the ground of the necessity of it which in brief is as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers because since General Councils the only absolute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or great expences c. can very seldom be summon'd it would be impossible without an Ordinary constant standing Supreme Authority in the Church to prevent Schisms that is it is impossible the Church should subsist 2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sitting at the upper end of the Table a priviledge to speak first or to collect Votes Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to conserve unity as in a National Church so in the Vniversal is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians For all the subtilty of human wit without such a Concession can never answer the arguing thus If according to the Doctrin of the Fathers there be a necâ—ssity of setting up one Bishop â—ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop â—ver many Bishops and one Patriark over many Arch-Bishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history and experience But what expedient now without such a primacy of Iurisdiction can the Presbyterians find out against the mischief of Schism Truly no other but by rejecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the certainly visible unity of the Catholic Church that is by believing that Schism iâ— no such ill thing as that much care needs be used to prevent it But surely English Protestants not having blotted out of their Creed that Article since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as necessary to the â—nity of the whole Church to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised and without which the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions 3. Certain it is that the antient Fathers thought so
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them To the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule yet they admit certain universally received Traditions besides expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
those Anathema's lawfull were they valid Or will he say those first Councils to which he professes assent usurped an Authority in this not of right belonging to them If those Anathema's were valid then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them as the sence of Divine Revelation and this under the penalties of being separated from Christ And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty But if those Anathema's were illegal and invalid then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others who still followed the same method not only impostors but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men 15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility than any of his Quotations can be against it Here we have expresse Scripture and universal consent of Antiquity Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England at least before their late restitution who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council Now could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge that when one of your 39. Articles declares that some General Councils have err'd the meaning should be â— that any legal legitimate General Council has err'd but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion And if this be the meaning the breach made by it may be curable 16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages as against this Point the concession of Baronius c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and continued two hundred years at Rome I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it Can no Church be Orthodox if Heretics rise and continue in the same City Is the English Church a Quaking Church because Quakers first began and still encrease at London As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it 17. The like we say touching the Donatists Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense Ingemuit orbis c. The world says St. Hierom sadly groaned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian that is after the Council of â—riminum But how was it Arian if it groaned c. for it could not be really Arian against its will But St. Hierom uses this expression because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the Catholics And true it was that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banish'd But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled it and presently repented Besides the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox but afterwards by the Emperors Tyranny and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian but capable of a good sense to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed yet to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth but presently after being at liberty both themselves and all the rest renounced And after all there remained but three years of persecution for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed 18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers and though one of them says All that were purely Orthodox that is such as he esteemed so because they were of his Opinion held that Doctrinâ— yet he thereby shews that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church But the truth is there was a double Millenary opinion the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years in base sensual pleasures banquets and women This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book as St. Hierom affirms And it is most deservedly detested by the Church But there was another Opinion that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights and ravishing consolation in a blessed conversing with him And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias St. Ireneus and St. Iustin Martyr For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves unwilling to censure it neither can the Doctor I believe shew that it was ever condemned by the Church 18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time and many years after such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally but withal take notice it was onely in one species Again it is confessed that from that Text Nisi mandâ—caveritis carnem c. St. Augustin c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism This appears first From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin c. the whole Church affirming that Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants 2. From his interpreting his own meaning in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina His words are these None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism thereby becomes partaker of the Boâ—y and Blood of our Lord and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body he should depart out of this World before he really eat of that Bread and drink of that Chalice For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament 19. That therefore which the Church since and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter was nothing at all touching Belief For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point but onely an external practise of the Church And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries which by frâ—quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too To conclude this matter For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenaâ—y Belief and Infant
Communion are not at all conducing to the Doctors Design I will refer him to the Judgment of Doctor Ferne of some weight no doubt with him who expresly saies and proves by Reasons not unlike these That nothing can be concluded by those two Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church Vniversally and in all the Members of it may be infected with Error in Points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith CHAP. X. Of Prayer for the Dead It s Apostolic antiquity Purgatory necessarily supposed in it The Doctor 's Objections answer'd 1. HAving treated so largely of the Preachers two pretended Noveltys 1. the Primacy of Iurisdiction of the See Apostolic and 2. the Infallability of the Church in her General Councils I might rationally enough neglect examining the following particular Dogma's which he likewise charges with Novelty and betake by self to the point of Schism because if the Church have a spiritual obliging Iurisdiction taking its Original from the Chair of St. Peter and again if what the proposes to us to be believed she proposes validly under the penalty of being separated from Christ since it is manifest that she so proposes the said particular Doctrins not in her Councils onely but universal practise wherein her Infallability is with an equal Autâ—ority demonstrated they ought without contradiction be submitted to Neverthelesse having some reason to doubt that in case any of his Novelties be omited he or at least some of his over-credulous Readers will impute such an omission to a difficulty in disproving him I must be content to take a trouble on me which is therefore only necessary because many Protestants are unreasonable 2. His third pretended Novelty is the Doctrin of Purgatory which he says We have from Origen or at the farthest from Tertullian and he from no better Author than the Arch-Heretic Montanus Nor does Bellarmin mend the matter by deriving it from Virgil Tully or Plato 's Gorgias 3. It would have been a great courtesie both to his Hearers and Readers if he had inform'd them why he singled out a speculative Point touching Purgatory and omitted one of far greated importance because obliging to Practise also which is Prayer for the Dead His way of proceeding doubtlesse does not want a Mystery And he must give me leave to answer his Novelty of Purgatory by speaking scarce any thing at all of it but only telling him nakedly the Churches Doctrin about it and by insisting on the confessed Antiquity Apostolic Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead which being cleared I defie all his learning and skill unlesse he can disprove this to deny or so much as question on the other 4. Now the Doctrin of the Church concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead is contained in this Decree of the Council of Trent There is a Purgatory and Souls detained there are helped by the suffraâ—es of the Faithfull that is by Prayers and Alms and most especially by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar By which Definition the Church obliges all Catholicks no farther than simply to believe that there is a place or state of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers c. The Council tells us nothing of the position of this place nor what incommodities Souls find in it nor whether there be fire c. which are Points that St. Augustin says he could not resolve On the contrary it forbids at least out of the Schools all curious subtile Questions concerning it all discourses which are not for edification 5. Having represented the Churches Doctrine I will next transcribe the Form of her Prayers for the Dead extant in the Canon of the Masse Remember likewise O Lord thy Servants who have gone before us with the Sign of Faith i. e. Baptism and repose in the sleep of peace We beseech thee O Lord mercifully grant to them and to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord. And after the Canon We beseech thee O Lord absolve the Soul of thy Servant from all chains of his sins to the end that in the glory of the Resurrection he may respire by a new life among the Saints and Elect through Christ our Lord. Now if it can be demonstrated that by the universal practise of the Primitive Church such Prayers as these were made for the Dead it unavoidably follows That the Souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hâ—ll And if so where are they Doctor Pierce speak like an honest man 6. To demonstrate this let him view narrowly these passages of the Holy Fathers before and during the space of the first four General Councils St. Denis the Areopagite or whoever was Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and who by confession of Protestants liv'd within the second Century after the Apostles declares that the Priest does demand from the Divine goodnesse for the person departed a pardon of all sins through human frailty committed by him and that he may be conducted into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into a place from which grief sadnesse and mourning it banished And presently after he testifies that What he commits to writing concerning this Prayer pronounced by the Priest for the Dead he received by Tradition from his Divine Teachers the Apostles 7. Next Tertullian Let the faithful Widdow saies he pray for the soul of her Husband and make an oblation in the Anniversary day of his death begging for him refreshment and part in the first Resurrection And to prevent the Preachers Objection that the Father learned this from the Arch-Heretick Montanus let him answer for himself We make saies he Anniversary Oblations for the Dead and for the Natalitia of the Martyrs And presently he adjoynes Concerning these and the like Observances if you require the Authority of Scriptures you will not find any Tradition shall be alleged to you for the Author custom for the confirmer and Faith the Observer 8. After him follows his Schollar blessed St. Cyprian The Bishops saies he that went before us have ordain'd that not any one of our Brethren at his death shall name in his Will for an Executor or Guardian any Ecclesiastical Person and if any one shall do otherwise that no Oblation should be made for him and that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for him at his death For such a one deserves not so much as to be named at the Altar in the Priests Prayer 9. Eusebius relates that at the Obsequies of the Emperor Constantine the People and Clergy unanimously sent up prayers to God not without tears and great groanings for the Soul of the Emperor Likewise Epiphanius disputing against the Heretick Aerius reckons this among his heresies as St. Augustin likewise does That he denyed
Prayers and Oblation for the Dead In opposition whereto he saies Prayers made for the dead profit them though they do not blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entirely all mortal sins And again Who shall now have the â—oldnesse to dissolve the Statute of his Mother the Church or the Law of his Father which Father he there interprets to be the Holy Trinity Moreover St. Chrysostome It is not in vain that the Apostles have instituted this Law That during the celebration of the dreadful mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead for they knew that great benefit and profit would thereby accrew unto them And yet more expresly in another place We must saith he give our help and assistance to sinners departed by our Prayers Supplications Alms and Oblations For these things were not rashly and groundlesly devised Neither is it in vain that in the Divine Mysteries we make mention of these who are dead and approaching to the Altar addresse our prayers for them to the Lamb placed there who took away the sins of the World But we do this to the end that some comfort and refreshment may come to them thereby Neither is it in vain that he who assists at the Altar at the time when the dreadful Mysteries are communicated cries out Pray for all that are dead in Christ and for those who celebrate their memorials For were it not that such commemorations were profitable to them such things would not be spoken For the matters of our Religion are no sport No God forbid These things are perform'd by the Order and Direction of Gods Spirit 10. True it is that antiently in the publick Liturgies a commemoration was made even of the greatest Saints yes and prayers were made for them But yet not such prayers as were made for the imperfect But since all future things may be the subject of our prayers it may become our charity to pray for accession of glory to Saints already glorified but which at the Resurrection shall be in a yet better State And therefore when St. Austin saies It is an injury to pray for a Martyr since we ought rather to commend our selves to his prayers he means such prayers as we make for imperfect Christians that is for remission of their sins refreshment c. 11. Now tho' some such prayers extant in the Holy Fathers did regard the day of Judgment and the glory ensuing yet withal that they thought to some Souls a present refreshment did accrew in the intermediat condition is evident both by the foresaid Testimonies and many more that may be added As where St. Aâ—brose saies he would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperor till he found a deliverance by them This is so apparent both out of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies that Bishop Forbes Spalato and other Protestant Writers do acknowledge it and refuse not to assent to the ground of such a practise The words of Spalato are these There would be no absurdity if we should confesse that some lighter sins which have not in this life been remitted quoad culpam as to the guilt or fault may be forgiven after death and this somtimes a little after the departure of the Soul c. by vertue of the Churches intercession 12 It cannot be denied but that there are among the Holy Fathers great varieties of Opinions touching some particular circumstances regarding the state of Souls after death and at the present some differences there are between the Roman and Greek Church In which notwithstanding it will appear to any who will compare them that the Roman Doctrin is far more moderate receiveable and approaching to the grounds of Protestants than that of the Eastern Church But however it is without all controversy that all Churches who professed Christianity before the Reformation do agree unanimously in the practice of praying for the Dead so as to beg forgiveness of sins a bettering of their state an asswagement of their sufferings c. Which practise they esteem not a voluntary offering but a duty to a necessary performance of which charity obligeth all Christians And therefore English Protestants cannot be excused for their neglect of this duty especially consisidering that the Doctrin upon which this Practice is grounded is not mentioned at all among those Points which they account Novelties in the Roman Church On the contrary the more learned among them have and do though not in expression yet in sense agree with Bishop Andrews conceding in his Reply to Cardinal Perron That for offering doth he not mean here for offering the Christian sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist for them for what is more manifest in Antiquity than this and prayer for the Dead little is to be said against it No man can deny but it is very antient Since then the Church cannot be thought from the most antient times thereof to have offered up to God all her prayers in all ages pro defunctis in vain methinks I cannot here but in this respect also commiserate the condition of those poor Souls who depart hence un-owned by that Church and without any share in her prayers which only like a true Mother is so sollicitous and carefull a Supplicant not only for her living but also deceased children and who after a life here not so well spent seeing themselves going hence only with an inchoated repentance an unperfect reformation and very unprepared to be immediatly entertained in that place of bliss and glorious society into which no impure thing shall enter yet are content rather to lose the benefit of the daily prayers and oblations for them of this careful Mother than to render themselves capable thereof by returning into her Communion And surely much more uncomfortable must such a death be that is void of the hopes of any such assistance than theirs is who departing hence in the bosom of the Church and in this blessed communion of Saints with the request of St. Austins dying Mother in their mouth Illud vos rogo ut ad Domine altare memineritis mei This I beg of you that at the Altar of our Lord ye make remembrance of me are sure to enjoy the last aid of this pious charity and also the yet more efficacious sacrifice of the Altar to be frequently offered to God in their behalf 10. Lastly to omit particular Quotations out of the antient public Liturgies of the Church that of St. Iames acknowledged by the second General Council that of St. Basil St. Chrysostom c. in every one of which are expresse prayers and oblations for the Dead demanding pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings c. I will conclude with a full convincing Testimony of St. Augustin whose words are these That by the Prayers of the Holy Church and saving Sacrifice as likewise by Alms expended for their Souls our departed Brethren are helped that God may deal with them more
mercifully than their sins deserve not to be doubted For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord Prayers should be made when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy works of Charity and Alms are made who will doubt that these things help towards their good for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead yet only such as before their death have lived so as that these things may profit them after Death And again For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving and for others as a propitiation 14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience for he is no Stranger to the Fathers what a great Volume may be written to confirm this And that not one expression can be quoted against it Therefore whereas he said without any ground that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus I would ask him From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead but from the Heretie Aerius Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them which without any fault may be omited On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him the Church does these things necessarily having received such a Tradition from the Fathers And St. Augustin we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lye here or in another place repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice to make Supplications to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings a translation into the region of Light and peace and a place in the bosom of Abraham But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell where are they then He cannot deny a third place unless he thinks them anihilated He will not say that third place is Purgatory because the Church calls it so But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed 16. To conclude If all the Liturgies of the Church all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church an expresse Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees He will say it is not Canonical at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance and however the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin and from Plato Cicero and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him that Heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls as to perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers becom immediatly perfect 17. To fill his learned Margins he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin as the Bishop of Rochester Polydor Virgil Suarez and Thomas ex Albiis but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church in contradiction to the Preacher that there is a Purgatory what other inducement could he have to mention them unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not that he was resolved to pretend but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church CHAP. XI Of Transubstantiation or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament Iustified by the Authorities of the Fathers c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd 1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament That blessed Mystery which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument to signifie and to operate Vnity is by the cunning of the Devil and malicious folly of men becom both the work and cause of Dis-union 2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran For in Pope Nicholas the Second's time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con then Transubstantiation But evident it is That it was never taught by our Saviour since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced This is my Blood explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrin than the concession of Aquinas who says That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one From whence Bellarmin angrily infers that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one 3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter I will as before set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv out of the Council of Trent it is said I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Conversion or Change of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body and of Wine into his Blood which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received 4. And if he will needs have it so let it be granted that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as old as his Beginning that is in the time of the first General Council But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends 5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
an Auditory And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament For though those special words I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill c. if they stood alone might seem applicable to the consecrated Chalice yet those other of Saint Luke I will not any more eat of this Passâ—over untill c. cannot possibly be applyed to the consecrated Element of Bread and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly intended of the same Subject It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper and not at all of the Sacrament 14. As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Thomas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places and his revengeful inference that neither then caâ— they be Sacramentally All I will say hereto shall be that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed Yet however since it is only about a Scholastical Notion of Locality Circumscription c. and it is apparent that both these Doctors held a true Substantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament as the Church teaches I will not by troubling my self about composing the matter between them invite the Doctor hereafter to unnecessary excursions It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to justifie 15. In the last place touching Berin arius his submission if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation Certainly it was sufficient if he spoke sincerely to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Body and that onely was his businesse As for his Expressions that Our Lords Body not onely in Mystery but Truth is handled broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants unlesse they be understood Sacramentally they are far from being justifiable And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Protestants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual an Oral Manducatian but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us but not after a Carnal manner Christ is not changed by Digestion into our Bodyes yet sanctifies even our Bodies also as well as our Souls Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression Insinuating it self into our Bodies by an union with our Lord 's Immortal Body We are made Partakers of Immortality CHAP. XII Of Communion under one Species-Confirm'd by the practise of the Primitive Church in private Communions The Preachers Objections solved 1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty imputed to the Catholic Church is Communion under one Species no older saies he then since the time of Aquinas unlesse they will own it from the Manichees But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest Drink all of this saies he And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood as eating the Body of Christ. 2. To the substance of what is here alleged we readily subscribe We acknowledg our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds That the Apostles received it in both kinds That St. Paul speaks as well of drinking c. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas in the public Celebration of these Mysteries the people communicated in both kinds All this we agree to 3. But the general Tradition of the Church at least from his beginning will not permit us to yield that the receiving in both kinds was esteem'd by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion or integrity of the participation of Christs Body and Blood or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion when deliver'd and receiv'd only in one kind On the contrary we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience whether if we should yield this we should not be overwhelm'd with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us As evidently appears in Communions anciently practised under one kind only and this upon many occasions As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions mention'd by Tertullian St. Cyprian and others in which the holy Eucharist was deliver'd to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone and by them carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions The same was practised in communicating Infants or innocent Children of more years witnesse besides the said Fathers the practise of the Church of Constantinople mentioned by Nicephorus In communicating the Sick and Penitents at the point of death In communions at Sea In communions sent to other Provinces c. 4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteem'd to be partakers of â—ntire Christ nor did they think they received more of him at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one only They believed it was Christ entire which they received in every divided particle of the species of Bread and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the flesh of Christ could not be participated without a concomitance of his Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity Hence St. Ambrose Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ. And the Council if Ephesus That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do participate the Flesh of Christ not as common meer Flesh but truly quickning Flesh. And St. Augustin That Christ ferebatur in manibus suis did carry himself in his own hands and this in a litteral sense And St. Cyril of Alexandria says By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified that the four parts of the world being brought to salvation by the Gospel did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it For says he the only begotten Son of God passing into and by his Flesh sanctifying the Soul â—nd Body of each of them severally and in particular is in each of them entirely and undividedly being every where one and in no sort divided 5 These things thus premised which are certain Truths and cannot by the Preacher be deny'd since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject he must necessarily take upon him to demonstrate 1. Either that these Communions under one species allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times were half Communions sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord contrary to the teaching of St. Paul conspiring with the Heresie of the Manichees c. And doing so he will contradict himself whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times 2. Or if these Practises were justifiable and that
matter stands in this Point with the Roman Catholic Church 9. We Roman Catholics I. do willingly acknowledge that in the Primitive times the Public Service of God was generally speaking perform'd in a Tongue better understood than now it is yet not then for many places and Countries in their vulgar or native or best understood tongue For it is evident by St. Augustin that in Afric it was in the Latin tongue not in the Punic which yet was the only Tongue the Vulgar understood So the Liturgy of St. Basil was used in the Greek Tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches And yet it appears as well out of later History as out of the Acts 2. 8 9 10. c. 14. v. 11. That Greek was not in those antient times the vulgar tongue of many of those Eastern Countrys no more than Latin was of the Western 2. We professe it was not nor yet is the intention of the Church that the Public Devotions should therefore be in Latin because it is not vulgarly understood but this has hapned as it were by accident besides her intention and onely because the Latin Tongue in which it was first written by revolution of times and mixture of Barbarous Nations in Europe has been corrupted and ceased to be a so commonly understood Language by unlearned people for indeed probably it was never so well understood as that other native Language which they used before it or with it 10. Matters standing thus yet the Church does not think fit to change with the times but continues Gods publick Service as it was at first And this we may conceive she does 1. Because no example can be found in antiently-established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods public Service entirely The Greeks now use the Antient Masse of St. Chrysostom written in pure Greek as much differing from the Vulgar as Latin from the Italian Spanish c. The like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. among whom the Mass is celebrated in the oâ—d Language far from being vulgarly understood Yea the Iews continue their Devotions to this day in the Hebrew understood by few among them 2. Because though the Latin be not now in any place a vulgar Language yet there is no Language so universally understood in Europe as that And a great fitnesse there is that the most Public Service should be in the most public Language in which all Nations may joyn every where And by those who most frequently recite the Divine Service in the Catholic Church viz. the Clergy and other Religious for whose proper use a great part of this Service was composed the Latin Tongue is well understood 3. Because the Latin â—ongue now that it is not vulgar being thereby becom unchangeable the Churches Doctrins contain'd in her Litâ—rgies are so much the more freed from the danger of being innovated Whereas vulgar Languages almost in every age become un-intelligible or at least sound very unpleasing in mens ears as we now see in King Edward the sixth's Common-prayer-book would it not seem an odd translation now to read that Saint Philip baptiz'd the Gelding and Paul the Knave of Iesus Christ yet this was once the English Scripture Nay more within this twenty years we find many words and phrases have quite changed their former sense So that all Nations must be ever and anon altering their Liturgies to the great danger of changing the Churches belief And which is not altogether inconsiderable for the present good husbandry of the world to the infinite expenâ—es of moneys in printing c. 11. I doubt not but he will reply that not any one or all these commodities can answer and satisfie for an express and as he calls it a scandalous opposition to the plain sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. I grant it All these commodities are to be despised rather than so to oppose the Apostles Doctrin But what is his Doctrin For I evidently perceive the Doctor has not well search'd into it much lesse rightly apply'd it The Apostle says If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays but my understanding receives no benefit c. And how can an unlearned Person say Amen to such Prayers In which passage seems involved a tacite prohibition at least of publick Prayers in an unknown tongue All this is granted but yet with this exception mention'd by the Apostle himself unless either he that prays or some other interpret Therefore before he took on him to charge the Catholic Church with a scandalous opposition to this passage of Scripture he ought to have examin'd better her doctrin and practise otherwise he himself will be found guilty of a Scandalous opposition to God's Church Now for a tryal of the Churches sence let him observe the Ordinance of the Council of Trent touching this very Point the words are these Though the Mass contain instruction for Gods faithful people yet it seem'd not expedient unto the Fathers that it should be celebrated every where in the vulgar tongue wherefore retaining in all places the Churches antient Rite approved by the holy Roman Church the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches lest Christ's Sheep should hunger and Children asking bread none should be found to break it to them the Holy Synod commands all Pastours and all that have care of Souls that during the celebration of Mass they should frequently either by themselves or others expound some part of those things which are read in it and among other things let them explain the mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice especially on Sundays and Feasts The Preacher here may see that the Church does not make such a secret even of the most sublime Mysteries of her Office as the Court believ'd upon his report 12. Likewise between this speaking in an unknown tongue mention'd by St. Paul and the Churches publick Latin Service there is this great disparity that this later is always a known Language to several of those present if not to all and there are alwayes those who understandingly say Amen And again being a known set-form in one set-language recurring continually the same according to the Feast those who are ignorant of it at first need not continue so but by due attention and other diligence may arive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof they having also in their Manuals Primers Psalters c. ready translated both the Psalms Hymns and Prayers c. and there being several Books both in English and all vulgar languages that expound the Church-service even to the meanest capacity Neither is the Latin tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar tongues and of the constant use hereof a language unknown to such a degree in Catholick Conntries as our English Nation imagin it and therefore is so much scandalized Neither is there the same motive for some dispensation of a change in those places as perhaps would be in a Country less
acquainted with the Latin and of a Language more remote from it Yet our venerable Beda in his History saith That in his time to these Northern Languages of ours English Scotch Britans Picts the Latin Tongue by perusing the Scriptures was made common to them all The usual Language therefore wherein the Scriptures were delivered in his times was Latin and by this that Tongue rendred common and not unknown even to these Northern people 13. Besides all this several Popes Patriarks c. have approved the Translation of the Missal c. into the vulgar Languages as Pope Iohn the Eighth who was induced thereto by a Miracle related by Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope Pius the Second likewise Pope Innocent the Third Pope Leo the Tenth Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch c. To conclude since the Doctor confesseth that Popes have given leave to some Churches that the Divine Office should be in a vulgar Tongue he ought not to have made a Quarrel of this to a Separation till it could be shewed that their first Reformers had demanded a dispensation and been refused CHAP. XVI Of Invocation of Saints Proved out of Antiquity Concessions Deductions And Objections answered 1. THe next supposed Novelty is the Invocation of Saints departed which says Doctor Pierce is no doubt an aged error though not so aged as they would have it for the gaining of honor to the invention because St. Augustin does deny it to have been in his dayes 2. Though perhaps the Preacher may for some ends be unwilling yet that other Protestants may see the Innocence of the Church in this Point and how free she is from any intention of deterring any one from having access in Prayer to our Lord immediately or of diminishing the all-sufficient vertue of our Lords Merits and Intercession or of iâ—ducing men to security by relying on the holynesse and intercession of others and neglecting the means of Salvation themselves c. which are generally the grounds upon which Protestants condemn this practise I will first set down the Churches Decision And next in order to demonstrate the reasonablenesse of it I will shew for preventing such prejudices what concessions are generally made by Catholics Thirdly I will confirm the Churches practise by the Testiâ—onies of the Primitive times And lastly answer the Doctors only argument 3. First then touching the Churches Doctrin contained in the Council of Trent The Holy Synod commands all Bishops and others who sustain the Office and care of teaching that according to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Religion received from the primitive times the consent of the Holy Fathers and the â—ecrees of the Sacred Councils especially touching the intercession and invocation of Saints c. that they diligently instruct the Faithful teaching them that the Saints reigning together with Christ do offer their Prayers to God for men and that it is good and profitable humâ—ly to invocate them and to have recourse to their Prayers help and assistance for the obtaining of benefits from God by his Son Iesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour Let them likewise teach that those who deny that the Saints enjoying eternal felicity in Heaven are to be invocated or who affirm either that they do not pray for men or that the invocating them to pray for us in particular also is Idolatry or that it is repugnant to Gods word and contrary to the honor of the one Mediator between God and Men Iesus Christ or that it is a foolish thing to supplicate with words or mind to them reigning in heaven impie sentiunt are impiously persuaded 4. In the second place in conformity to the doctrin of this Decree Catholics believe and acknowledge 1. That we have only one Mediator Iesus Christ to whom only belongs the Merit that by it's just worth redeems us from eternal Death and purchases for us eternal life As likewise that as his Merits by satisfaction so also his Intercession is all-sufficient by way of impetration to obtain all blessings for us 2. Yet cannot it be deny'd but our Lords intercessiâ—n is not actually and absolutely beneficial to all but that some Duties and qualifications on our part are necessary both that his Merits and the benefits of his Intercession should be effectually applyed unto us 3. Among these Qualifications we are to reckon not only our own Prayers for our selves but mutual Prayers for one another which therefore we may beg from one another as St. Paul himself did from the Ephesians Colossians c. 4. Because the more holy any person is the more effectual will his Intercession be with God therefore we may beg of known Saints their Prayers to God for us with greater hope of successe 5. Such begging of Prayers is farr from Idolatry Superstition or diminution to Christ's honor since holy Persons living or dead are not invocated as Donors but Fellow-beggers with God for us 6. Though a Christian may be saved who prays to God alone and requests not the prayers of others yet to refuse the assistance of those whose Prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect at least of using all means helpful to us 7. Neverthelesse we say with Saint Chrysostom God will bestow salvation much rather on us praying for our selves than for others praying for us And we are much more safe by our own Devotions without others then by others alone And therefore we ought not to be slothful and secure depending on otherâ—s merits For the prayers and supplications of Saints have indeed very great force with God in our behalf but it is then truly when we with penance and humiliation beg the same thing also of God And therefore saith the same Saint Knowing these things let us neither neglectingly contemn the prayers of Saints nor cast our selves wholly upon them 5. Whatsoever hath been hitherto said may indifferently be applied as well to Saints departed as to Saints alive If the Prayers to Saints departed be prejudicial to the merits intercession of our Lord so is the beging of the prayers of those alive If one be unlawful so is the other nay most certain it is that if both be lawful the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual and therfore will better deserv to be made use of than the other Therefore notwithstanding most of the Arguments of Protestants against the Doctrin of the Church touching Invocation of Saints departed do prove full as much against Prayer to the Living and therefore are evidently unconcluding Yet those who are most learned and sober and will not wilfully mistake Catholic Doctrin do free us from all imputation of Idolatry superstition or doing injury to Christ and reduce the Controversie to a short point For they question not whether the Saints pray in general for us but rather willingly acknowledge it yea they will not positively deny but they may and do pray personally for their former known
looked after that is of burying their Friends in such sacred places whereby their pious affection may appear to their Friends I see not what advantages may accreâ— hereby to the dead except this that whilst they call to mind where the Bodies of those who are dear unto them are laid they with their Prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons that by them they may be helped with our Lord which also they might do although they could not inter them in such places Whensoever therefore the minde recounts where the body of some dear friend lies buried and streight the place occurs renown'd for the name of some Martyr the devotion of him who thus remembers and prayes forthwith commends this beloved soul to the same Martyr There was here in Hippo saith the same Father a certain old man called Florentius poor but pious and a Tailor by Trade He had lost his Cloak and had nothing wherewith to buy him another He prayed with a loud voice to the twenty Martyrs whose Monument here among us is very famous to reapparel him Some scoffing young men by chance being near hand over-heard him and at his going away followed him jeering him as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence to buy him clothes And afterward The Cook saith he cutting up the Fish found in the belly of it a gold ring which moved with pity and piety together he straightway delivered to the poor man saying See how the twenty Martyrs have furnished you with clothes De diversis Serm. 32. 33. unquestioned that I know of and which appear sufficiently to be S. Austins by comparing these with the conclusion of cap. 8. l. 22. de Civit. Dei A certain woman saith he there lost her son a sucking Infant being as yet a Catechumen only Full of faith she took the dead childe and ran to the memorial of the blessed Martyr Stephen and began of him to demand her son and to say Holy Martyr you see I have no comfort at all left me For I cannot so much as say that my son is gon before me to Bliss whom you know is utterly perished because dying unbaptized You see the cause of this my dessolate grief restore me my Son c. De Baptism l. 7. c. 1. and l. 5. c. 17. being compared This Father supposeth the Martyr Cyprian to know his affairs and in his handling that Controversie of Rebaptization contrary to St. Cyprians former judgment in which Point he presumes that Saint now fully illuminated yet hopes for his favour and requests the assistance to him herein of his Prayers Let him help us therefore saith he with his Prayers laboring here in in the mortality of this flesh as in a dark myst that by Gods help we may as much as we can imitate the good things that were in him 6. Upon these grounds Bishop Forbes grants that St. Austin doth allow Invocation of Martyrs commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging it and there also censures Bishop Andrews for denying it in these words The Bishop of Ely wrongfully affirms that St. Austin disallowed the Invocation of Saints the contrary whereof is apparent in his Bood De curâ pro mortuis c. And afterwards he adds Truly I am sorry that so just a cause is given to Iohn Barclay of exposâ—ulating with the most learned Bishop of Ely who speaks thus concerning him Here I have a desire to tell the King of Great Britain's Almoner The King believes him and so do many others and yet he is as oft in fault as he makes others to be so Let him therefore consider how erroniously he denies that St. Austin approves the Invocation of Martyrs Adde to Bishop Forbers and Bishop Montague the Testimony of Dr. Fulk long ago in his Rejoinder to Bristow I acknowledge saith he St. Ambrose St. Austin and St. Ierom held Invocation of Saints to be lawful which is an Error And the Testimony of the Bishop of Spalato who numbers this Father among many others that allowed Invocation of Saints The Fathers saies he without any hesitancy either Invocate Saints or grant they may be invocated the Latin Hilary Ambrose Ierom Paulinus Maximus Prudentius Augustinus And the Testimony of Chemnitius also who upon the former Quotation taken out of St. Austin de Baptismo l. 7. c. 1. sayes Thus St. Austin speaks without ground of Scripture yielding to the times and common custom Yet for all this a confident pronouncing that St. Austin knew nothing of this Doctrine or Practice serv'd the Preachers turn Many of his Auditors knew nothing to the contrary and therefore believ'd him and according to his desire detested Roman Catholics the more for this Novelty And that was enough then but what will it be when the Righteous Judge shall call that Sermon to a second account CHAP. XVII Celibacy of Priests Vowes of Chastity The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both Objections Answered 1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Noveltie is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders Which saies he is by some derived from the third Century by others from the eighth and in the rigour that now it is from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves 't is dated but from Pope Calixtus But saies he both in the old and new Testament Priests were permitted to have Wives The Apostles were married Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice And by one of the Apostolic Canons And the forbidding of Marriage with Saturninus and the Gnosticks is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of Devils 2. Indeed if the prohibition of Mariage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrin of Devils the Preacher has reason rather to seperate himself from a Church that enjoyns such a Diabolical vertue as Continence than from a wife that will not permit it and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest Though it is not only permitted him but esteem'd meritorious to blaspheme the Church of God yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle who in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrin of Devils forbids marriage to Widows who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service Younger Widows refuse says he for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will mary Having damnation because they have cast off their first Faith What means this phrase They have cast off their first Faith saith St. Augustin Voverunt non red did eâ—unt They vowed perpetual continence but they kept not their vow and therefore they have damnation This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrin and interpretation of that place of the Apostle as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Margin The same is taught by St. Epiphanius St.
Hierons Fulgentius the fourth Council of Carthage at which St. Augustin was present c. And it is not contradicted by any one Antient Doctor nor any except antient Hereties Iovian Vigilantius c. And this surely will suffice to demonstrate it no Novelty in God's Church much lesse that it was esteem'd a Doctrin of Devils to forbid Marriage to Persons consecrated to God's service Forbid it I say not the Gnosticks Manichees c. forbad it as an unlawful thing in it's self but only as an impediment and distraction in a spiritual Vocation Now whether Widows are esteem'd by the Preacher to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine service by the Office of Deaconesses then men by Priesthood 't is expected he should declare 3. But for better clearing of this Point touching the prohibition of Mariage to persons in holy Orders c. in charity I must suppose the Doctor will not professe the Heresie of Iovinian who taught that Virginity does not excel Matrimony An Heresie so contrary to reason that as St. Augustin tell us it was presently extinguished and never could attain to the deceiving so much as one Priest This Heresie formally contradicts St. Paul teaching thus There is difference between a wife and a Virgin The Virgin unmarried woman careth for the things of our Lord that shew ay be holy both in body and spirit But she that is maried careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband Which saying of the Apostle certainly at least declares a state of Virginity and continency much more advantagious to promote the service of God and keep the mind fixed on spiritual and heavenly imployments than a Married state encombred with worldly cares and carnal appetites Thus much I doubt not will by the Preacher be granted 4. But now the Question must be whether Eunuchism for the Kingdom of Heaven that is a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all carnal lusts may lawfully be by Priests c. made the matter of a Vow That it is a Council of Perfection is evident from our Saviours speech Qui potest capere capiat But upon supposition that Continency is a special gift of God not bestow'd on all and that it is infinitely difficult for any one certainly to know he has this Gift for these and such like reasons the Roformed Churches in opposition to the Roman Catholic have generally condemned the practice of such Vows at least consider'd as extending it self generally to any whole Order or state of men and especially an Obligation imposed on them to this practice 5. On the other side the Roman Catholic Church though she acknowledges Continence to be a special Gift of God and that there may be some difficulty to attain and preserve it yet esteems not these to be grounds sufficient to relinquish the obligation of Câ—libacy in Priests c. which she submitted to from the Preachchers Beginning that is in the primitive times of the Church at least within the four first General Councils 6. It is granted then that Continency that is an ability to abstain not from all motions of Concupiscence but from putting in execution all motions either by a voluntary morose delectation in them or much more by outward unclean practises of them is a Gift of God a fruit of his Holy Spirit and cannot by natural means be obtained so as to be practised in obedience to him But so are all Christian vertues So is Faith so is Repentance so is Charity all which notwithstanding we vow in our Baptism And why do we vow a practise of those vertues which are pure Gifts of God Because we are assured the same God who commands that Vow will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it in all those that sincerely beg those Gifts of him by earnest Prayers made in Faith and by avoiding all known and possible-to-beavoided impediments to the practise of those vertues 7. But it will be said that great difference is to be made between that Continence which is a Christian vertue necessary to all viz. a Continence from all unlawful Lusts and such a Continence as is now treated of which is an Abstinence from Marriage that is from the lawful Remedies of unlawful Lusts which Abstinence is so far from being necessary to all that it is no more than a Council to those that aspire to perfection which are but few even in the opinion of the Roman-Church This Abstinence certainly is a far more special Gift of God say they and not too easily and commonly to be presumed on 8. All this likewise understood cum grano Salis is acknowledged by us Yet withall Protestants know that even this Abstinence from Marriage or from exercising the lawful Acts in Marriage is a Gift bestowed on very many and in some cases necessary to almost every one For otherwise it would be utterly unlawful for Parents to keep their children unmarried after the time they are capable and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts since it seems they are not sure they have such a Gift it would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellers to make long voyages abroad and leave their Wives at home deprived of the necessary lawful Remedies against Lust and Temptations to which they are exposed All Statutes of Colledges ought to be repealed which forbid Marriage still to all Fellows and heretofore to all Presidents upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence A long Sickness inflicted by God on either of the married Couples would be far more dangerous to their Souls than their Bodies so as if such an Abstinence as is now spoken of were such an extraordinary Gift of Perfection England would have more Saints or more Adulterers c. than she is aware of And here good Doctor I desire you tell me a thing that perhaps you have not thought on yet will easily perceive its meaning assoon as you think on 't What is the reason that the Ministers of England generally marry not till they are above thirty years of age Can they abstain all that while when their passions are stronger and their reason weaker and then after so long a Continency begin to plead 't is impossible for them to hold any longer unlesse they had the gift of Chastity which God bestows not on every one shall I give you my Conjecture I doubt they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice and then assoon as they can maintain a wife they get one is not this meer hypocrisie to talk of Marrying out of tenderness of Conscience to allay their Concupiscence when the danger is almost all past and make no provision to prevent the sins of the unrulyest part of their age Methinks they should either marry earlyer when they may justly suspect their Chastity before they have tryed themselves or live longer Batchellors when they may prudently hope by the grace of God to persevere after so much experience of their
continency 9. Catholicks therfore though they confesse this continence to be a special Gift of God not bestow'd on all because all do not use the means yet resolve it is such a special gift as is denyed to none who rightly seek it and conceive it also may be made the matter of a vow by those who have a steddy purpose to use the necessary means to attain and conserve it and by those who by humble and due examining themselves are perswaded that God calls them to a state of greater Perfection and being in that state depend on his grace for performing their Vow seeking his assistance by constant Prayers watchfulnesse and necessary penitential austerities Now those may be confident they are called to such a state either in a Monastical or Ecclesiastical Profession who betake themselves thereto not out of any worldly respects for gaining a subsistence or preferment or other temporal invitations but purely to avoid the tentations solicitudes and distractions of the world and flesh and to devote themselves more to the service of God and advancing their Souls in vertue and piety In this state of Perfection and in complying with this Council of Perfection those who duly undertake that state may as undoubtedly promise to themseves Gods assistance whilst they use the means to obtain it as generally all Christians may after the vow of Baptism St. Augustin writes thus David vow'd as having the matter in his own power And yet he beggs withall â—f God that he may perform what â—e vow'd Here is the devotion of one that vows here is the humity of one that prays Let no man presume on his own strength as if he were able of himself to perform what he shall vow He that exhorts thee to vow saying Vovete reddite the same God helps thee to perform what thou hast vow'd 10. If then it be lawfull for private persons to vow Celibacy surely it is lawful for the Church to enjoyn it her Doctrin being That Goddenies not the gift of Chastity to them who ask it aright nor suffers us to be tempted above what we are able Which Doctrin is the ground why the Church enjoyns Celibacy to Priests So that Chastity is called a special Gift not in this sence as it all men though using what means â—oever are not capable of it But it is such a Gift as many men never actually receive from God because they do not use the means and such a Gift as few also will endeavour to use the means to attain because these means are harder than those by which other Gifts may be attained That the undertaking by Vow such a life of Chastity and abstinence from Marriage yea in Marriage it self has been approv'd commended and practised in Gods Church from the very beginning if the Preacher will not believe us let him not suspect at least partiality in his own best Friends We are not ignorant says Chemnitius that the Fathers did approve the vows of perpetual Celibacy and acknowledge them to be obligatory Profession and Vows of Chastity says Peter Martyr were extant among Christians in the time of Clement of Alexandria that is about the year 170. Again I know says he that Epiphanius with many of the Fathers erred in this that they said it was a sin to violate such a Vow when it was requisite and that he did ill in referring it to Apostolic Tradition Danaeus says confidently That St. Augustin and all the Bishops in the Council of Carthage abused manifestly the word of God saying upon the Apostles words If any widows how young soever have vowed themselves to God c. and afterwards shall go to secular Marriage they shall according to the Apostle have damnation because they dared to make void the vow of Chastity made to God The Centurists affirm it to be manifest by the Epistles of Ignatius that in those times men began to have too much liking of the Profession of Virginity for he says Let Virgins consider to whom they have consecrated themselves 11. And as for the Doctrin of Devils mentioned by the Preacher he may do well to sit him down and consider the words of the Apostle and the comments of the Fathers on them a little better First he will find the Apostle in his opposing those who in the latter times should forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats to argue against them thus That every Creature and Ordinance of God is good according to Gen. 1. 31. 2. 23 24. and therefore being sanctified first by the word of God and Prayer may lawfully be used See 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. which plainly shews that St. Paul means such Apostates as abstain from or prohibit Marriage and Meats as in themselves unlawful and unclean and contaminating Which thing can neither be objected to the antient nor modern Church-practise using abstinence from some meats for the chastisement of the body not for any uncleanesse in the food and not forbidding Marriage to any single person absolutely but only upon his voluntary undertaking such an employment with which they imagin a married condition not so well to sute In which case if necessary abstinence from Marriage be a fault the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those expressions of his forementioned concerning the Widows 1 Tiâ— 5. 11 12. 2ly He will find it manifest by experience that this prophecy of the Apostle was most eminently fulfilled in other persons of these latter times whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted they affirming downright all Marriage especially with reference to procreation of children therefore the married were advised by them in such manner to use their Wives as to avoid this See S. Aug. De Morib Manich. c. 18. to be unlawful and the work or dedesign of the Devil as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling They forbid living Creatures as detesting them saith Epiphanius not in respect of preserving continency or a vertuous life but out of fear and fancy that they might be defiled by eating such living Creatures Wine they use not at all saying 't is Diabolical And S. Austin Contra Faust. l. 30. c. 5. Ye call the Creature unclean because the Devil ye say frames flesh out of the more feculent part of natural matter Such were some of the Gâ—osticks Eucratites Mâ—ntanists Marcionites and in the last place the Manichees who not holding all things to have been created by the same good God but this lower world by an evil Principle or by the Prince of Darkness as they call him affirmed in the begetting of a man that the Soul which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself becomes fertered and imprisoned in the walls or handy-work of the Devil i. e. the body and therefore was marriage as occasioning such imprisonment forborn by all their Elect and though this was permitted to their Auditors yet saith S. Austin it
was not by telling them it was no sin but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning because they allowed them maintenance 3. Again he will find that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things both for their frequent abstinences from flesh and some other Fruits and for their to some Persons at least recommending Virginity who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner as the Protestants objecting the same things are now by the Church Catholic See Chrysostom Ambrose and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy understanding it of the same Heretics Lastly he will find that Faâ—stus the Maniches made the very same Objection to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Doctrin of Devils To whom St. Augustin thus answers I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself lest he should seem to have introduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed to a love of perpetual Virginity and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow 12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon let him consider what an Author not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church has said of that Point that is The Patriaâ—e of Presbyterians Mr. Cartwright The Council of Nice says he did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward only being married before intrance into the Ministry it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that precedent Marriage And Paphnutius shews that not only this was before that Council but was an antient Tradition of the Church in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested for a motion being made by some in the Council that the married Presbyters such as were married before made Presbyters should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives this Paphnutius a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor though himself never married opposed saying Grave jugâ—m This was a heavy yoke c. and that perhaps such a strict rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives But now mark what follows That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditionem according to the Churches antient tradition ' should afterward forbear from marrying But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before when yet a Laick The story is in Socrates l. 1. c. 8. in Zâ—zomen l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much advantage from Paphnutius 13. Now for as much as concerns the Controversie touching Marriage of Priests Bellarmin will grant That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree and consequently that it may be dispensed with Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permited the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Ordination And indeed considering the temper of the Eastern Countries far more enclin'd to such passions than that of the Europeans we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western Yet no antient Canon â—f either of the Churches can be â—ound that permitted Priests to contract Marriage after Ordination And even among the Grecians a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests who attended the Altar 14. But what the universal belief and practise of the Western Churches was our Preacher may collect from the following Testimonies Therefore not to insist upon the generally esteem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony of a dispensation from which not one example can be given It appears that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly married was forbidden 1. By the Second Council of Carthage express in this Point It was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons and such who dispense Sacraments should be Observers of Chastity and abstain even from their own wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep 2. The Second African Council thus decreed Whereas Relation was made of the Incontinence of certain Ecclesiastics though with their own Wives this Council thought good that according to former Decrees Bishops Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives which if they do not let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office As for other inferior Clarks they are not compell'd hereto But let every Church observe their own custom 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same You says he who with pure bodies uncorrupted modesty and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation have received the grace of the holy Ministry know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence without stain neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates some have prâ—created children when they exercised Priesthood And again the Apostle speaking of a Bishop sayes having children not getting them 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius sayes What shall the Churches of the East do What shall the Churches of Egypt do and of the See Apostolick all which receive Clerks either such as are Virgins or Continent or if they have wives such as cease to be husbands to them The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian And he writes to Pamachius thus If married men like not this let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the Act of marriage 5. We are wont says Saint Augustin to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden and yet having received it they by Gods assistance bear it to their end I will conclude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis more ancient then St. Augustins time nay ancienter then the First General Council of Nice The Council hath thought good that it should be absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget children 15. That the Eastern Churches took to themselves anciently a greater liberty is to be understood not generally for in many of them aâ— great a strictness was observed as besides the forecited tâ—stimony of S. Hierâ—m concerning the Churches of the East and of Egypt appears from Origen Eusebius and Epiphanius who all require continence in Priests even from their wives if they have any And particularly S. Epiphanius says That to
cause of all dis-unions and Schisms The unappealable Authority of general Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 1. IN this point of Schism to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church he argues thus Since besides corruptions in practice which yet alone cannot justify separation there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise intrenching on Fundamentals the Schism could not be on the Chruch of Englands side which was obliged to separate so just a cause being given but on theirs who gave the cause of the separation Now that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian the capitulare of Charlemagne and the endeavours of two late Emperours 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order they would never have cast off the yoke which never had been put upon their necks whence appears sayes he that the Vsurper made the Schism This is the substance of his Discourse 2. In answering this I will proceed according to this method 1. I will shew out of Antiquity from the example of all orderly Governments from evident reason c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors in the obstinate refusal of which consists Schism 2. I will apply this to the present controversie between the English and Roman Church I will consider the validity of his allegations and leave it to any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation 3. Touching the first Point I take it for granted that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church Ecclesiastical Governours to continue by a legitimate succession to the end of the world And that the exercise of their Authority consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order And that the Doctrines are to be no other then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary Principles contained in Divine Revelation no innovation no change must be in them whereas orders for Discipline may according to the prudence of the Church sometimes admit alteration Likewise I believe we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours or Bishops may be differently exercised that is either by their single persons or in conjunction with others meeting in Synods Diocesan Provincial National Patriarkical and Oecumenical The Authority of which Synods is by degrees respectively encreased according to the quality of them the lowest degree among these being Diocesan and the Supream unappealable authority being in Oecumenical Synods To deny this in gross is to make them ridiculous Conventicles and the more plenary they are the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be if they may be repealed by others less plenary 4. Thus far we agree but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority by both sides agreed on in the general here we begin to differ wherefore to the end indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies I will besides what has already been said of infallibility plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter with the exceptions which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it 5. There is in St. Clements Constitutions a saying that to every Bishop is entrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopal Office Vniversally In like manner St. Cyprian says Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Episcopal Office is but one of which every Bishop holds his portion in common The meaning of which speeches is not that every particular Bishop is in regard of his Jurisdiction an Oecumenical Bishop But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge as that he must have an eye to the whole Dioceses and Provinces c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit or liking It is not so in the Church But every Bishop in executing his Episcopal Office ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity Peace and Edification of the whole Church than of his own Diocese So that if any Law Custom or Doctrine in it be discordant from but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province Patriarchat or much more the Vniversal Church such a Law ought not to be made or being made ought to be Repealed 6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods particularly in declaring Doctrines for in that we are at present principally concern'd Such Authority may be conceived to extend it self either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only or to the inward assent c. Between which two there is a great difference 7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth that whereas in General Councils the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible there may be either 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and â—niversally appear to be Traditionary 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines In both these the Church is infallible Infallible I say not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before Cap. 9. 11 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted but submitted to by an internal assent the undiscover'd refusal of which assent though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would for Ecclesia non judicat de internis Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines the contrary internal Judgments are Heretical 8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity St. Athanasius quoted also by St. Epiphanius professes That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council since the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour Therefore they are unalterable and in our sense infallible Nor can there be any doubt but those matters defin'd were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines And St. Augustin sayes The last Iudgment of
the Church is a General Council The same holy Father treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Cyprian and after by the Donatists says That for that Doctrine which was truly Traditionary the Donatists were Hereticks but St. Cyprian not Why Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate and without breaking Communion to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils Till in a General Council the true Orthodox Doctrâ—ne were without all further doubts confirmed Which Authority says he St. Cyprian if it had been declared in his time would without any doubt at all have believed 9. In the next place as touching Decisions of Controversies about not expressly Traditionary Doctrines but clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines it is absolutely necessary oft-times for the Church to make such Decisions for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given to maintain freely any thing that does not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or in Tradition Thus many of the Articles of the Nicen Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions which Articles in the Terms wherein they were there conceived were not absolutely necessary to be believed before the arising of Heresies forced the Church further to explain the Faith And hence it is that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith in many Doctrines otherwise not necessary to be so generally known must and will encrease to the worlds end in case New Heresies arise 10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide or objects of our Faith For though it be most certain that the Church neither hath nor pretends to have any New Revelations of Christian verities but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles is still the Faith of the Church and no more There are no Additions made no new Articles invented Notwithstanding the same Articles by occasion of Heresies arising may in succeeding times be further explained and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered In like manner some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the Church when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks are often explicitely declared in Councils to be Traditions by which Declaration there is no new thing taught but that which was formerly involved is more clearly manifested and that which was taught by practice is declared by words and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians becomes extended to all Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead Invocation of Saints c. have been in later Councils made Articles not de novo as the Doctor misapprehends but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed and so are all other new decisions of later Councils Points of ancient Faith either in themselves explicitely or in their necessary principles implicitely And if after such decisions of Councils there ariseth a new obligation that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error and that in a matter of Divine Revelation Such Points were alwayes matter of faith if we would believe in those particulars what was Divine Truth though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement to which judgement we could have no obligation before she declared it Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians in relation to Her of believing it else to what end does the state it Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters without the guilt of disobeying the Church but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now which perhaps we did not formerly and that in a time when we are in more danger from Seducers of falling into the contrary Error And now behold these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith this is her chief accusation and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality which was not found in their former Creed as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council and by the Eutychians against the fourth And therefore why may not the Council of Trent for its defence return the same answer to the Preacher as the fourth General Council which he professeth to allow did to the Eutychians A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient say they for the benefit of sincere Believers But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine 't is necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach and to provide fit remedies to their objections For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the Nicene Faith and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation it were meet for the posterity of the Church to excogitate in their Councils no new additions But because there are many that decline from this right line through the crooked paths of error we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church Not as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness as though the former faith were defective but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them Thus that Council whose words clearly demonstrate that Councils may define not only traditionals in matters of Faith but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them And here let the equal Reader judge whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles or the Council of his and his Predecessors new Errors Out of which evil yet the wisdom of God in the several ages brings this good as Evagrius â— accutely observes to the Pagans scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished and more entirely compiled and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed by the springing up of several Heresies in those days had enlarged the Apostolick 11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils we Roman Catholicks do esteem
our selves obliged to the assent unto which is far more then not to contradict And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church derived from the promises of Christ whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresie and an open contradiction to which Authority is formal Schism 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils And hereto we must add that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarks who live under the Tyranny of the Turk and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities as the four first were wherein all the five Patriarks were present at least by their Deputies Yet notwithstanding all this we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity Since therefore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected as was during the times of the Roman Empire the Supremest that can now be had ought to have the force and vertue of obliging which the former ones had the Anathemas of it must be as valid the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismatical as of any Council that ever went before Therefore Doctor Bramhal Lord Primate of Armagh in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church that is to a free General Council most rationally adds this clause or to so General as can be procured 13. Thus of General Councils As for inferior subordinate Councils though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable yet an obligation in both these respects they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to except they be evidently erroneous or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod And all by an Oecumenical of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to For if a Provincial Synod could annul the formerly received Acts of a National or a National of a Patriarchical there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and Vnity as to the whole Catholick Church yet we profess in our Creed Vnam Catholicam Add to this that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide so that the fewer however they may be esteem'd the better or more learned must submit to them These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated 14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Vnity is the only true unering Touch-stone by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better let it be produced but that being impossible he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church and all other Congregations that call themselves Reformed But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical Independent or Fanatick Congregations because they renounce both all such Laws and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them Therefore leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them I will consider the Controversie as the Preacher stated it between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches I say as he hath stated it because being to treat of Schism he hath given the right notion of it and not mispent time and paper as some others have done with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation c. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion unless men also have with the Presbyterians c. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church CHAP. XXI The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd Dr. Feild c. Of Points Fundamental and Non-fundamental Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sanedrim Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that by which they were Enacted is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose but written in the hearts of all mankind that consider what Government is and it is as to Church-matters particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine when he declares the Order that is in the Church and which alone can keep it in unity Particular Writings of Bishops saies he if any Error be in them may be corrected by others more learned or by Synods and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils and oftimes former Plenary Councils may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils 2. This most Irrefragable Rule is that by which Schism may most certainly and undeniably be discovered And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants I mean the wisest and most learned among them yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation they put such restrictions exceptions to it as utterly take away all use of it For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supream Authority of the Church to reside in plenary or general Councils because he withal implies that such Councils may be corrected they therefore take the liberty to reject them at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance and by that means altogether inervate their Authority Not considering that in case the Decisions which he saies may be mended should regard matters of belief which perhaps upon better consideration may be expressed more commodiously and so as that they may be less liable to misconstruction yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority To demonstrate this I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants such as Doctor Field the late Arch-Bishop Lawd c. acknowledg in general Councils and withal how they circumscribe the same Authority 3.
according to the foresaid limitations One may be excused from assenting to Decisions of General Councils about Points not of necessary Faith in case they be gainsaid by men of worth place and esteem So that if any such persons do contradict General Councils whether in or out of the Council He mentions not ignorant men may lawfully join with them and in comparison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth place or esteem What a broad Gate yea how vast a breach have these Doctors with all their learning and prudence made in the walls of God's Church to let in all manner of confusion Can any Protestant now deny Smeâ—â—ymnuus Mr. Prinn the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth place and esteem At least the generality of England once thought them so and themselves challenged those Titles and whilst they were the strongest enjoy'd them To what miserable straits a necessity of justifying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men 4. In the third place according to the same Writers Position all manner of Decisions made by Councils both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines cease to be obligatory in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council out of passion interest want of liberty c. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings Among Catholicks when there are perhaps suspicions of some irregular proceedings yet if the Points decided be embraced by the particular Catholick Churches generally speaking they then have the force of unquestion'd Catholick Doctrines But as for those who are enemies to Councils in which their Doctrines have been condemn'd such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice The Nestorians against that of Ephesus The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon 5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent against the proceedings of which therefore very loud and very unjust clamors were made by Protestants imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to intimidate the Fathers of the Council or to induce them to favour and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authentick Records yet extant will be satisfied 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurr'd thereto the Pope himself forbad it meerly because the French Bishops inconsiderable for their numbers did joyn to oppose it 6. But there is no necessity that Catholicks should trouble themselves with making Apologies for that Council 1. Because all the Doctrines of it opposed by Protestants as Novelties were manifest in the general Writings and Practise of the Western Church long before that Council and most of them in the Eastern 2. Because they are now actually embraced by all Catholick Congregations as Declared Doctrines of the Church in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions they are to be esteem'd infallibly true 3. Because the principal Doctrines censur'd in the Preacher's Sermon had been expresly determin'd by former either General or at least Patriarkical Councils admitted in this Kingdom as Transubstantiation Veneration of Images Prayers not in a vulgar tongue Communion under one Species Celibacy of Priests the universal Iurisdiction of the Pope c. 4. And lastly because in condemning the Protestant Doctrines opposite to them the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found even by Padre Paulo's Relation no favourer of that Council unanimous in their Judgment which the Reader may there see if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points Neither did nor needed the Pope or his adherents to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part And this is in that History of his only pretended to be done in other matters of Contest among Catholicks themselves 7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Consciencious Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings and the disinteressedness of their first Reformers I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations which in all Countreys have been usher'd in with Tumults Rebellions Murders Rapines Dissolution of Monarchies c. but of the English Reformation only which though free from such horrible Crimes yet how legal it was how free from worldly and carnal Interests let their own Historians be Judges 8. And first This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin In Queen Elizabeths time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled I need not mind the Reader here that all her former Bishops save on had deserted her and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy went that way to work in Her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Iewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God And to that end she published her Injunctions Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. All leading unto the Reformation with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan and some other Godly Prelats who were then about Her these were those newly Ordained the former Bishops being ejected by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to Her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus that Doctor the sum of which is That the Queen finding no foundation to build upon because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother had been utterly demolished by her Sister Queen Mary and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy as well as her Bishops except such as the caused to be made de novo to be generally averse from her proceedings was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work her self assisted with some of her New Bishops without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority till having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy she saw she could securely now do Church-work by Church-men 9. But Mr. Fuller is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings which he extracted out of the authentick Synodals 1559. He tells us then That in the beginning of her Reign the
But he discourseth so as if the Christian Prince were herein infallible when yet he supposeth that all his Clergy may be herein deceived As if Queen Elizabeth understood the Scriptures and ancient Tradition aright in these Lawes whilst her Bishops and Convocation erred in both till she had new-moulded them Is not this a strange way to justifie a Church-Reformation For the Kings of Iudah it shall be spoken to by and by and as to what he urgeth concerning the power of Kings it is by no means denied that these have Supremacy proper to them to command obedience from all their Subjects and that as well from a Clergy-man as any other to the Lawes of Christ and his Apostles with the civil Sword and with temporal penalties a Supremacy to which the Church layes no claim But when any doubt or controversie ariseth what or which these Lawes be as there was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign in many points Secular Princes as well as others are Sons of the Church and are to learn this from the Expositions of their Spiritual Fathers the Church-Men I mean that body of them which hath the just and Superior Authority of deciding such controversies And let this suffice to shew the legality of the first proceedings of the Reformation in opposition to the unanimous Votes of the whole Clergy or of those therein who clearly had the decisive power of Ecclesiastical Controversies either concerning the sense of Scriptures or Truth of ancient Tradition 12. Then comparing this Reformation with the Council of Trent in regard of worldly or carnal interests let any indifferent man judge between them Was not the liberty obtained by King Henry the Eighth to bring into his Bed a new handsom Wife instead of his former vertuous Queen a very carnal Interest Was not his invading all the possessions and treasure of Monasteries a great secular Interest was not the dividing the said Lands among the Nobility and Gentry at very easie rates a very great interest In King Edwards daies was not the Protectors seizing on the remainder of Church-spoils a great Interest Was not the freeing of Clergy-men from a necessity of saying daily and almost howerly long Ecclesiaâ—â—ical Offices from lying a lone without bedfellows c. Matters of great both carnal and secular Interests Was not the exempting of all both laity and Ecclesiasticks from the Duty of confessing their sins and submitting themselves to penitential satisfactions from rigorous Fasts out of Conscience and Religion and other austerities a matter of considerable interest to flesh and corrupt nature Can any such interests as these be proved to have been operative in the Council of Trent How far all these interests of the world and flesh had influence on the first godly Reformers we may rationally suspect but God only knows and themselves long before this time feel God is not mocked 13. By what hath been hitherto said appears but even too clearly how that Fundamental Rule of all Government and subordination was utterly neglected in England at the time that the pretended Reformation was contrived and executed Here is a new and thorow moulding of a Church both a Doctrines and Discipline called a Reformation wherein all the Synodical Acts of this Church since Christianity entred among us are as to any obliging power by their Authority reversed wherein all the Decisions of Patriarchical Councils yea of Oecumenical Synods are call'd into examination all their Laws so far as seemed meet reform'd the whole regard that England had to all other Catholick Churches as a Member of the whole is utterly broken by one National Church Nay not so much but by one luxurious King by one Child and by one Woman even when the whole Body of the Clergy protested against it And yet after all this if Doctor Pierce may be believed thus to reform was to write after the Coppy which had been set to the Reformers in his Text by the blessed Reformer of all the World which was so to reform as not to innovate and to accommodate their Religion to what they found in the Beginning In the mean time accusing the Church of Rome as he expresseth it but indeed the whole Catholick Church as he must and as others grant of not only horrible corruptions in point of Practise but hideous errors in matters of Faith too such as trench upon Foundations 14. But the Preacher must not expect his confident asseveration without proof can seduce the judgement of any considering man to believe him against evidence and experience Nothing is more plain then that the Catholick Church by observing the foresaid Fundamental Rule is and will be eternally free from danger either of causal or formal Schism And as plain it is that no Churches can be separate from the Catholick Communion but by transgressing that Rule For if Diocesan Churches and Synods would submit to Provincial and Provincial to National and these to Patriarchical and all to Oecumenical how could Unity be dissolved But on the contrary if subordinate Councils shall take on them to reverse the Acts and Decisions of Superior ones especially of Oecumenical how can Schisms possibly be avoided And with what shew of reason can any particular Churches thus breaking Ecclesiastical Orders charge other Churches with Schisms because they will not break them too CHAP. XXIII An Answer to the Doctor 's Proofs alledged to justifie the lawfulness of the English Separation As 1. From the Independent Authority of our Kings 2. From the Examples of Justinian and other Emperors 3. From the practises of fourteen of our Kings 4. From the Examples of the Kings of Juda. In what sense New Articles of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent 1. IT remains now that I answer the examples produced by the Preacher to justifie their Separation to be no Schism he sayes That by the concessions of the most learned Popish Writers particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church as in the State without leave had from the See of Rome This is willingly granted But do those Writers concede such a purgation as their first Reformers administred to this Kingdom not only without but against the consent of the See of Rome nor only of Rome but of the whole Catholick Church A Purgation from the whole Faith and Discipline in any thing they judged fit to be rectified that by the Authority of Councils and Laws of Princes had been received and in force ever since the Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves Members of the whole Catholick Church On the contrary from the beginning of Christianity he will not be able to produce one example either of States or Princes except profess'd Hereticks such as the Emperors Constantius Valens Zeno c. that ever made any Laws to repeal any Doctrines declared or Disciplines established in the Church The Purgations conceded and executed by Princes
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
Religion of their Fore-Fathers even King Henry the Eighth for all his Headship never pretended so far Of this I dare accept as Judge even Sir Edward Coke himself and Balsamon likewise though a malicious Schismatick therefore the fitter to be quoted by him yet all he sayes is That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. which whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church he can do or no is little for the Preachers purpose I am sure he is not able to prove it or if he could it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn 7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes is that of the Kings of Iuda in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed But withal the Doctor may do well to take notice 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the High Priest or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves 2. They are not said to have reformed the people against the Priests 3. Or without the Priests 4. Yea in several places we read they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation And therefore Bishop Andrews who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church as might be says only that those Kings did reform citra or ante declarationem Ecclesiae but he saies not contra And to make good his citra or ante hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments a Negative thus There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture ergo there was none The infirmity of which argument is much more visible if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles containing a relation of so many hundred years and chiefly of the actions of Kings not of the Clergy 8. It cannot indeed be denied but that in such publick changes the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual and therefore no wonder if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of especially in so very short a story But certainly according to Gods Institution the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge and it is from their mouths that Kings are to learn Gods Law and what they are to Reform because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now for Reformations or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David Solomon c. who besides a Regal Authority were Prophets likewise immediately inspired and so employed by God I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth the young child his Son or youngest Daughter no Prophets surely 9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive which as he sayes set on work the English Reformers of happy Memory which was their observing that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partizans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation Gal. 1. 8. 10. But to omit his contradictions charging us with hideous errors in Faith which yet he dare not say are Fundamental lest he ruine his own Church To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council persons of too honourable a quality to be called by a little Doctor contemners of the Apostles denunciation conspirators liable to a curse To omit his commending the first English Reformers our Kings c. that they consulted not with fleth and blood then which what could be said more unluckily to himself Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual Do not your self confess that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation To omit his petty Quibble that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain Directly contrary not only to many of his brother Divines but to the Head of his Church King Iames who in a publick Speech to his Parliament says I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church To omit all these and more I shall desire the Doctor to take notice that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adversaries should make such an objection concerning which the Reader may please to review what has been said before chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers that the Church hath been forced to make such as they call them new Articles of Faith For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators As yet such Doctrines c. having never formerly been opposed except by inconsiderable Hereticks Such as Iovinian Vigilantius c. whose Errors before any Council could take notice of them soon after they appeared withered away again were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholicks But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter that they were unjustly question'd either of Error or Novelty Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils For fear of new Articles must liberty be given to new Heresies Old Articles such as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council New ones that is Old ones further explained Or Old Practises newly declared to be Traditions 12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor and related to in his margin are no new Articles Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England For even St. Gregory who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel is accused by learned Protestants of all or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects Doctor Humphrey accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium c. that they brought into England Purgatory Oblation of the salutary Host and Prayers for the Dead Relicks Transubstantiation To which Osiander adds That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy Invocation and Worship of Saints nay that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved excused defended To which Carrion in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes adds That when he tragically exclaim'd that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies in his
assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches Here then are Seven of the Doctor 's Novelties confessed by Protestants themselves to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory which the English here received with their Christianity which also sufficiently appears to those who are yet unsatisfied out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England written about an hundred years after St. Gregory of whom the same Oâ—iander also relates That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein saith he we dissent at this day from the Pope And for the Two others of the Doctor 's Points 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue And 2. Infallibility himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time For thus he The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable that any fallible Authority should assume to it self For surely upon this ground it is that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith though they have put none such in our Creeds 13. By which it appears that this Sermon and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it might as justly have been preach'd and executed against our first Apostles St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk as against us And if against them then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline And consequently if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since I might go higher but this is even too too much That man surely must have a prodigious courage who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament or the 39. Articles than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes And this shall be done by making some Concessions and proposing some other Considerations c. CHAP. XXIV Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation and the vanity of their Distinctions Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 1. FIrst As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism it is borrowed from the late Archbishop The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church the later to no body He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Augustin thus writing to the Donatists Si possit quod fieri non potest c. If any could have which really he cannot possibly a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World How do you know c. Aâ—d again in the same Epistle There is the Church where first that Separation was made which you after perfected if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness as you Donatists do but in the Divine Scriptures where he sees the Church really become as she was promised to be spread through all Nations a City on a Hill c. Hence it is that the same Saint though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists yet whensoever he treats of their Schism he never meddles with any of their Opinions but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture and Promises of Christ which are absolute and unconditional So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation for which there can be no just one is vain and fruitless And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants than it was against the Donatists because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was and alwayes will be unerrable in Fundamentals and this as she is a Guide And further that the Roman is either this Church or at least a true Member of it 2. But Secondly whatever becomes of this Distinction his concession is That really a Formal Schism there is between us nay more that the Protestants made the actual departure and indeed they must put out their eyes who see it not The visible Communion between the now English Church and all other in being before it beyond the Seas is evidently changed and broken The same Publick Service of God which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over they refuse to joyn in for fear of incurring sin Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws every where formerly in force they have abrogated and without the consent of any other Churches have made new they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body and especially the Supreme Pastor they judged to be a formal Act of Schism Lastly the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority Traditionary only ancient and Primitive Now they called Apostatical Novelties Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other but all of them more then demonstrate it A Schism then there is therefore one of the parties is guilty not of causing but of being Schismaticks properly formally Schismaticks Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience and declare once more at Court which of us two are properly Schismaticks It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland when she asked if she were a Catholick No Madam said she with a low curtesy if it please your Ladyship I thank God I am a Scismatick but withal his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English Reformed Church 3. That which is opposed to Schism is Catholick Communion We shew saith Saint Augustine by our Communion that we have the Catholick Church Therefore in discourse of Schism one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine or of making a secession from
a Church twelve hundred years since c. and perhaps charging us with causal Schism And on the other side to acknowledg that the actual departure was indeed theirs yet they are not Scismaticks they left the errors of Catholicks rather then them Is indeed to act the very part of the Donatists who as Saint Augustine sayes affirmed that the word Catholick was not derived from the universality of Nations but from the plenitude of Sacraments that is from the integrity of Doctrine And in another place writing to a Donatist Thou thinkest says he that thou hast spoken acutely when thou interpretest the Name Catholick not of Vniversal Communion but of observation of all Precepts and Divine Mysteries And hence it was that the Donatists call'd their Bishops Bishops of Catholick Verity not of Catholick Vnity as St. Augustine says in the same Epistle 4. I desire to know whether before their Reformation our Church was Schismatical or it began afterwards so to be If it was so before where was that Church from which we separated no where on earth sure And by consequence either a separation may be from no body or the whole Church failed the gates of Hell contrary to our Saviours promise prevailed against it Again if our Church became Schismatical after their deserting us because she would not immitate them or because she would communicate with those who held such Doctrines then it will follow since the Church that was then did in this nothing vary from it's predecessors in a former age that a Church remaining the same without any alteration at all may be the only true Church of Christ to day and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow These are Riddles unconceivable But to demonstrate that even in Protestants opinion we are not Schismaticks there needs only this Proof that generally Protestants yea even Hugenots acknowledge that Salvation may be had in Our Church which no man charging us with Schism can say if he knows the nature of Schism how grievous and unpardonable a crime it is that cuts off from the Mystical Body of Christ. 5. On the other side That the crime of Schism is truly and only to be charged on them besides the visible marks of leaving Communion changing Government Laws c. may be demonstrated thus There is no particular true Church which is a Member of the Catholick but thereby hath a power validly to excommunicate all those that desert her Communion transgress her Laws c. And whoever are so excommunicated by her are esteem'd excommunicated by all other Catholick Churches So that if another Bishop or Church after information of this shall receive them into their Communion that Bishop c. ipso facto incurs excommunicaion himself Which excommunication being according to the Laws of the Church is valid and ratified in Heaven Now suppose an English Bishop should excommunicate one of his Subjects for a total renouncing Episcopal Government and Ordination and the person so excommunicated should adjoyn himself to a Congregation of Presbyters in Scotland France Holland c. They would no doubt receive him and being so received he is even in the Bishop's own judgement in as undoubted though not so straight a way to Heaven as he was before because the Bishop himself acknowledges Presbyterian Congregations to be true Reformed Churches of God so that by their Excommunication he is not cut off from Christ but from preferments only The late Act of Vniformity doth far more validly excommunicate Non-Conformists then all their Bishops Courts CHAP. XXV The Doctor 's desire of Reconcilement and the conditions of it The necessary preparations thereto Of the Court and Church of Rome 1. AFter all the Doctors triumphant Invectives against the Catholick Church he yet concludes his Sermon in a less tempeâ—tuous stile He sayes he hath the Charity to wish for Reconcilement That they departed with higher Degrees of Indignation from the insolent Court then Church of Rome That Court which proudly trod upon Crowns and made Decrees with a non-obstante to Apostolical constitutions c. That they were called Protestants because they protested not so much against the Church as against the cruel Edict made at Worms c. But yet when they wish a Reconcilement they do not mean by compliance with any the least of our defilements but by our Harmony with them in being clean 2. If Doctor Pierce hath indeed the charity and if he doth any more then with his tongue say they wish for Reconcilement they that do so will not want a reward from God for so much charity And I doubt not there are a world of English Protestants with him who heartily wish the same And they that have charity will easily believe we wish so too So that both parties being so far on the way to agreement as to wish it the next step must be to endeavour to procure it Our frequent endeavours they know have been to little purpose We have oft in vain protested that our Doctrines practises c. have been misunderstood we still persist in the same protestation and perceive by this very Sermon that they are still misunderstood And whilst they are so that condition of Reconcilement which he makes is not unreasonable that they will have no Reconcilement by a compliance with our defilements Therefore to take away this misunderstanding let them obtain that for us which we yet could never be able to do a permission to be heard speak for our selves 3. We pass for Traitors but cannot obtain to be informed wherein our Treason â—ies nor what we must do to prove our selves no Traitors If the ackowledgement of his Majesties Supremacy in as high a degree as they themselves will allow with exclusion of all manner of Temporal Authority in any other be no Treason If the exposing our lives as willingly for Monarchy as they can do be no Treason If there be not any proof of faithfnl Allegiance which is refused to be submitted to by us what suspicion can they have that we are Traitors But our present a la mode Treason is that our Priests receive their Ordination from Rome and do not they so to I am sure we cannot anger them worse then to question or doubt whether the Church of England hath received her Mission Orders and Iurisdiction from the Roman Church 4. For our Doctrines I am perswaded if only this poor Answer fall into the hands of any ingenuous Protestants who will seriously consider the several Points so Tragically declam'd against by the Preacher they will think even the Church of England little beholding to him for his Sermon and Truth much less But since small effect can be expected from such 〈◊〉 Treatise as this bound up to his blundering method therefore unless it be their interest or as they may think their safety that our innocence should be stifled and oppress'd if they have the charity iâ—deed to wish for a Reconcilement let them procure for us a peaceable
authorized Conference in which the only Design may be by consent to enquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow and without which it must not nor ought to be expected Let us understand one anothers Churches let us know one anothers essential Doctrines If there be any mistakes any misinterpretations on either side let them be cleared But till this be done and it can only be effected by them they must pardon us if according to the temper of calamitous unjustly oppressed persons we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon is in effect the most severe and bitter against us as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlawful 5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King Iames whose authority being his Supreme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal should surely have more then an ordinary influence over him That learned King in his before mentioned Speech hath these remarkable words I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion as laying wilfulness aside on both hands we might meet in the midst which is the Center and perfection of all things For if they of the Roman Church would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs as themselves cannot maintain nor deny to be worthy of Reformation I would fâ—r my own part be content to meet them in the mid-way so that all novelties might be renounced on either side See the condescence of this great King and compare it with the stiff humor of this little Doctor He 'l not comply with the least of our defilements not he Softly good Sir do you not as ill when you comply with the Lutherans who surely are not without some little stains Do you not as ill when you comply with the Hugenots who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean Look soberly into your own rashness you began the Separation that hath bred so many wars and so much licenciousness both in faith and manners upon points which your selves confess are not fundamental and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least difference between us Go now and close your Sermon with a few soft words Your arms are open to embrace c. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches c. of his divided defiled disgraced Spouse And when all 's done you 'l not stir an inch towards the peace you so gloriously talk of If this be Hypocrisie remember Doctor the woes that attend it if not express your self so sincerely hereafter that we may not suspect it For my part of all the faults in a Sermon to that of dissembling I here declare a Vitinian hatred as you learnedly call it Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander whom you commend for complaining of some abuses in the Church among other Authors which you there cite jumbling Protestants and Catholicks confusedly together for after all their zeal they dyed quietly in her bosom and did not like you tear in pieces the seamless Coat of our SAVIOUR and reject all terms of peace unless every pretence of yours be satisfied to a tittle I remember too a dogged word you gave us not far from the beginning of your Sermon where after you had reckoned up Socinians Antinomians Ranters Solifidians Millenaries Reprobratarians c. a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring to all which you yield more antiquity then any will allow your Reformation you pass them over with the gentler names of Heresie and Usurpation but when you come to the Pontificians you immediately grow high and rage and resemble them to the Mahometans c. blind and impertinent Passion Do you not see abroad a civil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and are they no better than Mahometans Do you not see in your own Country and at Court too Persons so qualified that you should blush at your own unmannerliness to compare them to Mahometans 6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns and making Decrees with a non-obstante to c. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since But surely they know Catholick Princes are wiser now and the Court of Rome too This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement On the contrary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome only what France Spain c. find extremely advantageous both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States And as for Decrees with a non-obstante he mistakes the terms of Apostolick Constitutions by which is intended Constitutions not made by the Apostles but former Popes And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin let me ask him a Question or two Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling instead of dipping non obstante that our Saviour and his Apostles instituted it otherwise Do they not think themselves obliged to communicate fasting non-obstante that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper Do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non-obstante the Apostles gave a command to the contrary All this they do because they think these things not essential or unalterable but left to the prudence of their particular Church Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils Mr. Ridley sayes Councils indeed represent the Vniversal Church and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth Doctor Bilson plainly confesses the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth And after fairly sayes The Fathers in all Ages as well before as since the Great Council of Nice have approved and prastis'd this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts Hooker professes The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin yea though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion Their Authority General Councils is immediately deriv'd and delegated from Christ sayes Potter And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Brethren I might say Fathers in this Point I shall not easily fall out with him about it but rather endeavour a further approach by offering this fair Proposal I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make question of the matters of Faith for those they were taught from their Childhood but to consult about their adversaries proofs and what arguments should be alleadged against them to consult
how to express the Catholick Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people and prevent Hereticks from abusing them Hence it was St. Athanasius said We meet here not because we wanted a Faith i. e. were incertain what to hold but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth Which Rule if Councils observe I think the Doctor would scarce refuse to obey them and our only difference in this point I hope is he thinks they do not observe this Rule and I think they do CHAP. XXVI The Preacher's boasting Catholicks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their Doctrines Conditions necessary to be Observed by the Doctor in case he Reply Of the Name Protestant 1. THus I have gone through and examin'd except to those who love to be contentious sufficiently all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholick Church I have likewise brought to the Test all the Allegations made by him either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Roman Catholick or at least to perswade us not to call it Schism And it seems to me I have demonstrated him unsuccessful in both Nay more which is a great misery if he would consider it with that seriousness which Eternity deserves I think I have prov'd that the fearful crime of Schism will lye heavie upon his Church though he had shew'd all the Points by him mention'd to be Novelties And having done this I must say with St. Augustin Vtinam verba ista infuderim non effuderim But considering the present temper of this Age I doubt I shall have reason to fear according to the same holy Father's expression lest when I beg them to afford their ears they should make ready their teeth 2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to complain as he doth in his Sermon of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the Four first General Councils Truly this Speech of his seems to me so vain and rash and shameless a boast that I cannot but blush for him when I read it and tremble for him when I see Truth so little consider'd by a Preacher sustaining God's Person as he pretended 3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of shâ—wing that Iota as to which they have left c. If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiquity or that we believe not even since we have seen their Answers that our demonstrations are unanswerable there are extant whole Libraries of our Controvertists sufficient to overwhelm him Particularly before he say so again let him enquire out and consider a Book written by Simon Vogorius Counseller to the French King entituled An Assertion of the Catholick Faith out of the Four first Oecumenical Councils and other received Synods within that time Or even let him review what is quoted against him here concerning one of his own Points Celibacy of the Clergy out of the Four first General and several other as ancient Provincial Councils Before all which Councils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his dayes about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an Iota with him How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive and Antiquity Antique enough to use his words Unless he will shrink up Primitive Antiquity from the 6th Age to the 4th from the 4th to the 3d. where few Writings being extant less of the Churches Doctrines and Customs can be shewn in them Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times as the Presbyterians in the Plea of Antiquity treat the Prelatists For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers when they are straitned with proofs are wont to retire So Bishop Iewel long ago made a bold challenge to be tryed by Antiquity for the first 600 years But after many hot Encounters between the Controvertists and after Antiquity better discover'd to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first A. Bp. Lawd more cautious contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrower to the Fathers of the first 400 years or thereabouts The Protestants saith he offer to be tryed by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years and somewhat further And since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years For the particular Doctrines saith he wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils And again We profess saith he to believe so much and not to be convinced by all the Reasons and Authorities and Proofs from Scriptures or the first Christian Writers those of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils Where by submission to the Four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost not obliging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these Four Councils and sate in them For though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age yet he claims a tryal by the Fathers only to the end of the 3d Age. Again by this submission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only he bars most of the chief Fathers and all those that are more large and Voluminous from bearing any witness against Protestants and leaves scarse half a score Authors of Note now extant and several writing only some short Treatises or Epistles whereby they are content to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity 4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity let us hear two or three bolder spirits that speak plain and freely What sayes Doctor Willet Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of supposed antiquity as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites and the reason is given for Anti-christ began to raign in the Apostles dayes in St. Pauls dayes What says Acontius Some of us are come to that that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers which I would to God they had performed with prosperous success as they hopefully attempted it c. I onely think this
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.
4. From the Example of the Kings of Judah 7 8. In what sense new Articleâ— of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent 10. 11 12 13. CHAP. XXIV page 291. Of Causal and Forâ—al Schism and the vanity of their distinctions 1 2. Considerations for a clear Examination on which side the guilt of Schism lies 3 4. The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church 5. CHAP. XXV page 298. The Doctors desire of Reconcilement and the Conditions of it 1 2 3. The necessary Preparations to it 4 5. Of the Court and Church of Rome 6. CHAP. XXVI page 307. The Preachers boasting 1 2 3. Catholiâ—ks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their doctrines 6 7. Conditions necessary to be observed by the Doctor in case he Reply 8 9 10 12 13 14. Of the name Protestant 15 16. FINIS ERRATA PAge 11. line 15. read wllful 〈◊〉 p. 15. 〈…〉 Prov. 16. 7. Sanderson's Hist. pag. 349. out of the Records of the House of Commons 1640. Eccles. 9. Melanct. in 1 Cor. 3. Pet. Mart. 1. devotis p. 477. Id. ib. p. 490. Id. ib. p. 476. Beza Epist. Tâ—eol 1. Fulk in Rejoynd to Bristow page 4. Andre Duditius in Epist. Theol. Beza 1. Ibid. Common-Prayer-book Memento congregationis tuae Domiâ—e quam pâ—ssedisâ—i AB INITIO Stat 1 Eliz. Quest. 1. Quest. 2. Quest. 3. Quest. 4. Epist. Dedicaâ— Serm. pag. 10. Page 16. Page 17. Page 18. Ibid. Page 19. Ibid. Page 20. Page 21. Sess. 25. Concil Floren. Page 17. Mark 10. 45. Hebr. 5. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. A. D. 606. Pelag. 2 Epist. Card. Palav Hist. del Conc. de Trento lib. 19. c. 15 16 c. lib. 20. c. 3. 9 c. lib. 21. c. 4 c. Ius Divinum Ministr Evang. in Appâ—â—d prep 5. A. D. 590. Greg. M. lib. 2. all Indict 11. Ep. 3. Idem lib. 7. jud 2. Epist. 64. Id. lib. 7. jud 2 Epist. 64. Id. l. 2. Indict 2. Ep. 63. Id. l. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 37. Id. l. 5. Indict 14. Ep. 24. A. D. 577. Pelag. 2. Ep. â— A. D. 494. A. D. 484. Felix 2. in Ep. ad Episc. Dard. A. D. 440. A. D. 451. Leo M. in Ep. 53. Idem Ep. 54. Idem Ep. 55. Serm. pag. 19. Liberat in Brev. cap. 13. Socrat. Hist. l. 2. c. 5. Theodor. Anag in Syng Can. Leo. Ep. 55. ad Anat. Gelas P. Tom. de Anathem Vinc. A. D. 381. Conc. Constantinop 1. Can. 3. Serm. pag. 18 Concil Const. 1. Can. 2. Novel Theodos. Tit. 24. A. D. 424. Ibid. Ibid. Leo in Decret T. 5. Hilar. P. in Ep. â—d Ep. Provinc Vien A. D. 385. to 418. Zosim in Decret c. 1. 2 Innocent in Decret c. 21. tit 45 46 47. Conc. Tolet. 4. Conc. Turon 11. Can. 20. Basil. Ep. 52. A. D. 343. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. â— cap. 5. Apud Athanas Apol. 2. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c 9. Novel Theod. tit 24. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉 3. c. 2. Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. Corâ— Eph. p. 2. 〈◊〉 5 in relatâ—d Calest Epist. ad Theodos in pâ—eamb Conc. Chalced. A. D. 345. Concil Sardic can 3 4. Athan. Apol. â— Hist. l. 3. â— 3. Greg. 9 ep 61. A. D. 314. Conc. Arlat can 1. Serm. pag. 18. Conc. Nicen. 1. can 6. De concord Sacerd. Imperii â— 7. n. 6. * Erasm Prâ—â—f in Hilar. ‖ Scalâ—g in Chron. Euseb. Baron Spond Annal. 325. Peron rep to K. Iam. c. 33. Basil. Epist. 10. August l. 1. cont Julian c. 2. Hieron Epist. 77. Justin. Novel 123. Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. A. D. 311. Aug Epist. 162. A. D. 258. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. c. 4. 6. Cypr. Epist. 75 Id. Epist. 67. Id. Epist. 68. A. D. 19â— Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Serm. page 18. Hierom. cont Jovin lib. 2. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Ibid. Ibid. Optat. cont Parm. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Act. Ap. cap. 1. hom 3. Id. in cap. 21. Joâ—n hom 87 Serm. page 17. August lib. 2. de Bapt. cont Donat. Ibid. August Ep. 92. Serm. Pag. 20. Cypr. Epist. 76. Epist. Ded. Ibid. Contrary to thâ— Statute 37 Hen. 8. c. 17. â— Ed. 6. c. â— Reform Leg. Ecclesiast c. De Offici Iurisdictione p. 190. Fulk against Bristows motives p. â—48 Whâ—tg Defence cap. 59. Ibid. p. 173. Centur. Eâ—ist Thâ—ol Epist. 74. Covel Exam. page 106 107. Ibid. Serm. pag. 8. Ib. page 22. Deut. 7 8 9. Ainsworth in Deut. 17. 9. Serm. page 22. Math. 28. 20. Math. 18. 20. Math. 16. 18 Math. 18. 17. Geg M. l. 1. Epist. 24. Act. Conc. Nicen. Dr. Hamond of 〈◊〉 sect â— n 1. sect n. 15. sect 13. n. 2. sect 14. n. 6. Bishop Bramâ—aâ—l Reply to Bishâ—p Chalced Prefaâ—e and Vindic. ca. 2. p. 9. Artic. 19. Serm. p. 22. Ibid. Hieron Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. Hierom. Aug. l. 2. de Civ D. c. 7. Aug Ibid. Hieron l. 4. Aug. l. 1. de pec merit cap. 20. Innocent in Epist. Aug. â—b c. 19. 21 22. lib. 2. cap. 28. c. Bed ad 1 Cor. c. 10. Gratian Consecr dist 2. cap. Qui passus est Dr. Fern in certain Consid. in Preface Serm. p. 8. Concil Trid. Sess. 25. Ibid. Can. Missae Memento 〈◊〉 Commun Dion Ar. de Eccles. Hierarchia c. ult Ibid. Tert. de Mon. cap. 10. Id. de Coron Mil. cap. 3. Ibid. cap. 4. Cypr. Ep. 66. Euse. de vit Const. l. 4. c. 71. Epiph. 3. haeâ—â—â— Ibid. Chrysost. in Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. hom 3. Id. hom in 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 46. Forb de Purâ—â— c. 3. §. 27. Spal l. 5. cap. 8. P. 9. Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 11. Aug. Ser. 32. de verb. Apost Id. Enchirid. c. 110. Epiph. l. 3. haer 75. Aug. de cur pro mort c. 5. Serm. p. 9. Ibid. p. 23 24. Profess Fid. Pii 4. Calvin in â— Cor. cap. 11. 24. Casaub. â—p ad Card. Per. 1 Cor. 11. 29. Blondel Lâ—turg S. Basil. Cyril Hier. Catech. Myst. 5. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 10. hom 24. Optaâ— lib. 6. Cyâ—il Al. Ep. ad Calosyr Ambâ— de Spis lib. 3. cap. 12. Aug. in Psal. 98. 5. Id. Epist. 120. Luke 22. 14 18. lbid 10. 19 20. Matth. 26. 29. 〈◊〉 Serm. pag. 14. Serm. pag. 25. Greg. Nyss. orat Catech. c. 37. Serm. pag. 9. Ibid. pag. 25. Tertull. lib. 2. ad Uxo Cypr. l. de lapsis Ambr. orat 1. in obitu frat Aug. lib. 2. lit Petil. c. 23. Euseb. lib. 5. lib. 7. Beda in Mart. ad 15. August Niseph hist. lib. 18. cap. 6. Ambr. de ils qui Myster c. 9. Conâ—yl Eph. in Epâ—st ad Nestor August in Psal. 33. Cyril Alex. lib. 12. in Ioan. cap. 32. Conc. Tâ—id Sesâ— 22. in fin Serm. Pag. 13. Fulk conâ—ut of Purg. page 362 c. Ascham Apol. pro câ—na Dom. Ignat. Ep. ad Smirn. cent 2. cap. 4. Iren. l. 4. c. 32. Cypr. Epist. ad Cyril Hier. on Tiâ— cap. 1. Chrys. 21. hom Aug. lib. 20. de Civ