Romish Doctrines NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OR A REPLY To what S.C. or Serenus Cressy A ROMAN CATHOLICK hath returned to Dr. PIERCES SERMON Preached before his MAJESTY at WHITEHALL Feb. 1. 1662. IN Vindication of Our CHURCH Against the NOVELTIES of ROME By DANIEL WHITBIE M.A. and Fellow of Trin. Coll. Oxon. 1 Jo. 2.24 Let that therefore abide in you which yee have heard from the beginning LONDON Printed by R. W. for Tho. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street and Ja. Magnes in Coven-Garden 1664. Imprimatur Nov. 6. 1663. Tho. Grig R. in Christo P.D. Humfr. Epis Lond. à Sac. Domesticis To the Right Reverend Father in God SETH Lord Bishop of Exeter My very good Lord BEing informed of a Book which passed the decretorial sentence against our Church and that it was written by an Author grave and sober whose reason was very keen and sharp one who was the Coryphaeus of the Roman Party and therefore from whom I might expect all that the matter could well bear one lastly who was once a professed son of the Church of England and therefore would not be so ungrateful to his Mother as to pass so heavy a doom upon her without the greatest evidence and conviction I first set upon perusing it big with expectations but finding my self miserably disappointed I was put into such a passion as vented it self into this Reply which humbly lies prostrate at your Lordships feet begging the favour and honour of your acceptance and that you would be pleased to take it into your protection And indeed what can be more proper then to commit a discourse of this nature to the protection of such a Father of the Church whose zeal for the Churches good is as ardent as her enemies rage and fury violent What therefore my former promises of tendering my first fruits unto your Lordship and the influence of your instructions and encouragement have made your own flies to the shelter of your goodness where leaving it I securely rest Your Lordships most humbly devoted Servant DANIEL WHITBIE TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Cannot but expect to be censured as a bold adventurer as one who hath puld upon himself a burthen not sufficiently considering Quid ferre recusant Quid valeant humeri In that I have dared to appear in a matter of such concernment as this I have undertaken you will happily cry out of an impar congressus betwixt one of yesterday and Father Cressy But notwithstanding this objection which lyes so fair in the view of all men I shall not despair of a milder censure if it be considered 1. That I did not presume to venture upon the Work till I had found that every citation produced from the Fathers by S.C. was already Answered to my hands by the Champions of our Cause so that when any matter of Antiquity is scanned by me know that I steared my course by the greatest lights our Nation or other reformed Churches would afford me that I speak the mind of an Hammond Field Salmasius or a Baron in the business of the Popes Supremacy of an Usher Fern and Dally in that of Purgatory of a Taylor and Featly in the business of Communion in one kind of a Crakanthorp and Dally in that of Images of an Usher Andrews and Crakanthorp in that of Invocation of Saints of an Hall Taylor and Calixtus touching Celibacy of Priests of a Chillingworth in the two great Controversies of the Infallibility of the Church and Schism of a Chamier and a Lord du Plessis in them all and if you will but acknowledge that Bellarmine hath been Answered and that it is not a thing impossible for such an one as I am to have seen those Answers and to be able to transcribe them you will consequently be obliged to grant that it was possible for me to have returned an Answer to this Epitomie of him which our Author hath produced And yet after all this I must say 2. That these collections for so I am content they should be called have not passed without the censure of some Critical eyes to whom I have wholly referr'd my self for the addition to or alteration of what ever seemed good unto them so to do and that I have moreover omitted many things of lesser moment wherein I had clearly the advantage of my Adversary that I might not be too much burthensome to the Readers patience Now if these things be impartially considered I hope the Objection which before appeared so considerable will vanish and this poor Treatise which intends only to tell the world that the advantage of our Cause is such as that the wisest of our Antagonists may be encountered by even the meanest sons of the Church of England that to plead for Popery is but to give us the trouble of transcribing the Answers of our learned Protestants may find a favourable acceptance from thee Farther I entreat thee not to be offended either with the breach of Pages which was necessary from the employment of divers Printers in this work or with some false Pointings which may easily be rectified or lastly with some few Marginal citations not very appositely placed which hoping thou wilt gratifie me in I bid thee farewell D. W. A Catalogue of some Books Printed for T. Basset in St. Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-street SCintilla Altaris or Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts of the Church the third Edition by E. Spark D.D. Dr. Collets Devotions for every day of the week The new Book of Common-Prayer with choice Cuts in Brass suited to all the Feasts and Fasts of the Church of England throughout the year in a Pocket volume ΛΟΓΙΚΗΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ The Reasonableness of Divine Service in Answer to the contrary pretentions of H. D. in a late Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer and Liturgies by Ir. Freeman M A. An exact Abridgement of all the Acts of Parliament in force and use since the 16. K Ch. 1. to this present by W. Hughes of Grayes-Inn Esquire A Synoptical Directory on the Canons of the Scripture by Ferdinando Parkhurst The Extravagant Shepherd an Anti-Romance in fol. ERRATA PAge 3. l. ult r. Morton p. 10. l. 26. r. abundantia p 20. l. 9. r. E Cathedra l. 15. r. secondly p. 33. l. 33. add to p 38. l. 8. r. now p. 46. l. 33. add illi l. 34. r. praeceptio p. 52. l. 22. r. or p 60. l. 8. r. it l. 27. r. his p. 67. l. 29. del S. 15. p. 76. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 84. l 27. dele not p. 94. l. 26. r. next query p. 106. l. 7. r. pâ—opositions l 33. r. can we p. 112. l. 34. add are p. 117. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 118. l. 20. add c. p. 172. l. 5. r. that p. 176. l. 4. r. not p. 182. l. 28. add the. p. 194. l. 32. r. they p 200. l. 14. dele Answ p. 201. l. 1. r. of p. 204. l. 31.
that not one of them should say it plainly so much as once but leave it to bee collected from uncertain principles by many more uncertain consequences 5. Sect. 6 Wee say that it cannot bee proved that the English Church separated from the external Communion of the Church Catholick let Mr. C. produce any one thing which wee alledge as a reason of our separation and shew that it was held as a matter of faith or practised in the publick Worship of all other Churches and then wee shall acknowledge it 2. We have not separated from the external Communion of the reformed Churches much lesse from the Communion of our selves and therefore not from the universal of which both they and we are parts And thus Mr. Chil. explains himself and tells you that his meaning was onely this P. 295. that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part Luther and his followers might bee said to forsake this external Communion of the visible Church But that properly speaking hee forsook the whole visible Church viz. As to external Communion you must excuse mee if I grant not and my reason is this because hee and his followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to bee so by their reformation now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church and what other plea could have been made by the Church of Jury in the dayes of Elijah or the Church of Christ under the prevalency of Arrianisme I understand not And what hath Mr. C. to evidence the contrary 1. Saith he p. 262. a separation from any one true member of the Catholick Church for doctrines that are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that member is indeed a separation from all Churches Ans But the Church of Rome hath separated from the Church of England a true Member of the catholick Church for doctrines commonly held by other churches in communion with her Ergo shee hath separated from all Churches 2. The Argument evidently supposeth some of these untruths 1. That a true member of a Church or a particular true Church cannot require unjust conditions of communion or at least cannot have any other to consent with her in these conditions or that if she do it is unlawful for others to separate when such conditions are required Yea lastly it supposeth the very thing in question that all true Members in the Church Catholick must necessarily communicate externally with each other 2. Ibid. Reply p. 47 48. He tells us that Calvin confesseth this separation which confession is considered by Bishop Bramhal 3. Saith he no Church can be found antecedent to our separation p. 263. with which we are joyned in external communion Answ What inference do you make hence seeing wee are joyned in internal communion with all the Churches of God and are willing externally to do so if no unjust conditions be required 2. What think you of the Churches which reformed before us Ibid. Again he adds no Church hath Laws or Governours in common with us Answ What of all this is it necessary to our external communion that all the Laws or Governours of other Churches should be the same with ours 2. Have not the Eastern Churches the same Governours with us Ibid. Repl. they are manifestly Heretical Answ This wee constantly deny as you may see in Bishop Bramhal Reply p. 349. Bishop Mortons Apol. Dr. Field Mr. Pagits Christianography and others He proceeds not one Church can be found Ibid. which will joyn with us in publick offices or wee with them Answ Who told you so Bishop Bramhal informs you that albeit the Eastern Churches use many rites that we forbear yet this difference in rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to bee for any thing he knoweth if distance of place and difference of language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion seeing wee agree in the acknowledgement of the same Creeds and no other nor do we require agreement in lesser matters as a condition of communion in which the Church of Rome is extreamly Schismatical Obj. But their Patriarch Jeremiah refused communion with us To this Bishop Bramhel Replies in two full pages that the thing is not true and 2. that since his time Cyril the Patriarch hath professed communion with us Lastly Saith he surely they could not become ipso facto in communion with the Graecian Church by separating from the Roman Answ Surely wee may so as having since left off to require those unjust conditions or practise those unlawful things which before wee did require and practice 6. The reason of our separation from the Church of Rome Sect. 7 is not so much because they maintain errours and corruptions as because they impose them Chill p. 267. sect 40. and will allow their communion to none but to those that will hold them and have so ordered that either wee must communicate with them in these things or nothing Now this I hope is not a reason common to you with other Churches for what they hold they hold to themselves Id. ibid. p. 306. sect 106. and refuse not to communicate with them that hold the contrary so that we may continue in their communion without professing to beleive their opinions but in yours we cannot Lastly Sect. 8 were wee Schismaticks for separating from the Church of Rome for doctrines which were common to her See Pagits Christianography with other Churches yet can it not be hence infer'd that we must close with the Church of Rome in all her unjust demands but only in those doctrines if there were any in which she hath the consent of the Eastern Church and all others which we esteem the Church of God Again p. 287. sect 12. Sect. 9 wee are told that the Articles mentioned by the Dr. most of them had been expresly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England whence he infers that the English separation made from the Roman Church should have been made on the same grounds from the universal Church above a thousand years since seeing it is evident that in St. Gregories time both Eastern and Western Churches were in perfect unity Where not to take notice either 1. Of his false supposition that Christianity in England was no older than St. Gregory or Austin the Monk when it was above two hundred years older than the very being of a Monk Nor 2. Of his rediculous assertion that these Articles which we contend against are not new because most of them declared in former Councils when as I am confident he must sink down as low as a thousand years to make this good let him cite any Council expresly declaring for any of these Articles excepting the Celibacy of Priests and the worship of Images which is as evident an innovation as any possibly can be Nor 3. To minde
intimates and would have the learned Dr. guilty of the same blunder Mr. Cr. p. 309 albeit he hath not one syllable whence he can infer it But Calixtus the second who lived An. Dom. 1119. Sim. Dunelm in Chron. lib. 20. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. pag. 67 who in a Synod held at Rome An. Dom. 1120. Made this decree that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons should bee altogether interdicted the cohibitation of Concubines and Wives CHAP. XXIV Particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from their corruptions sect 1. Mr. C's limitations considered ib. The example of the Emperour Justinian for it sect 2. Of Carolus Magnus sect 3. Mr. C ' s. evasion obviated sect 4. The testimonies of Balsamon sect 5. The example of the Kings of Judah vindicated sect 6. Mr. C ' s. Objections answered sect 7 8. The History of the reformation sect 9. Wee might reform without Synodal concurrence sect 10. IN the consideration of this twenty fourth Chapter Sect. 1 I will use as few words as possible And First Whereas the Dr. had said that by the concessions of the most learned Popish VVriters particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church Mr. C. p. 285. as in the state without leave had from the See of Rome This saith he is willingly granted But then 1. He will not have them grant such a power of purgation against the consent of the See of Rome Answ As if they who have power to do this without the leave of the See of Rome might not do it with a non obstante to the contradiction of that See 2. Were all the decrees and statutes of the Germain Spanish Gallican Churches against the encroachments of the Pope his indulgences his bulls c. so largely insisted upon by Bishop Bramhal made by the consent of the Roman See did she not with greatest violence oppose them Secondly saith hee did they allow this liberty against the consent of the whole Church Catholick Ibid. Answ Wee have shewed that wee did not separate from the whole Church Catholick but being constrained by your obstinacy in imposing on us unjust conditions of communion refused to communicate with you the most ulcerated part of the Church Catholick upon these terms 2. When the Church in Athanasius his daies was over-run with Arrianism the Church of Israel in the daies of the Prophet Elias with Idolatry was it not lawful for particular Churches and particular Tribes to purge themselves from those corruptions 3. What promise have wee what evidence to assure us that there never was can nor will be any superstitions in all the Liturgies of the Church of God if you tell us that there be such promises we must call upon you to produce them if not then might there have been cause of our altering some things which were universally practised in the visible Church at the time of our reformation when we returned to that Primitive purity that was more or less deserted by it Thirdly Ibid. Not a Purgation quoth hee from the whole faith and discipline in any thing they thought fit to be rectified that by the authority of Councils and laws of Princes had been received and inforce ever since this Nation was Christian and by which they declared themselves members of the Catholick Church Answ Every word is a misadventure for neither were the chief things reformed by us as the tyranny of the Pope the Idolatry of Images the Sacriledge in with-holding the Cup c. decreed by any Councils established by any laws of Princes or received by us at the first conversion of the Nation as wee have sufficiently evinced much less did the asserting of them declare us members of that Catholick Church which never owned them but detested them Fourthly Ibid. He tells us that we cannot produce one example either of States or Princes that ever made any laws to repeal any doctrines declared or disciplines established in the Church Answ If he speaks of a particular Church 't is so palpable an untruth that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think he needs an instance to the contrary if of the whole Catholick Church it concerns not us for never will hee bee able to evince that we have done so or if wee had done so in sleighter matters where they have swerved from Scripture and Primitive antiquity how are we blame-worthy in so doing hath not your Trent Council decreed against the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants which yet was the Doctrine of the universal Church in the fourth century have you not laid aside some Ceremonies which in the Primitive Church were practised universally Lastly Ibid. You say that the Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholick were to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of discipline that swerved from the decrees and ordinations of the Church and no other Answ The Purgations executed by our Princes were truly so and this wee constantly assert let Queen Elizabeth speak in her own behalf England saith she hath embraced no new religion Cambdens Annals of Eliz. p. 35 36. nor any other then that which Jesus Christ hath commanded that the Primitive and Catholick church hath exercised and the Antient Fathers have alwaies with one voice and one minde approved And 1. Sect. 2 touching the Emperour Justinian the first instance produced by the Dr. let it be only considered that it was he who banished Pope Silverius who created Justiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his imperial power who made so many laws contrary to the decrees of former Synods and for the correction limitation or right ordering thereof who made so many laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons and Benefices and holy Orders and appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie excommunicating all Hereticks and that of Nestorius and Eutyches in particular ordaining that if the followers of them did not return after warning given by vertue of his Edict they should have no favour L. cum recta C. de summa Tâ—â—â— or pardon but be condemned and punished as convicted and denounced Hereticks who made so many Laws touching Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all other matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance yea who expressely saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novel 133. that nothing comes amiss to the Prince every thing is under his Royal cognizance I say if this bee considered Justinian alone if all other Presidents were lost were sufficient to evince this Political supremacy of soveraign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions and consequently to justifie the Oath of Supremacy which Mr. C. tells us wee cannot hence justifie there being nothing ascribed to his Majesty thereby See Mr. C. p. 290. but onely Political Supremacy as is excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 290. Yea 2. To justifie our reformation it being onely to the casting out of
General Council as being infallible in fundamentals 2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society infallible in fundamentals cannot mis-lead us to our danger and that by assenting to all its decisions wee are necessarily free from the sin of Schism Now seeing according to our former deductions such a visible Society may require the profession of what I know or judge to be an errour and so a lye the practise of what I know to be forbidden and so a sin you must suppose also that to lye against my conscience though it be a sin of great affinity with that which shall never be forgiven or practise continually a sin though it render the condition which interests us in the covenant of Grace viz. sincere and impartial obedience impossible not to be dangerous and that to renounce communion with others that cannot swallow such conditions cannot be the sin of Schism To p. 471. l. 19. add And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying Mr. C. p. 302. hee will comply with none of your defilements when to comply with them is not to communiate with you in other things or to acknowledge you as Brethren albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you but to practise a sin or to assert a lye to live in continual hypocrisie and disobedience to Gods law 't is a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism viz. wee comply with Lutherans and Huguenots who surely are not without some little stains and never take notice of that answer which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth that for our continuing in communion with them the justification of it is that they require not the beleif and profession of those errours among the conditions of their communion which puts a main difference betwixt them and you because wee may continue in their communion without the profession of their errours but in yours we cannot To page 478. l. 15. add And whereas you tell us chap. 20. sect 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off and which the Trent Council defined were conveyed to us by the General practise of the Church and were alwaies matters of faith It is the most notorious untruth imaginable is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions touching the Canon of Scripture should bee a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cosins through every age of the Church deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church when besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and Chrysostome held even the making of Images unprofitable and unlawful and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus and at the same time worship Images could the Church of God throughout all ages esteem your service in an unknown tongue agreeable to Scripture when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians but speaks apparently against it when Justinian and Charls the Great whose laws say you were but the Churches faith and Canons reduced into Imperial laws so peremptorily forbid it as contrary to the Word of God Lastly to add no more could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles bee the beleif and doctrine of the Church of God throughout all ages When as First The Fathers of the Church constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory another way as is evidenced by Mr. Dally de satis Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When Secondly they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death id c. 6. And Thirdly That wee shall remain for ever where death findes us c. 7. Fourthly That no punishments abide the faithful after death c. 8. Fifthly That the Souls of the faithful rest and enjoy felicity presently after death c. 10. Yea Lastly When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm that all the faithful were at rest after death c. 11. These things being considered the defence of the Nicene Council that they made no new decrees is as unseemly in your mouths as the defence of the Apostles we must obey God rather than man can bee in the mouths of the greatest Rebels To page 198. l. 15. add And this interpretation is backt with the Authoritie of the Fathers St. Austin ex professo handling this question whether these words I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine refer'd to the Sacrament determines for us as will be evident to any that will consult him treating de consen Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place cry out Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Yea Maldonate assures us that Jerome in his Comment Bede Euthymius and Theophylact did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ to whom you may add Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac 25. Epiphan cont Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucher in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others diligently collected by Dr. Featly in his Book against Transubst p. 204. c.
r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 205. l. 23. dele by p. 208. l. 1. r. eat p. 225. l. 20. r. and. p. 230. l. ult dele if p. 233. l. 32. r. the. p. 237. l. 5. r them l. 25. r. non negant p. 239. l. 16. r. as that l 23. r. the. p 242 l. 12. r. Cabrera p. 249. l. 27. r. enormities l. 40. r. what p. 158. l. 20. r. retractations p. 262 l. 38. r. or two p. 267. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 277. l. 16. dele of p. 283. l. 26. r. the. l. 28. r. this p. 284. l. 35. r. Saint p. 371. l. 6. add the. p. 376. l. 34. r. this p. 377. l. 21. r. it p. 391. l. 14. r. intimated p. 395. l. 20. dele that p. 397. l 25. r. the. p. 398. l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 410. l. 23. r. theses p. 422. l. 6. r. think p. 448. l. 32. r. ridiculous and so elsewhere p. 461. l. 4. r. it l. 8. r our p. 475. l 5 r. hath p. 487 l. 37. r. they in the Margin p. 4. r. Print p. 41 add lib. 2 Indic 11. p 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 61. add D. Field p. 81. r. ut vos p. 182. r. Scr. p 38◠r. dist 82 and Cap plurimos and Taraca and Wigorn. p. 388. add commun p. 402 r. ablutionis p. 473. r. Greg. CHAP. I. Popish Cruelties Sect. 3. No evidence of their fidelity Sect. 4 5. The Council of Lateran is for the destruction of those whom they call Hereticks Sect. 6. Which is the judgement of the most eminent Papists ibid. I Cannot forbid my self to wonder Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irrefragable a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary and obtains a Commendam from many Protestants should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions such as if all advantages were taken would stretch an Answer into many Volums for to return our Antagonists words upon him I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary not one instance but I will undertake to shew that it is either very impertinent ushered in with disadvantages to the truth or open forgery or lastly such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore And are we not come to a fine pass Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem when to transcribe a Bellarmine should I say or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Popes Supremacy as if we had not been able to transcribe their Answers when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism to unchurch her and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members And first Sect. 3 With what truth do you insinuate that the Doctors Sermon is of a stile so different from the Court Sermons which the times of our late glorious Soveraign and Martyr did produce Pag. 3. can you not remember one single instance of a Sermon in those dayes that hath employed your pens for an Answer Pag 4. yea with what face can you charge the Doctor with any bitterness in saying That his Sermon might be like to meet with men that are apt to confute their opponents with fire and faggot for are not you the men that have disputed against us with Flame and Gun-powder with Armies and Navies are not you the men that murthered so many thousands in cold blood in Ireland that destroyed the Monks of Bangor for living contrary to the manner of the Roman Church who can be ignorant of the floods of Christian blood that have been shed by the Roman hands in Savoy France Poland Germany Bohemia Ireland England of the treacherous conspiracies that have been made by these Popish Emissaries against our Kings and Queen in England of the butcheries of Princes and Nobles committed by them elsewhere how truly have they been drunk with the blood of Saints and would not these blood-thirsty men pretend as high to Loyalty as you now do was it not the Papal interest which you jointly manage that prompted them to the commission of such execrable facts was it not an opinion that we were Hereticks which you also passionately assert that emboldned them to these actions and can you blame his Majesty or his Parliament if they endeavour to secure their Protestant Friends and Subjects from such cruel and unreasonable men Be it acknowledged that Catholick Religion cannot stand justly charged with these crimes Sect. 4 yet must it be acknowledged also that many yea the greater part of Papists are guilty of a world of blood-shed upon this account and that you are not such who sojourn with us but Loyal to his Majesty what security will you give us shall it be your Oath of Allegiance to our King Fr. White against Fisher p. 571. many Papists refuse it yea persecute those who hold it lawful to be taken Shall it be your subscriptions to any form acknowledging his due Supremacy Alas do not we know that 1. many amongst you allow of mental reservations and equivocations an Artifice that will excuse and free you from the most accurate Oath imaginable and what if you swear that you take your Oath without any mental reservation may you not mean any that you intend to acquaint us with how can any man be assured that you do not all hold these mental reservations seeing you may deny the tenent by a mental reservation and yet hold it but admit that none of you held this Tenent yet do not many of you say That you may break your faith with an * Vide Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. where you have the judgement of Symancha Thom. Aquin. and the Counc of Constance for it p. 625. See also Dr. Mortons Popish posit and practices for Rebel Pacenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist monit Jac. Regis Tit. B. 2. 3. Dr Morton ib. Heretick and all of you that we are Hereticks but were this otherwise Thirdly Do not many of you hold that if the Pope dissolve the Oath you are freed from it as also when he declareth it unjust which when he pleaseth he may do hear the excuser of the Powder Plot from the imputation of cruelty because both seed and root of an evil herb must be destroyed thus deriding the simplicity of his Majesty in composing and requiring the Oath of Allegiance He thought saith he that no man could any way dissolve with a safe conscience the Oath which he had made but he could not see that if the Pope dissolve the Oath all its knots whether of being faithful to the King or of admitting no dispensation are dissolved yea I will say a thing more admirable you know I believe that an unjust Oath if it be
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
is a prejudice to that because a Primate or Patriarch by the notation of each word being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it Third Def. p. 406. Now whether his asserting this Primacy Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty whether his proofs or ours be more concluding let the Reader judge I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy And 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies Just Vindic p. 58 59. Answ Bishop Brumhal can tell you No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome that the Popes power in England was of courtesie not duty that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth with this only difference that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all And if so your very supposition will give you the lie unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes Secondly If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms burned for Heresies that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents Thirdly I pray you tell me were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks and what wonder is it that you had no Schismaticks c. when to be such was the sure way to have no being and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth You go on and tell us Ibid. The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account never was a sword drawn for or against it Answ Very good if Princes will crouch to his Holiness Nonne Rex Anglorum nâ—â—er vassâ—llus est â—t ut 〈…〉 di◠〈…〉 be his Vassals suffer him to drein their Kingdoms rob and begger their Subjects exhaust their Dominions he will not arm their Subjects against them dethrone them or seek their ruine but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny question his intolerable encroachments cannot be content thaâ— their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. Pâ—â—â—â— Patrimony then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceding witness the Popes Negotiations with the English Spanish French c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick interest Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Seminaries the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth and King James all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal pag. 136 137 138. of his Repli so that you do in effect say t is safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience a Spanish Invasion a Gunpowder Treason or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life You tell us further Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest and most devoted sons of the Catholick Church the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience Answ The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy would be as great an expedient for peace and unity let our Authour make the inference Secondly Why may we not deny that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy seeing as our Authour hath it in another case in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not as under the Turks Dominions c. Thirdly We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy From. pag. 190 to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication Lastly You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy Answ Very likely for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuites men born for the subversion of Governments be permitted Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub was the prediction of the University of Paris and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest Prin introd p. 202. N. 82. s 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies till you have brought us into new confusions and built your nests upon our ruines Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have
protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope over any subject of his Majesties Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137 138. Answ We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope yea that his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to Answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery that the Colledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world yea even in temporal matters now whether you have changed these opinions or no we know not 2. How long you will hold to this whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations and whether your intent be not as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknowledged by some of your own party by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power See B. Bram. ib. and whether you do not yet think that faith with Hereticks may be broken when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it may be doubted and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual authority in the Pope have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits but to yield what you so confidently assert and so weakly prove you Catechise us thus Is this now dishonourable is it unsafe Answ Both. To whom Answ All Kings and people the whole Church of God You reply Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger Answ No such thing it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome or at least plead for it when they have occasion Just Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person and deposed sent to him to recieve justice the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law what bottomless pit had belched it forth Yea further when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council he finding that all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council whether they were summoned by the Pope 2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances complaining of the Popes usurpations and tyranny exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms prodigality of indulgences c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia to enlarge the Popes Coffers and the like 2. See B. â—am Just Vind. p. 161 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we they profess him to have been their Patriarch but t is beyond all question he hath no title to be ours 3. They may Protest against a truth esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect and the faith they are stiled defenders of but he proceeds If only saith he to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Emâ—ire Answ But how will it appear to have been so was it begun and upheld by Treason Rebellions continual Blood-shed all manner of vice and wickedness as the Romans evidently was and is why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independant on the Emperours Answ But what of all this did such intolerable extortions excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops as do accompany this power of the Pope was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God by signs and wonders yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers and to resist an evident usurpation and a tyrannical yoke unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith and the enslaving of the Kingdom and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops over their Presbyters and Diocess to ordain Sect. 6 excommunicate make orders for decency c. we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain France c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us because t is purely spiritual else would it be so to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you 1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists Rep. p. 289 290 291 292 293. no Protestants having any hand in it 2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it 3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath but meerly Political and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince 4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood 1. Either by himself or by fit substitutes who are Ecclesiastical persons 2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience 3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties 4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art of the Church of England 5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily a lay Chancellour in the Court
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that 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 express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
perhaps tell you that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the end of the world refers to the end of the Jewish state and so signifies only the end of that age as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time Now if this sense be taken as no reason but it may then did this promise dye with the Apostles and so could not be entaild on their successours But because I will not be too rigid with him it shall be The end of the world 2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world ergo the Roman Church is infallible Well leapt Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation were you not first resolved to be infallible and then catch at any thing to prove it For here is not one syllable of infallibility and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that I will be with you to the end of the world that is say you I will secure you from all errour and why not as well I will exempt you from all sin or from all persecutions are not these as express in the promise as infallibility and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin and not lyable to any persecutions Again could not Christ be with them unless he endowed them with infallibility Is there no other way for him to be with his servants unless by inspiring them with that Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church and must all Christians be therefore infallible If in a word wherever Christ is present by his spirit there is no errour then is every individual Christian infallible and then what need of any other infallible guide but if where Christ is present by his spirit there may be errour then how gross is the inference that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit that therefore he exempts it from all errour 3. This argument fights alike for every cause and may be listed for the service of all pretenders What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility would it not serve our turns as much as yours What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves how would you answer them Is not this consequence Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world ergo The Greek Church is infallible as good as yours that because our Saviour hath made such a promise ergo the Roman Church is infallible What disparity can you give unless you first suppose what 's to be proved And then what answer you would give to them the same give to your selves Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus Christ hath promised that when two or three of them meet together in his name he will be in the midst of them surely to direct them therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only Ans This Argument is far more frivolous if that can be then the former Is Infallibility promised here or is it not if not then this Text is nothing to the purpose if it be then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible and then what need of General Councils seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies Mr. C. must own this inference if his own is good seeing therefore this is false his can not be true 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth as the Canons of the Trent Council Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines how would you Answer him fancy what Reply you please and that 's the very same we give you How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know Answ Now he seems to misgive and a little to mince the matter that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert what need of his running to that either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things or not if the latter then he either gives up the cause or beats beside the Question but if the former then let him speak out and let us see how sound his proof is Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible and therefore sets down no particular Text as he is wont to do in his other proofs Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles That he would send them his Spirit that should guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and shew them things to come which we find fulfilled Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles or if to any why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks the Abassines the Georgians c Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you that is as strong for your adversaries as for your selves Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they A. But the mischief of it is that this is the very thing to be proved Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future and though she did the event would soon confute her infallibility and therefore this promise belongs not to her It s a pretty inference that because the Apostles were infallible that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so But prettier still that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised that against his Church built upon St. Peter the gates of hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie Answ As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings he must now be impertinent too what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies which we grant his task if to the purpose is to prove That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true
Christ be thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor his Sacred Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Nicene Council thus decreed and what else you could design I am not able to imagine And have you not a good stock of confidence Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope one bafled Sophisme and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour can challenge the consent of all antiquity whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule and guide whereby we are to judge of Doctrines as you may see evinced as elsewhere so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion from p. 299 to 372. but especially from p. 357 to the end Lastly How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reverend Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infallibility because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council seeing they also promise and so doth every regular son of the Church of England to submit to the determinatious of the Church of England and acquiesce in them without the least manner of opposition and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them Yea 2. The places cited speak only of a General Council which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused See Dr. H. Her s 13. nu 2. s 9. nu 1. 3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Roman Church whose infallibility the Doctor questioned and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done against her tyranny and superstitions To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie He tells us 1. Mr. C. p. 105. That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith unless you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled and then repented Answ Can this be affirmed with any truth when as that saying was almost Proverbial Athanasius opposed the world and the world Athanasius Theod. His l 2. when Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him Answered There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong Ep. 48 ad VincentiuÌ„ When the Professors of error as St. Austin confesseth surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven When the Author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world Iâ— vita Naz. Iâ— Orat. con Artan pâ—oâ—se ipso Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out Where are they that reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by her multitude and despise the little flock they have the people but we the faith Yea lastly When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents Her c. 6. Did you never read Vincentius Lirin complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis partim vi partim fraude dece tis calgio quaedam mentibus effunderetur Orâ—t in Athanas Nor that of Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a very few which either because of their vertue resisted or by reason of their obscurity were contemned all obâ—yed the times i. e. became Arrians differing only in this that some did it earlier some later some were ring-leaders in that impiety of Arianisme some were in the second place either by fear or gain flattery or ignorance circumvented and drawn in which ignorance will not saith he excuse them it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith Nor that of Basil We may now say that we have neither Princeps Basil ep 71. Propheta nor Praeses left us in so much that he cryes out Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches is it the last hour doth the defection now take place by which the son of perdition is to be revealed but if all these must be overlooked must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes telling you that tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est ingemuit tot us orbis c. doth St. Jerome here tell you that no Bishops changed the profession of the Nicene Faith or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field who informs us that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundness of the Faith only Athanasius excepted and some few Confessors that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians His second Answer is Ibid. That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth that presently after being at liberty themselves and all the rest renounced what they had subscribed to Answ We grant that when the Council was first called the major part were Orthodox Socrat. His Ec. l. 42. c. 29. as their Epistle to the Emperour Constantius shews but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East who tells them That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum Apud Soâ— l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpitius l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim imbecillitate ingenii partim taedio peregrinationis evicti dedere se adversariis sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus that is till 400 came to 20. see c. 5 6. Soz. His Ecc. l. 7. c. 2. and which either compelled by force or enticed by deceits à fide tum quidem desciverant yet now they were returned to a sound mind subscribed to the Nicene Faith and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema So then all these Bishops of the West as well as the whole East Jerusalem excepted did à fide deficere and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme yet confessedly for sometimes they yeilded to it And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council why did the
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
See Dr. Field p. 246. c. du pless Sac Mis l. 2 c. 6. c. 7. then that the people should not understand him could you be ignorant of these and other evidences of this truth and cite so frequently that Dr. Field from whence I had them And would it not make an Heraclitus laugh to hear you tell us of S. Sect. 14. Ib. Basils Liturgy used in the Greek tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches and adde that this was not the vulgar or tongue sufficiently understood in many of these Eastern Churches Act. 14.11 and that because the people said in the language of Lycaonia the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men Act. 2.8 9 10. and further Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers of Mesopotamia and in Judea and Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Pamphilia heard the Apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God For can this do you any service till you have proved these things 1. That Saint Basils Liturgy was in all or any of these places 2. That those places where this Liturgy was used did not understand Greek as well as their vulgar tongue 3. That if they could not understand Greek in the days of the Apostles neither could they do it 600 years after their decease and upwards about which time this spurious Liturgy might haply have been used and when all this is done which will be ad Graecas Calendas the consequence will be only this that after six hundred years Saint Pauls precept was disregarded by some Eastern Churches Farther we have sufficient evidences that in many parts of Asia the Greek was a sufficiently vulgar tongue Saint Chrysostom preached in Greek at Antioch S. Basil at Caesarea Athanasius at Alexandria Cyril at Jerusalem thus from Constantinople to Antioch throughout Asia was the Greek language sufficiently known S. Jerom will tell us Tom. in Ep. ad Gal. in proamia pro Archia Pocta sermme Graeco omnis oriens loquitur all the East used the Greek tongue and Cicero Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus that almost all Nations used it and why not then those places in which this Liturgy was used But you go on to inform us Sect. 15. Ib. that your Church did not intend that her publick devotions should therefore be in Latine because it is not vulgarly understood but this hath hapned as it were by accident of the mixture of barbarous nations but why then was it thus performed in England where it was always a tongue unknown unto the vulgar and notwithstanding this accident you do not think meet to change it upon these accounts 1. Because no example can be given of anciently established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods publick service entirely Ans Were it so the reason evidently must be the no-necessity of such a change seeing 't is evident beyond all possibility of contradiction that the most holy and pious of every age required the performance of Gods service in a language known Rupert de Diz officiis l. 3. c. 8. hence in mixt congregations the Service was read both in Greek and Latine and at the funeral solemnities of Paula the Greeks Hier ad Eustoch Epitaph Paulae Syrians Latines c. had their devotions in their proper tongues Yea Innocent the third decreed that seeing there were mixed people of divers languages in sundry parts within the same Diocess or City the Bishops of these places should provide fit men to Celebrate Divine Service p. 248. De Sac. Mis l. 2. c. 6. according to the diversities of their Rites and Languages as you may see in Doctor Field he that would be glutted with the suffiages of Antiquity let him have recourse to the honourable the Lord du Plessis and he shall find abundant satiâ—faction Secondly As the evasion is evidently weak and impertinent so is it notoriously false for Methodius having translated the Scripture into the Sâ—lavenian tongue perswaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latine and make use of their own in the service of God p. 434. as Aventinus informs us yea the same Mâ—thodius went into the Kingdoms of Boiaria and sought to perswade Noricum Pannenia Veneda to abandon the Latine and have the service in the vulgar and albeit at the present he was resisted yet afterwards the attempt took effect See Doctor Field ubi supra at least in part as appears by Aventinus telling us that in his age the priests of Liburnia did celebrate Divine Service in their own De missa Latine facienda in locis communibus p. 241. that is in the Sclavonian tongue yea Eckius a rigid Papist will consess that heretofore the Divine Service was in the Dalmatian tongue throughout all Illiricum the same you may find evinced of many others that now use the Latine in the most Learned Dr. Field You go on Sect. 16 and tell us that the Greeks now use the Ancient Mass of Saint Chrysostom Mr. C. p. 173. written in pure Greek as much dissering from the vulgar as Latine from the Italian Spanish c. and that the like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. yea the Jews continue their devotions in the Hebrew to this day albeit understood by few of them Ans 1. The Lord du Plessis would have informed you albeit the Mass which the Greek Church useth is different from their vulgar p. 268. non tamen quantum aut Italica à Latinâ aut Gallica ipsa à Narbonensi and farther that where the Greek tongue is not in use as among the Muscovians and Russiane albeit they follow the Greek customs yet do they celebrate Divine Service in the vulgar tongue and I have so much confidence of the truth of his assertion as to judge your contradiction to it to exceed the bounds Secondly The Aegyptians indeed have their service in a bastard Chalde or Syriaque their vulgar being Arabique Field p. 241. but then they first read the Gospel in the Chaide and afterwards in Arabique which is not done in their publick Services Thirdly When the example of the Russians Muscovians Com. in 1 Cor. 16. disp 50. s 7. l 2 de verbo dei c. 16. Aethiopians c. was objected to Salmeron in behalf of Service in the vulgar tongue he Answers we will not be moved with the examples of such barbarous people and their famous Bellar adds 't is all one as if Lutherans and Anabaptists should be called for confirmation of an opinion seeing these are Hereticks as well as they so that our adversary might as well have argued that Arrius and his followers denyed the Godhead of Saviour and therefore we also ought to do so the Jews deny him to be the Saviour of the world blaspheme him in their Services and therefore so should we Again he argues thus Sect. 17. Ib. a great fitness there is that
time to the English Scotch Britains Picts the Latine Tongue by perusing the Scripture a fit citation for a Chapter penned in defiance of it was made common to them all Answer Notwithstanding all this i◠it not evident that the people do not understand their service will not their own witers confesse as much Hear Billet on this subject cited by Cassander What shall we say of our times l. de off pij viri p. 41. wherein scarce or not at all either he that heareth or readeth understandeth what he heareth or readeth and Cassander himself saith it were to be desired that consideration should be had of the people according to the mandate of the Apostle and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of believers might not for ever be excluded wholly from all communion in prayers and divine service Yea was there ever any Papist that durst say the people understood their Latine Service In a word either they do understand it so far as to be able to joyn with the Priest or not if the latter to what end is this Answer produced by you If the former what need of all the former evasions what need of an interpreter of their Mass of Manuals and other helps to understand the Churches prayer Doubtlesse the Peasants in France and Carters in England understand Latine both alike and the recourse of the service once a year is very like to help them much Secondly If there were lesse reason for a change in France and Italy c. why had we not a change in England why have they not in Germany Ireland c Yea Retento ubique cujusque Ecclefia antiquo ritu why doth the Council of Trent require that the old custom of Latine service should every where remain To conclude in your citation of venerable Bede Sect. 29 you shamefully abuse us his words are these Haec Britannia in praesenti juxta numerum librorum quibus Lex divina scripta est quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque summae veritatis verae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur confitetur Anglorum Britannorum Scotorum Pictorum Latinorum quae meditatione Scripturarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis That is in short Britain at present enjoyes five Tongues English Scots Picts British and Latine which by meditation of the Scripture is made common to them all that is some learned men there are in all these parts some Scots Picts English c. that have attained to a knowledge of the Latine Tongue John Trevison l. 5. c. 24. but yet that the Vulgar did not understand it and that Bede could not so imagine is Evident because this Bede Translated a part of the Bible into the Saxon Tongue for the peoples use L. 4. c. 24. Yea and in this same Historie tells us of a certain Brother in the Monastery of the Abhess Hilda Quicquid ex divinis literis per interpretes disceret Cuncta quae audiendo discerc poterat See Dr. Field ubi supra who would presently express in verse in his own Tongue that is in the English whatsoever he learned by Interpreters out of the Holy Books and whatsoever by hearing he could possibly learn he turned it into most sweet Poems And no wonder if the Scriptures were read in Latine by the Saxons when as Learned men are of Opinion they knew not how before Bedes time to write in their own Language CHAP. XVI The Trent Councils Decree touching Invocation of Soints Sect 1. The Romanists practice Sect. 2. Mr. Cressies Pleas considered Sect. 3. His Argument from begging the Prayers of the living Sect. 4. No Evidence that Saints pray for us in general or particular Sect. 5 6. His Argument to prove the presence of Angels with us confuted Sect. 7. Of the Sphere of their activity Sect. 8. Whether God reveals our prayers to Saints Sect. 9. Rev. 5 8.8 3. No proofs of the Saints offering up our prayers to God Sect. 10. His Argument from Miracles answered Sect. 11. Some Authorities produced by Mr. Cr. very inconsequent as that of Saint Hilary the Council of Chalcedon and Saint Austin Sect. 12. The testimony of St. Basil abused by Mr. C. Sect. 13. Saint Chrysostoms testimony considered Sect. 14. Saint Ambrose Sect. 15. St. Austine Sect. 16. The passages from Theodoret and Nysen spurious Sect. 17. Dr. Pierces Argument from Saint Austin vindicated Sect. 18. No footsteps of this in the Old Testament Sect. 19. Nor in the New Sect. 20. the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Saint Cyprian Origen and others produced against it ibid. The judgement of the Fathers further evidenced 1. From their putting God into the Definition of prayer Sect. 21. Their affirming God alone to be the Object of it Sect. 22. Their arguing Christ to be truly God on that account Sect. 23. The Council of Laodicea against it Sect. 24. As also that of Constantinople Ibid. The Opinions of many of the Fathers contrary to it Sect. 25. The Conclusion Sect. 26. IN this Chapter we have the Definition of the Trent Council touching the Invocation of Saints P. 179. wherein we are told That it is good and profitable to invocate them to have recourse to their prayers help and assistance for the obtaining good things from God by his Son Jesus Christ P. 199 180. And further that they are impiously perswaded who hold the invocating them to pray for us to be idolatry repugnant to Gods Word or contrary to the honour of the one Mediator Jesus Christ or that it is a foolish thing to supplicate them with words or mind On the contrary we say that the invocation practised by the Church of Rome is 1. Superstitious and Idololatrical 2. Derogatory to our Lord Jesus Christ 3. Repugnant to Gods Word and 4. That to pray to them especially with the mind is foolish All this might be evinced with a little pains but it is already done in many Treatises of the Romanists Idolatry and therefore I shall content my self to shew their practice and leave it to impartial considering men to judge And first Solve polluti labii reatum nunc potens nostri meritis opi mispectorisdures lapides repelle they pray to them for pardon of sins thus the Roman Breviary in the Nativity of Saint John Baptist Thou that art powerful break the hard stones of our hearts by thy rich merits and absolve as from the guilt of a polluted lip And if you would be so charitable as to think that they intend no more then that the Saints should pray for their absolution they will not suffer you to be so for they elsewhere have it Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus quorum pracepto subditur salus languor omnium Brev. Rom. in Cor. Apost speaking to the Apostles You that shut Heaven with a word and loose its Locks we pray you command that we be absolved from all our sins for the health and languishing of all men is subject
to her in them albeit this errour hath nothing of the will in it What I have here said I refer to the judgements of sober and impartial men with whom I am confident these instances with an hundred of the like nature will more prevail then any thing that on the contrary is tendered by Mr. C. and comes now to bee considered 1. Sect. 3 Then he gives us a similitude from civil Governments wherein to entertain principles which if put in practise would with-draw Subjects from their due obedience is an offence of an high nature Mr. C. p. 228. but the actual cantonizing of a Kingdome and the raising in it Courts or Judicatures Independent on and opposite to the common tribunal of the Countrey is the utmost of all crimes and both the Seducers and Seduced here are pursued by arms as the worst of enemies it is so saith hee in the Church whose Vnity we are taught to believe for if Vnity then Order then Subordination of Governours with an c. at the end of them to signifie the Lord knows what What therefore is the great sin against the fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism a dissolving the communion and connexion that the members of this great body have among themselves with relation to the whole Answ This confused stuff cannot very well be dealt withall especially in the lump 1. Therefore as to his example in civil Governments I Answ 1. That the case cannot easily bee the same for seldome is it that there is such a conflict of reason with reason authority with authority amongst men learned in those matters but suppose it should ever happen to bee so as that the most learned Lawyers can scarce tell how to decide the case Would a gracious King think you presently condemn all those to the utmost severity who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duely made should by reason of some prejudices or weaknesses in reasoning bee induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party Put the case some leading Papist should rebel and seek to reduce our Nation to the government of the Pope by force of arms albeit the case be not so difficult but it may easily be resolved for his Majesty against the Pope should those Incendiaries of Kingdomes I mean the Jesuits and other of your Priests by all the arguments they could invent sollicite the illiterate Papists of this Nation to side with this Rebellion as too frequently they have done answer all their demurres and propound to them Indulgences and deliverance from Purgatory and the meritoriousness of the fact and such like motives which should bee effectual in them all and these deluded souls thus thinking it their duty to obey their spiritual guides and having no other means to inform them better should make a party in an Insurrection would you not put in one plea for the excuse of these persons Would you think it meet without respect of persons to make a general slaughter of them all in cold blood I am sure the bowels of our Gracious Soveraign would yern towards them and must the bowels of God bee more contracted Shall we charge him with such austerity as is hardly incident to humane frailty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true a great severity may sometimes be necessary in these cases but still upon political reflexions which are not incident to our Maker Now then apply this to the Unity of the Church and you have an Answer to your Argument But 2. I deny the supposed parity of the similitude for there is greater reason why such severities should be exercised by the civil government in the case proposed because the raising of Courts and Judicatures thus independent do ipso facto dissolve the frame of Government but now the cases of Schism by mee mentioned and many other do not so for albeit they do somewhat disturbe that external unity of order and sub-ordination of Governours which ought to bee preserved inviolate in the Church yet is not that the Unity which is essential to the Church but an internal Unity of Faith and Charity the Unity mentioned by the Apostle Ephes 4.4.5 and albeit the dissolution of the other Union bee a sin yet that it is not damnable seems evident to mee in that God sure hath not made it as a necessary condition of eternal life to believe this subordination of Governours in which this unity consists and that hee hath not done so I conclude because it is no where so manifestly revealed to us that the meanest capacity may apprehend it Whereas what ever is necessary to be believed under pain of Eternal Damnation must bee plainly and evidently revealed c. 6. v. 8. for if ever that of Micah will hold hee hath shewed thee O Man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee It is in this particular As an Appendix to this Objection Sect. 4 I shall consider another of his similitudes of like nature produced against our English Church viz. that if a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil Authority p. 231. it wold not excuse them to say wee do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King c. Which if you produce to evidence this onely that in case wee had really substracted our obedience from lawful Authority excuses like to these would bee unserviceable to us it is very pertinent and close but that it may do you any further service it must bee evidenced not beg'd that you had any Authority de jure over us and that such as we could not lawfully refuse to grant or that to with-draw from usurpation is sinful which will be as easily performed as the former Again Sect. 5 you argue thus the Schismatick is divided from the body of Christ and so from Christ himself and therefore is inevitably damned Answ This division from the body of Christ is twofold either in things in which it is absolutely necessary to be united and hee that is thus divided is necessarily cut off from Christ and must bear his burthen or in these things in which it is not absolutely necessary to bee united as in the same Liturgies or Ceremonies the same opinions as to matters not fundamental in which it is as impossible to obtain a general consent as in the lineaments of our faces Now to assert that a Schism in such matters by reason of the infirmities which are incident to humane frailty should presently cut off our weak Brother from the body of Christ is to assert that God requires upon pain of damnation that a man should truely judge of that which many thousands even of learned men very differently decide and which is so obscurely revealed if at all it be so as that the most piercing intellects dare not peremptorily assert they have found the truth Thus whether the Church of Rome is the onely Orthodox Church of Christ whether a general
and by a certain faction so that the major part of those that were capable of being Members of the Council bee of a contrary opinion to the persons actually elected Why should wee believe them then For if the contrary faction should prevail their determinations would bee contradictory to the others and so the Articles of our faith must bee formed by chance and faction Again what if all the persons called come not will the Council be generall Why may not the greater part of the Council erre and yet the Church be infallible as well as the greatest part of its Members diffused erre and yet the diffused Church be infallible Especially seeing Gods promises must bee acknowledged to concern them both Shall they bee infallible whether they fast pray study and use means or not If so then to what purpose have they generally done so and why are there such debatings If not how shall wee so far distant from them be able to know how they acquit themselves in these things and consequently whether they bee infallible in their particular determinations Yea seeing the packing and fore-resolution of votes doth null their Decrees or else your Answer to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is perfectly vain in such a corrupt age as wee live in p. 51. sect 8. wherein if ever all may be said to seek their own how shall wee know whether all the Bishops of the Church of Rome come not as they did to the Trent Council with resolutions to condemn the Protestants right or wrong Furthermore who must call this Council Pope or Princes when they are met how shall wee know that they are fit Members when wee cannot know the legality of their Baptisme and Ordinations because wee cannot know the intentions of all the particular persons who Baptized and Ordained them VVhat if there can bee no general Council VVhat if Princes will not suffer Bishops within their Dominions to repair to it Must wee call general Councils to suppresse every novelty How shall wee know true Councils Have you not large Catalogues of reprobate and doubtful Councils Upon what uncontroulable grounds do you reject this and own that whence have you any infallible evidence that your charactarismes of a true Council are true ones Must this general Council bee made out of the whole Christian world or not If not how is it a general Council How can the promises made to the whole World bee applyed to it How is it a representative of the whole Church If it must be from all parts 1. 'T is evident wee never had a general Council For what Bishop came in the primitive times from India Aethiopia Persia Parthia Armenia what Brittish or Scottish Bishops were there And 2. A general Council is then a thing impossible for some Bishops bee in America and others in the East-Indies some dispersed through most of the Turkes Dominions and how long would it be before all these could have tydings of a Council How long would they bee in journying to the place appointed for convention How many of the most aged will dye by the way How many will be hindred by Infidel Princes VVho will provide for such a multitude when convened How will it bee possible for them to conferre by reason of the difference of their language Or to provide Interpreters for them all what will become of their Flocks at home while they spend so many years journey to a Council These and an hundred questions more of the persons appointed to call them of the place and the like might bee insisted on to shew that general Councils were never instituted by God for the Rule of our Faith But I am weary and therefore send you to Mr. Baxters key for Cath. pt 2. and others Nor can this infallibility of general Councils bee concluded either from Scripture reason the suffrage of Antiquity Sect. 3 or the concessions of the Sons of the Church of England Though all these Topicks are made use of to this purpose And. 1. To return answer to his evidence from Scripture that of Deut. 17. from the 8. to the 13. is very unserviceable to his design For not to tell him with Episcopius Mr. C. p. 258. sect 12. how inconsequent this deduction is from the Old-Testament wherin if wee may believe our Author wee have an expresse evidence from God of such an infallible convention to the New which affords us no such thing Wee answer further 1. It is not evident from the place that any mention is made of Religious causes for albeit there bee mention of cause and cause yet in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a cause before brought to the inferiour Judges V. 8. before whom the causes of Religion were not brought 2. That their judgement was not infallible is evident For 1. The Scripture affirms of these Priests who are here appointed to Judge that they departed out of the way caused many to stumble at the Law yea corrupted the covenant of Levi. Mal. 2.8.9 They accepted persons in that Law that is in judging the law was wrested by them in favour of persons whom they particularly affected yea further these Judges condemned the Prophets of the Lord Jer. 26.8 The priests Prophets and all the people condemn Jeremy to death and that for accusing the people and Priests of defection from the Lord to Idolatry from the Precepts of the Law to the most enormous sins Matth. 23.17 Yea they approved of false Prophets as is every where extant in the Old-Testament for that this was done by these Judges appears in that a Prophet was not to be Judged but by the Senate whence Christ saith Luke 13.33 It cannot bee that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem because it was the place where this Sanhedrim was 2. Had it been so why was it that so many sects were found among them of Sadduces Pharisees Essens Gaulonites and Herodians How is it that this infallible Judge never went about to interpose his sentence How is it that they never resorted to him for satisfaction but indeed these Sects were made up of the persons that were to judge and so no equal decision was like to bee made by such interested persons 3. Wee know that this Synod was made up of Sadduces and Pharisees the one of which denied the Resurrection the other by their traditions annihillated the Command of God Now these as wee may read in Josephus mutually prevailed in the Nation Now then had this Synod been to judge of the Resurrection when the Sadduces prevailed would they have been infallible in their Judgements Surely no more then the Arrian Councils And when the Pharisees would they not yea did they not determine such things which made void the Commandments of God but what need wee flick upon these arguments when wee have such an illustrious instance in their rejection of our Saviour and refusing to beleive on him would the Synagogue have judged him
dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible seeing therefore it is evident that most of the questions proposed by mee are variously maintained by men of learning and abilities and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them it seems apparent unto mee that he never intended a general Council as a Judge to whose decisions upon pain of damnation wee must assent and to which wee must necessarily submit our judgements if wee would avoid the ruine of the Church For sure it cannot bee that what is so necessary to the unity that is the being of the Church should bee left by an all-wise God at such infinite uncertainties And I appeal unto your self whether we who say the Scripture must bee Judge in fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation as that God is and that hee is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him that hee is holy just and good that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners dyed for us rose again will raise us up at the last day and bring us unto judgement that faith repentance and obedience or holinesse of life are necessary for our attainment unto happinesse are at such uncertainties Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity Are they not writ as with a Sun beam Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if shee doth not Now as for other things which may bee variously conceived and held without the destruction of faith or good manners a liberty of judgement may bee allowed onely with such restrictions as shall obviate all publick disturbances of the Church Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals seeing it cannot rationally bee denied that whatsoever is so is perspicuously laid down in Scripture albeit we cannot say è contra that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental 4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England he would have the infallibility of General Councils to bee asserted by Dr. White Dr. Field and the most Reverend Arch-Bishop Lawd but it is no where so affirmed by them Arch. Lawd confer sect 37. Num. 3. Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points fundamental and this he had reason to affirm but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council appears 1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages And 2. Those that have been assembled have not taught all fundamentals but some only at the most And therefore he understood it if he ever said so which we have Fide jesuiticâ of the visible Church diffused through the universe The other passage out of sect Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essentiall and diffusive Ibid. sect 21. N. 5. that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise one could not possibly beleive him For he tells him divers Protestants beleive the same with him Cites Keckerman thus speaking The question is whether the whole Church universally considered for all the Elect who are members of the Militant Church can erre in the whole faith or any weighty points thereof and answering 't is simply impossible And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus that 't is impossible that the Church should ever by Apostacy and mis-beleif wholly depart from God taking the Church for all the beleivers now living and in things necessary to be known expresly And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy he thence infers that she the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in fundamentals albeit she may erre in superstructures for if shee could shee would not bee Holy but Heretical it being most certain that no assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy He goes on and tells us that the Arch Bishop asserts Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is p. 254. when it's decisions are admited once and received Generally by Catholicks Now because he could not but know that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation instead of sect 38. he gives us sect 33. But to pass that the Arch Bishop saith only this That a General Council is a very probable but yet a fallible way of introducing truth but after it's determinations are admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also infallible that is saith he it deceives no man for so all truth is and is to us when it is once known to be truth So that he only saith this when the Church hath found it's determinations true they are infallible Hear his words 'T is true a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church which he supposes cannot erre in matters of faith is then infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath truly determined already without errour as that is supposed to bee which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith But that a General Council a parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be infallible in all it 's after determinations what ever they be I utterly deny P. 305. What hee further cites from Mr. Ridley Dr. Bilson Dr. Potter is evidently inconsequent nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely that the will of God is to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality as our Ceremonies are as you may see in his preface sect 6. Lastly As for the consent of universal Antiquity Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour bee alledged nay we have strong presumptions that they little dreamp't of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for and indeed had it been otherwise how is it that in so many Volumes writ by them against all kinde of Hereticks they never touch upon this Argument never press the infallibility of General Councils never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost or tell their adversaries that they must yeild the same obedience to them as Scripture had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church should have over look'd so facile and compendious a proof and yet they have not only done so Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem eâ—postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians Epist ad Epict. but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence Thus Athanasius 't is
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
deny it with Grotius De sum Pot. c. 7. how miserable is our Authors proof who tells us that if there bee not spiritual laws and a spiritual director to them all what will become of unity Answ Why may they not have such laws and yet be independent is it necessary they should disagree 2. They may have diverse laws in circumstantials and yet preserve their unity seeing the unity of the Church is that of Communion not of apprehension and may stand with any difference of opinions in all matters that destroy not the foundation and Ruine not the being of a Church 3. They have spiritual laws and a spiritual director common to them all the Word of God Oh but they must have a General Council Rep. Why so good Sir Ans Because otherwise they will not obey the Rules of Scripture Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Oecumenical Council Ans They should obey them Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of Gods Word So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council what preservatives of unity will there bee and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one the remedy against Schism would bee as soveraign and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries God hath provided say they no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches but his Word yes say you a general Council or patriarchical no necessity of them say they to unity let men believe the foundations of Christianity and be charitable to their brethren bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters it is enough Now to this you learnedly aske how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity even say they by holding the foundations of Christianity so plain that they need no determination and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity And here comes in another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks and our reformation â—o bee illegal which runs thus That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority by Queen Elizabeth must bee illegal and Schismatical but such was the Reformation of the Church of England Now to make this good hee gives us an History of it and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen Mr. Cr. p. 274. unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion or more truely the superstitions restored by Queen Mary and then hee gives us what was done in this convocation viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendered to the Bishops who in the name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper Ans The businesse is onely this the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered or else Banished and persecuted out of the land when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown shee found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas yet did she not presently dispossesse the one and restore the other being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden but by degrees now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the blood-thirsty Bonner who had warmed himself at so many Bone-fires of our Bishops and learned Clergy without any other remorse then this that hee did not cut off root and branch Dr. Heylin Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 113. But such was their fear modesty or despair of doing any good to themselves and their cause that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all and not much more by the lower Clergy then a declaration of their judgement in some certain points mentioned here by Mr. C. which at that time were thought fit to bee commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy is his own addition it being onely a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy and whether it were so or no is not much material hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on and learned men of each party were elected to bee disputants of each side wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions that it was generally thought they were not able to defend their Doctrine Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104. in the points to be disputed But to proceed in the History of the Reformation after the Religion established by Queen Mary had continued un-interrupted for a month and somewhat more afterward it was tollerated withal required to have the Epistles Gospels the ten Commandments the Symbole the Lettany and the Lords-Prayer in the vulgar tongue Cambden p. 10 11. and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers who impatient of delay by the length of time which ranne and pass'd away in other matters desiring rather to run before good laws then to expect them in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christs true Doctrine Id. p. 33 34. first privately in houses and then openly in Churches On the 22th of March the Parliament being assembled the Order of Edward the sixth was re-established and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of publick prayers and administration of the Sacraments the Sacrifice of the Masse was abolished and the Liturgie in the English tongue more and more established In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops of which anon and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637. Now if it bee considered with Dr. Crakanthorp that what was here done by this most Religious Queen was not introductory of what was new that so it should bee necessary to discusse it in a Synod but onely restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters that Queen Elizabeth did onely justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated 2. â—ul Ch. Hist l. 9. p. 52. That this alteration of Religion was also enacted by the Parliament which repealed the laws of Queen Mary made against the Protestants and revived those of King Henry the 8 and King Edward the 6. in favour of them And 3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had desiring and advising her to these things yea and old Bishops also for whereas our Author tells us in effect that she had none to advise with p. 274. but such as were now ordained the rest being generally averse from her proceedings 'T is void of truth For what doth he think of William Barlow John Scory Miles Coverdale and John
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the
Lateran Council where there were Eastern Bishops manifestly Schismatical according to your Principles 2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox or if she did is it not rediculous to suppose that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained 3. Were we Schismaticks in this what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome 4. 'T is very impertinent to trouble us with an Objection which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers beyond the Seas in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England when what is said by them hath been refuted then may this question be seasonable As impertinent is that which you object to us ch 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal Rep. paulo post init and Dr. Crakanthorp in several chapters of the same Defence as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question do it if not why do you trouble us with it afresh Lastly Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholick Church the opinions of particular writers which wee have observed albeit your reason that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council is a very poor one for who knows not that as too many of the points in controversie your Church hath not declared her self but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed her self thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images what are wee the nearer seeing shee hath not declared what veneration is due when she declares for a proper Sacrifice shee hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice when she defines for merits whether shee means meritum de condigno or in that large sense in which the Fathers used the word shee hath not told us The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies c. and is this sufficiently to declare her self Again is it the doctrine of your Church that the Pope is above a General Council then doth not the Church of France hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine or if neither bee how hath she sufficiently declared her self who in that which is most material hath been silent And thus wee have considered your conditions Sect. 9 wee come next to propound what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply And 1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given to any of your Arguments for as long as any single Answer remains firm your Argument must be invalid 2. In the doctrine of the Popes supremacy you must prove these three things 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles and over all the world 2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors 3. That it was to bee conferred by Divine Right upon his successors at Rome and not elsewhere because all this is necessary to prove the Popes supremacy by Divine Right 3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers or if you will not dispute that then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture otherwise that kinde of disputation must be impertinent 2. If you accept of this then secondly I require 1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture for otherwise your discourse will bee rediculous as bottomed upon that which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it 2. That you answer the Questions proposed touching this matter above 3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original seeing translations do very much vary from them 4. That you cite none which Rivet Cocus and other Protestants stile spurious unless you answer their Arguments for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary 5. That you be so ingenuous as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you for citing old Editions which no body can meet with partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered And 1. Mr. C. p. 227. Wee are told that few who have any liberal education in that great light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual superiours pennances and retirements from the world c. can bee excusably ignorant of the one holy Catholick Apostolick Church that is that the Roman Church is this Church Where 1. As to continued succession when they are told by men as pious and as learned as any of the Papists 1. That the Papists have no such succession but that it hath been interrupted many times when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie When they are told 2. That it is not succession of persons but of Doctrines which is a mark of the true Church nor the want of it of a false for if hee bee a true Platonist that holds the Doctrines of Plato Chil. p. 356. sect 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section albeit hee cannot assign any one that held it before him for many Ages together why should not he be a true Christian who believes all the Doctrine of Christ though hee cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him When 3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Hereticks viz. the Eastern Church have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have can this bee such a demonstrative evidence that you are onely the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable Again can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them when 1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned for speaking the language of the Protestants And 2. They find it evident that it is not impossible that errours may be held with as great an unity as you can shew Seeing they find the Grecians yea the professors of Mahometism at greater unity
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that