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
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
him that not the asserting of these opinions but the imposing of them on us as conditions of our communion with them the obtruding them into their Liturgies and publick offices are the causes of our refusing Communion with them and therefore that Mr. C. would he draw the Parallel must evidence that this was done by the universal Church in the daies of St. Gregory Nor 4. That it is not evident that there was such an Harmony betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches but rather the contrary as touching the Celibacy of Priests the power of the Pope c. I say to omit all these and many other things my last Proposition shall be this That neither St. Sect. 10 Gregory taught all these Doctrines nor yet were they embraced by our Church at that time 9 Proposition For to begin with St. Gregory 1. I have sufficiently evinced already that hee denied the Popes Supremacy 2. As for the infallibility of the Roman Church had hee known this to have been the opinion of those daies is it not a wonder that he should never plead it against his opponents and Adversaries 3. Touching transubstantiation Communion in one kinde the Sacrifice of the Mass what can you produce out of Gregory for them And 1. Mr. C. p. 137. As for Communion in one kinde you acknowledge that it was not practised for a thousand years and upward and where doth St. Gregory tell us that it may bee practised otherwise we have shewed you above that Pope Leo and Gelasius thought it no better then Sacriledge to Rob the People of the Cup and therefore if you affirm Gregory to have held the contrary as it is gratis dictum so will it be but an evidence of his departing from what was formerly maintained by his own Church 2. Where doth he say that Christ is corporeally in the Sacrament and that the substance of bread and wine remains not Nay Sacrificium quod passionem filii semper imitatur Dial. l. 4. c. 58. Non inordinate agimus si ex libris licet non Canonicis sed tamen ad edificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonia proferamus Moral l. 19. c. 16. Graeg in Ezek. l. 1. Hom. 9. that it then obtained not in the Church of God nor was esteemed as an Article of their faith is fully evidenc'd by Bishop Usher in his book de Christ Eccles success l. 1. c. 2. And for the sacrifice of the Mass he tells us that Christ is Mystically there offered and that this is such a sacrifice which is an imitation of Christs passion Against your new Canon of Scripture which the Dr. quarreld with he is most evident in his Morals where hee saith citing the 6 of Maccabees that it was not Canonical Against your Traditions necessary to supply the defect of Scripture hee tells us whatsoever serveth for edification and instruction is contained in the Volume of the Scripture And again Hereticks do usually for the confirmation of their perverse opinions suggest such proofs which are not found in Scripture and what I pray you are your Traditions yea all the doctrines you contend for in this Book And whereas you Sacrilegiously Rob the People of the use of Scripture he on the contrary assures us Graeg l. Epist 40. ad Theod. Med. that it is an Epistle sent from God to his Creature that is to Priest and People And if thou receive a Letter saith hee from an Earthly King thou wilt never sleep nor rest till thou understandest it The King of Heaven and God of men and Angels hath sent his Letters to thee for the good of thy soul and yet thou neglectest the reading of them Therefore I pray thee study them and dayly meditate on the Word of thy Creatour and learn the minde of God in the words of God You tell us that the worship of images must be observed Graeg l. 9. Ep 9. Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita and acknowledged by all means he contrariwise that by all means it must be avoided And again in the same place 't is unlawful to worship any thing that is made with hands because it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and again in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia I commend you that you had that Zeal that nothing made with hands should be worshiped but yet you should not have broken them c. but let them bee proserved and forbid the people the worshiping of them that the ignorant may have whence to gather the knowledge of the history and yet not sin in worshiping the Picture You assert a Purgatory after this life he is thought to contradict it by John Pank who p. 20. proves the contrary 1. Moral l. 8. c. 8. From his Morals where he saith whom mercy now delivereth not him justice after the world alone imprisoneth To which purpose is that of Salomon That in whatsoever place the tree falleth whether toward the South or towards the North there it shall be because at the time of a mans death either the good spirit or the evil spirit shall receive the soul going from the body he shall hold it with him for ever without any charge that neither being exalted it can come down to punishment nor being drowned in eternal punishments can thenceforth rise to any remedy of Salvation If then after death there bee no deliverance there be no change but as the Angel either good or bad receiveth the soul out of the body so it continueth for ever either exalted in joy or drowned in punishment then there can be no Purgatory then there can be nothing but Heaven or Hell where they that come shall abide for ever And in another place It is undecent to give our selves to long affliction for them whom wee are to beleive have come by death to true life This therefore seeing wee know we are to have a care not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow our affliction on the living to whom our piety or devotion may bee profitable and our love yeild fruit Here is no place for Purgatory seeing he teacheth us to beleive that the faithful in death do attain to true life and that their passage from this world is to a better Neither doth hee acknowledge any use of Prayers Masses Trentals or any other offices or obsequies for the Dead who saith that our devotion and love yeildeth no fruit or profit to them Lastly as for Marriage of Priests I do not deny but that at first Pope Gregory did command them to live single but when hee understood that they were given secretly to fleshly pleasure and that hereupon many Children were Murthered many infants heads found in a Fish-pond hee disanulled that commandment p. 288. Vid. Sup. chap. 17 sect ult Now against this evidence we have nothing but the confession of an Osiander an Hâ—mphry and a Carrion whose citation by the way is altogether impertinent with
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
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.
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
convince their private reasons the use of which we allow them but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them Now is it all one to say you must believe this because the Church which is infallible asserts it as you to us and you must do this because the Church hath enjoyned it and therefore not being unlawful ought for peace sake to be submitted to as we to them keep your weapons to your selves we can fight and conquer without them In the next place Sect. 8 when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason Mr. C. s 6. and the primitive Church this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Churches usurpations when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench they signifie no more there then do the Russian Emperours poor Senators at the solemn audience of forreign Ambassadours that sit only to make a shew The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scripture and Reason c. when they give them the name and title of judges and yet deny them the office of judges and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supream rule and guide for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees and not their decrees to Scripture and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit then their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule for that is the rule to which other things are reduced if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture which is Scripture it self then are they the supream standard and rule of faith and the sole judges of it As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws would be both judge and law too Thus when the Norman Conquerour promised the English that he would govern them by their own Laws yet if he did as some say he did take an absolute power of interpreting them and allow them to say only what he pleased could he be thought to satisfie his promise might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny and not the laws ruled them because he ruled them after the same manner as he would if there had been no such laws and so the laws were made useless as if they had never been laws Thus the Romanists may tell us that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it and put what sense upon it they please and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture it self they need no more to shut out Scripture and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith it s nothing for them to comply with Scripture when they have forced that to comply with them After the same manner Councils and Fathers and all their venerable Antiquity which they pretend so much to reverence must truckle to their present Church for they will allow us to receive them no further then they agree with their own Decrees seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees so that Scriptures Fathers Councils and all must bend to their wills and can give no other judgement then the Church of Rome will permit if we must as they contend that we ought receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome T is a pretty device first to rule the rule and then to be ruled by it When therefore they talke of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny their hypocrisie is so transparent through all its disguises that we cannot but discern it unless we were as blind as they would have us and lastly as for our private reasons Mr. C. will call them guides too strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious but to avoid the danger of that it must with humility follow the Church a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by another if the Church can command our reasons then must they necessarily cease to be guides and blindly follow her whithersoever she leads I wish they would make their Church but such a guide and then we should soon agree in this point If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter then what must all Romanists be for nothing is more plain then that what is wholly guided by another is not it self a guide otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church they cannot be your guides and then in your own opinions what difference between a Catholik and his Asse Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods Sect. 9 I may combate his great arguments so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions for his Churches infallibility and our meek submission to it but before I cope with them singly it s not impertinent to undermine an Hypothesis on which they seem partly to stand which stratagem might do me some service did I want it that is if his arguments were as strong as they are weak and that is this He through the whole Chapter slily supposes and sometimes asserts a necessity of an infallible judge as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain and controversies endless 1. But he should first prove that God hath appointed an infallible judge and therefore its necessary there should be one and not conclude that he hath appointed one because he conceives a necessity of it I could name an hundred priviledges that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly beneficial to the Church which yet God never granted to it and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conveniency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven and decide our controversies then why may we not conclude that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible Is it not more conducive to these ends that every Bishop should be infallible more still that every Preacher and more yet that every individual Christian would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven to expound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture might not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary might not God if he had pleased have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture that there should be no need of an infallible interpreter to make it plainer but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual existence the conclusion would confute the Premises 2. The plea for an infallible guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to heaven is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way which we cannot miss unless we will so that he
so If you say he is infallible not in decrecing but in this that hee shall not confirm an errour I Answ This assertion implies either that the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot erre and then the veriest Idiot may bee stiled infallible as well as a General Council because the Pope è Cathedrâ cannot confirm what he erroniously dictates Or 2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils only hee is unerrable and then pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time where is that Scripture or single passage of any Father that albeit the Pope may erre in decreeing any matter of faith yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council hee cannot Ede tabulas but if not one Iota in scripture reason or antiquity for this how can I be assured that it is so and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon As for scripture what place can they bring but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church doth hee say that the Pope may fail in manners but shall not in doctrines of Faith or in decreeing Doctrines of faith but not in confirming them or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome Yea 2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter was Peter then summus pontifex or not If not then doth not this concern him in that relation and consequently neither those that succeed him if he was then what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail Neither is there any thing to the purpose in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For 1. Is here one sillable of the Pope or infallibility or if there were is there any thing of it for the Pope more then for the Church why then did our Author produce it for the Church and if touching the Pope is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils then in decreeing doctrines of faith And as for antiquity had this been taught in the Primitive times could they have avoided this argument The Pope hath confirmed this Ergo 'tis true this Council was approved by the Pope Ergo 'tis infallible but there is not one sillable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature Again if the Pope must be included may not the Pope and Council run counter and what shall wee do then what shall we do in a time of Schism when there are several pretenders to the Popedome as frequently there have been to whom then must we hearken how shall we know which of these is the true Pope if a Council must decide it as indeed none else can either the Council is fallible and may determine wrong or infallible and then it is so without the Pope And so the assertion I dispute against is deserted and another taken up of which anon Again suppose any Popes misdemeanours be to be judged of as for example whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peters chair by Simony in this case the Pope cannot bee Judge and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible how can wee know whether their determination bee aright seeing it may as well bee wrong Further tell me how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope If he came in by Simony he is none and how is it possible for me to know that seeing some have been Simonaical how can I be certain that many others have not been so too and if so then not only all fallibility is ceased but your succession too For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope can be no Cardinals and if so then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil could be no Pope his Cardinals no Cardinals neither could the Popes created since by those Cardinals bee truly such so that from his time your Church hath been without a lawful universal head Again how shall I bee certain that the Popes election is legal for unless it be so your selves deny him to be Pope when sometimes the People sometimes the Clergy chose him sometimes both in one age the Emperour in another the Cardinals in a third a General Council Further I might ask you how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptiz'd for if he was not by your own principles hee can be no Pope and that he was I cannot be certain unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptized him and the Bishop that ordained him and though I did know what cannot be known their intentions yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons that Baptized and Ordained them and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth in his second chap. which 't is impossible you should ever bee able to solve But I am opprest with copiousnesse of Argument and therefore must break off from this member to the next 2. Again therefore if you say Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope Then 1. p. 51. sect 8. You contradict your self in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons for if they be infallible are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible 2. How shall wee know whether the Pope or Council be supreme when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way the council of Lateran the other way So the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels the first of Lateran denies it Can infallible persons contradict each other Who must bee the Members of this Council whether onely Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons too upon what certain account do you shut out Presbyters if you admit onely Bishops or if you require that Presbyters be called to the Council what certain grounds can you produce for it Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils especially when the Scripture tells us that in the Council which was called about circumcision mention is made not onely of Apostles but of the Elders of the Church and of the Brethren Acts 15.23 Bellarm. Saith indeed that this multitude was called not to consent and judge but onely to consent But upon what authority doth hee build this interpretation Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies add and distinguish where no other Scripture no circumstance or context leads us to it but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus It hath pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. Further why must Bishops bee called to it out of one Countrey and not our of another why will so many out of this Kingdome suffice What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally
evidently known to be such or openly declared such obligeth no man that the Kings Oath is unjust is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoak and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron is less then straw Yea further cannot good Pope * Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy Suarez adv sect Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s 14 c. 6. s 22 24. Azorius Iâ—st Moral part 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Jansenians mysterie of iniquity Abbots Antilogia Clement the VIII suggest to You as he did to the King of France tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England that your Oath is made to an Heretick but you stand bound against her and her Succcessors in another Oath to God and to the Pope Fourthly What is his Majesty the better for your subscriptions to his due Supremacy whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him no obedience is due unto him yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant and may be dealt with as such an one and consequently be slain by a private man Suarez defens fid Cathol l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra Will you plead your fidelity Sect. 5 and zeal in serving and defending of our Princes See p. 7. and even the Religion of the Kingdom in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you when the whole Colledge of your Jesuits in London say Mr. Baxters Key for Cath. c. 45. That they will rather promote the cutting off of the Kings Majesty then hinder it least they the Puritans should make use of his extremities to any advantage nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoycing at that unsavage butchery 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so was it so in Ireland In two Letters to Arch B. Laud extant in Print introduc p. 102 112. Vide Bax. ibid. no Bishop Bedle will assure us his Majesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King but at the Popes discretion and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council which since is justified by themselves in Print constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congregation de propaganda fide lately erected at Rome 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesties dominions even this because you are not able to manage a war against him In Th. 22. qu. 13. art 2. non licet eis tolâ—rare talem Regem Bell. l. 5. de Paul c. 7. s 3. And again they are obliged not to suffer him s probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions Bull. Pauli 5. cont Hen. 8. yea t is meritorious of eternal life saith Card. Commens in his letter to Pareus thus Bannes The faithful Papists in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors nor make war against them because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars and great dangers hang over them were they then strong enough not to rebell would be unexcusable But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence Sect. 6 Pag. 4. is That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched not one could be found to testifie the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion In Answer to this I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third as Binius and others of your own record it where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholick Faith two Articles of which are 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ the appearances remaining And in the third Chapter they say We Excommunicate and Anathematise every Heresie extolling it self against this holy Orthodox Catholick Faith which we have before exponed condemning all Hereticks by what names soever they be called And being condemned let them be left to the present secular powers or their Bayliffs to be punished the Clergy being first degraded of their orders and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate if they be Lay-men but if they be Clergy-men let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends And those that are found notable only by suspition if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency according to the considerations of the suspition and the quality of the person let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema and avoided by all men till they have given sufficient satisfaction and if they remain a year excommunicate let them then be condemned as Hereticks And let the secular powers in what office soever be admonished and perswaded and if necessary compelled by Ecclesiastical censure that as they would be reputed and accounted believers so for the defence of the faith they take an Oath publikely that they will study in good earnest according to their power to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Hereticks from the Countries subject to their Jurisdiction So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual or Temporal power he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter But if the Temporal Lord being required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Countrey of Heretical defilement let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be tyed by the bond of Excommunication And if he refuse to satisfie within a year let it be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity and may expose his Countrey to be Seised on by Catholiques who rooting out the Hereticks may possess it without contradiction and may keep it in the purity of faith saving the right of the principal Lord so be it that he make no hinderance hereabout and oppose not any impediment and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords And the Catholikes that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Hereticks shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy priviledges which were granted to those that go to the relief of the Holy Land Moreover we decree that the Believers Receivers Defenders and favourers of Hereticks shall be excommunicate firmly decreeing that after any such is noted by excommunication if he refuse to satisfie within a year he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous and may not be admitted into publick offices or councils or to the choice of such nor to bear
say That from after the time of their convention all novelties must be dated then could not Socinianisme Anabaptisme Presbyterianisme be esteemed novelties by the Doctor for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils nor was our Authour ignorant of this for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils he thus paraphraseth it Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them He goes on and tells us Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this which he never did not out of a voluntary liberality Ibid. but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him wherein it is said that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils which Argument runs thus If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction must adjudge any matters to be Heresie which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively as that distinct measure of time after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties But verum prius ergo Truly Sir you your self when you wrote it might think the inference valid but no man else now can He comes next to propound some questions the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity to acknowledge Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith The second to acknowledge what we generally do that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter Fourthly He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture Pag. 25. Ans He will plead not guilty But how can that be object when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties and from the beginning it was not so whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary that being the import of our Saviours words reply Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him for I pray you tell me doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind forbidding Marriage or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar or Thirdly tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word as in the matter of Divorces and Prayers in an unknown tongue Secondly When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith Pag. 241. and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church is it not enough to shew our innocency in not accepting them for such because ab initio non fuit sic especially when thirdly you know we hold that in all matters of faith 't is all one with us to be praeter Scripturam and to be contra Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add That he should have cited such Scriptures as these S. Peter his Successors never had nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction c. Which here I bind my self to do when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so or that the Scripture anywhere saith That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith The body of Christ is transubstantiated T is unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture Lastly Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any Answ Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator the Arrians the Nicene Fathers therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C. CHAP. IV. Mr. Cs. mistake Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians Sect. 3. The Doctors first Argument from Mark 10.42 defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14 Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthned Sect. 7 8 9. A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head Sect. 10. THE first Novelty Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor is the usurpation of their Pope from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated Cap. 4. s 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface And further that we have not separated from any Authority if any were exercised by the former Popes during the times of the four first General Councils he deals disingenuously with the Doctor in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found albeit it be a great and evident truth But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him only that he might make room for those Citations which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon when he is only beating that man of clouts which himself hath made Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen Tertullian c. So that our Author which is a bad omen stumbles at the threshold builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake and confutes only what himself hath fancied not what the Doctor hath asserted Well then that which he hath to do if he would contradict his assertion is to shew not whither the Popes praeceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God as an universal head as one who had received from the beginning a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church Now in returning an answer to what is
relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over Gods Heritage that this Edict was made St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself that it was extorted from a young Prince and ignorant of these things And lastly That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times for divers Councils a thing which contains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and which Leo for bad to Hilary were called without the authority of the Pope in divers parts and Cities of France to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline thus we find it in Synodis Agathensi prima Epaunensi Aureliensibus aliquot Turonensi Matisconensi Avernensi and many more all affirming that they came together Solo deo authore ac moderatore and by the permission or command of the Emperour whither he were Gothus Burgundus vel Francus and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum and so is mutable As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus Innocent and Siricius Mr. C. p. 56. so trivial and impertinent that he dares not transcribe them I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field Sutlivius Pag. 527. cont Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontif. Turon 11. Can. 20. and Chamier made to them long ago Nor will I trouble my self with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France or Spain and moreover this last saith only this That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop to contradict the determination of the Apostles See Can. 4. and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion tells us how that Leander Bishop of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed yet to avoid any symbolizing with Hereticks one simple immersion might be more convenient this now is called his Precept and this for the reason assigned by the Pope they agree to follow but yet that the Popes decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain neither do these citations prove nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us will do him little service Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57. for his words are only these It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome to consider our affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give his advice or acquaint us with his mind and sentence not interpose the judgement of his decree as Mr. C. hath rendred it and because t is difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree that he using his own Authority which in the other case he could not have should chuse men fit to under go the trouble of the journey The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 534. and also able by their meekness and dexterity not by power delegated from the Pope to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us fitly tempering and dispensing their words and having all things with them that were done at Ariminum to the rescinding of what was there done or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded And had not Dr. Field cause to say That the alledging of this testimony sheweth they have very little conscience that alledge it for these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle whereof let the Reader judge Basil writing to Athanasius adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard and much reverence the credit of their multitude and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelyhood easily be obtained he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced to send some of good discretion and moderation who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the minds of men and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion that alledge it for he preferreth and rather wisheth a particular Council than this interposition of the Pope alone if there had been any hope of a Council besides those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the minds oâ— men and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Easteâ—n Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon Sect. 3 Mr C. p. 57 58. viz that no decrees should be established in the Church withouâ— not the assent as he would have it but the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice was argued of nutlâ—y which he confirms from Socrates Hist Eccles l. 2. caâ— 5. Athanas Apol. sec Sozom. Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 9. Valentinian c is fully answered by the Author of the review of the Trent Council Pag 155. who tells him that all that can be proved hence is That a General Council cannot be holden unless they viz. the Popes be called to it and this saith he appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it when he complains that he was not called to the Council of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned charging them for that with the breach of that Canon Lib. 2 â— 13. Julius saith Socrates in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church in that they called him not to the Council for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome And Sozomen saith Lib. 3. c. 9. that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch accusing them for seeking after novelties contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council and contrary to the Laws of the Church for not calling him to the Council forasmuch as by vertue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests all decrees viz. made in a General Council are invalid which are enacted without the opinion and advice of the Pope of Rome and of this Pope Julius had reason to complain considering that a Council cannot be termed General nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholick unless all those which ought to be present especially the Patriarchs be lawfully called
Spain and ignorant of the thing done and of the truth concealed to the intent that he might request Exaembiret to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick from which he was justly deposed Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him and so as much as in them lyeth restoreth him to his former Bishoprick Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen that suffered himself so easily to be misled taxing him and such as consented with him for communicating with such wicked ones shewing that they are partakers of their sins and that they violate the Canon of the Church which the Bishops of Africa and all the Bishops of the world yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit That men so defiled with Idolatry as Martialis and Basilides were should be received to penitency but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome hastily communicating with them whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again as were deposed by others for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them he with such as adheared to him though they could not restore them to their places yet communicated with them Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness for abusing Stephen and misinforming him and Stephen with intolerable negligence and unexcusable violation of the Canons for partaking with such wicked persons and wisheth all his Brethren and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter that is evidently weak but happily you will say Why doth not Cyprian tell them that the Pope hath not power to restore them Answ Doth he yet not sufficiently in advising them to hold on their course against them which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome for this would have been to contradict lawful authority 2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops in going to Stephen so far distant which sure he would not have been if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction as our Author pleads for no certainly these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus their appeal to Rome when condemned in Africk Ep. 55. ad Cornelium that it is just and equal that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is committed and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set to run about as these did to Rome but to plead their cause there where their accusers and their witnesses might be had unless a few desperate wretches will think that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less viz. then that to which they run What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine and Pamelius are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book De Oec Pent. the second Chapter from the sixth section to the two and twentieth Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival now here saith he It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him ergo he had Authority over these Asian Bishops Answ This saith Mr. Chillingworth is to suppose that excommunication is an act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors and by Equals upon Equals if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it 2. Saith he When they admonish him that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church what is this but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient and consequently that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity To what he adds further out of Cyprian Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae that our Lord built his Church upon one Person c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer That whosoever will but read over that Book shall find most certainly and undoubtedly that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth but of the Head Original and first beginning of Pastoral commission which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book is the observation of the malice of Satan in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith 2. He sheweth that this so falls out because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth because they seek not the Head nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master which if a man would consider there would be no need of many Arguments but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church say especially to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again after the Resurrection Feed my sheep because though rising again from the dead he gave like power to all the Apostles when he said As my Father sent me so send I you Whose sins ye remit c. Joh. 20.21 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one and by appointing one Chair shew what unity should be in the Church the rest of the Apostles saith St. Cyprian were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was equal in honour and power but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give especially or particularly to one that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one and that there
must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors but the Flock of Christ is but one which they are to feed with unanimous consent there is but one Body of the Church one Spirit one Hope of our Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God this unity all men must endeavour to keep especially Bishops that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power but this place most plainly overthroweth it for Cyprian teacheth that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church which He settled in that beginning with one from him he proceeded to the rest not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place which he had first and that they should receive the same Commission together with him into which he was put first that they might know him to be the first of their Company for it cannot consist saith he either with truth with the opinion of St. Cyprian or of our Adversaries themselves that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter and were subject to him as to an Head and absolute Commander over them seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was and equal to him both in honour and power and besides both in this book and in many other places he is wont to derive the original of Schisms and Heresies from the intrusion of men into places without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all Well then to the places objected upon that one viz. St. Peter he builds his Church we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding The Church was built upon St. Peter but yet true it is the same thing is done upon others and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts That among the twelve one was chosen Cont. Jovin l. 2. that an head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest Answ Not as to any thing of Authority for then St. Jerome would contradict himself when he saith that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve so that his meaning is that before the Apostles were sent over the World and whilst they made up one particular company for better orders sake he was chosen Head that so things might be done communi concilio and there might be no Schism between them 2. He tells us this was given to Peter quia Petrus crat senior which being but a personal advantage cannot be applyed to the benefit of the Romanist who is to prove the Popes Supremacy and not only the Primacy of St. Peter not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms but Jovinians and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis p. 238. And for the second citation from St. Cyprian Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded cannot think that he is in the Church Lib. 12 de Oec Pont. c. 5. s 3. He might have learned from Chamier that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text and not to be found in some Editions but if it could deserve an Answer the learned Dr. Field will inform him That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in but the joynt commission unity and consent of all Pastors which is and must be such as if they did all sit in one Chair which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem Lib. ep 8 where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome but to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity others may not be admitted and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont Sect. 14 This would have perfect truthâ— in it saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192 had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles the Chair of St. John in Asia c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles which the Donatists could not pretend to see him exactly scanning the whole place p. 190 192 193. Parmen l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter to the end that unity might be preserved of all and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his particular Chair And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth viz. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatickâ— for so doing and he proves it by this Argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Châ—ir erects another Vnderstand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it We pass on to St. Chrysostome from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope but to the first I return a Non est inventus after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him * In Act. Apost c. 1.4 I can find nothing like the words produced In the second is evident prevarication for having told us that these words Follow me shewed his special care he had of St. Peter he adds How then was it may some say that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this I Answer saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is
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
because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
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
who will keep his eyes open is in no more danger of losing his way then in the walks of his own garden for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to salvation are clear and easie unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles obscure and ambiguous and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental those being clearly revealed and so of a necessary belief to determine their sense there is no more need of a judge then for any other perspicious truth What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God that this God cannot lye that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world that he was crucified and rose again that without faith and obedience we cannot come to heaven these and such like are the truths we entitle Fundamental and if the sense of these need an infallible judge then le ts bring Euclids Elements to the barr and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four Then for points not fundamental their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation we may err about them and not err damnably and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other taken from its necessity to determine controversies for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines or any other evident truths our Church can censure him without pretending to be infallible what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresie that shall deny the resurrection of the dead which yet some of your own Popes have not believed if some of your own Historians may be believed Then for Doctrines not fundamental being not clearly revealed our Church doth not take upon her to determine these but if any disputes arise about such points it s her work to silence and suppress them and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion yet she expects they should be so modest as not to contradict her which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infallibility Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Churches infallibility and our submission to it Sect. 10 where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider upon what little arguings what pittiful sophisms what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fabrick of the Papal Infallibility and Authority but also their whole faith religion and eternal salvation seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations on which stands their Churches Infallibility so that when their weakness is discovered all must unavoidably fall To proceed then His argument why we must stand to the Churches decisions under pain of damnation is because in Deut. 17.8 9 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Appeal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously and would not hearken to the Priest should be put to death To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument only take notice 1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin only in civil and private quarrels as is evident by the eighth verse If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroke and stroke being matters of controversie within thy gates c. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits Mr. C. jumps from them and cites 2 Chron. 19.8 where this is not so plain though plain enough too Now what to his purpose can follow hence unless he will make out this consequence We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them together 2. What more can be deduced hence then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiours and this what Protestant denies do not we plead for it as well as you but what like an Inference can be drawn from this for an internal submission of judgement Nothing at all till he can make good that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges unless we believe them just and true An assertion ridiculously false But 3. You tell us that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of judgement but how Sir will you prove this I dare not take your bare word for it notwithstanding your solemn protestation at the begining of your book Sect. 8 And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence If so then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood for it was possible you say they should give wrong sentence and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right But 4. You tell us that this assent and submission of judgement must be given otherwise the obedience would be against conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisie unless we assent to its equity suppose they should mistake as you say they might the innocent for the injurious must the party think himself a knave because they think so like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lye with his wife yet did penance for saying so and was forced to say Tongue thou lyest This is such an assertion that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of When we appeal to judges our meaning is not we will think as they think but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine Again t is still more strange that when false judgement is given the contending party must either believe a lye or must confront his conscience in not believing it for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions he goes say you against his Conscience and if he doth he must believe against the truth when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not Arg. 1. Sect. 11 Next follow his arguments for his Churches infallibility The first runs thus Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles that he would be present with them always to the end of the world therefore fince not any of them outlived that age this infallible promise must be made good to their successours Answ 1. I might
Church doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem but now you say t is poisoned and destroyed by Heresie If then this promise was made to no particular Church why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church Before you use this Argument to any purpose first prove yours to be the Universal Church but of this you presume it s a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted Ar. 5. He hath commanded that whoever shall not obey his Church Sect. 15 shall be cut off from his body as an Heathen and a Publican therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith Answ 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers it will be superfluous to Criticize in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by not applying it to any established Christian Government when it may be and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews by others to any multitude by agreement convened as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.20 and then what 's all this to the Churches Authority but let this go 2. What 's this to Infallibility will he infer that particular Churches are infallible because their Decisions must be submitted to if he will then he proves what himself will deny and constitutes us infallible Judges at home without recourse to Oecumenical Councils but if he doth not then how enormous is his deduction because the Decisions of particular Churches which are granted to be fallible must be obeyed therefore the Church of Rome is infallible 3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees are they infallible too children are commanded Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things are all Fathers too therefore infallible we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes cannot they err neither and is not the inference as concluding We are bound to obey Parents and Governours ergo they are infallible as because we are bound to obey the Church therefore that is infallible 4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren but doth it follow that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels that it may be Judge of our faith too if it do we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize without going to Rome its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man 5. The Greek Church saith she is the true Church and you are Hereticks but to your selves you are the true Church and she is Heretical How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you if they tell me as you do that unless I obey the Church that is their Church I cease to be a Christian how shall I answer them if you can teach me you will but teach me how to answer you Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity which is an unappealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to preserve unity without an infallible Authority as you have with it We believe the Churches unity yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith and an agreement in the essentials of Religion we are all but one in Christianity and so one Church But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions as you would perswade us we must believe against experience for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own which would be a most uncharitable presumption we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith And if there were no Church without it then your selves must be unchurched seeing you cannot deny but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves even about the very means to preserve unity Urge us not then with this Argument any more till you can prove that we believe any other unity in the Church beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith and that you are any more then so one among your selves Now let all that 's rational judge whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine when you can exhibite no better Credentials for it then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks and so your selves who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven to be most notorious cheats and impostors By these Answers Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more I hope t is clear that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Churches infallibility Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth viz. That all these promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church Governours I say disingenuously For 1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chillingworth only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown For 2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is that suppose God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture would it follow thence that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture not only sufficiently but irresistibly he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night and a pillar of cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance is he not free from his promise and yet you in an errour too do not call this a shift but shew that it is so 3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift read and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the
Scripture whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themâ—â—ves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction and if they do how comes such difference among them in their interpretations Again why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible is it because this would not be profitable to Christians that Scripture should be interpreted t is blasphemy to say so the Scripture it self tells us all Scripture is profitable and the Scripture is not so much the words as the sense thereof and if it be not profitable why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable but infallible interpretations would not be so How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself when this Argument is so full and cogent Well then the sense of these promises The gates of hell shall not prevail against you I will be with you to the Worlds end is only this That God will so order it in his Providence as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow and quite extinguish her And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism where we will throw away some time in confuting of it seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment In your next Paragraph Sect. 18 you thus dispute Seeing these promises P. 102. viz. which concern the Church essential or diffused are Yea and Amen the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church since he will not allow them to the Catholick i. e. Roman for to some Church they must be applyed Answ 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises against the Church of Thyatira or others now overrun with Mahumetisme would not the event have shewed the fallacy 2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of viz. That however she may be distressed and brought low and seem to be disserted yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end but doth it follow that because he allows it to the Catholick he must do it to the Roman or any other particular Church which is but at best an infected member of the whole 3. We will be so liberal as to grant you a right in them but your absurd interpretations of them and absurder deductions from them we deny you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility before you conclude a necessity from them that some Church must be infallible And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregories and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils If say you the Doctor applyes these promises to his own and not to the Catholick Church then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes as the four Gospels but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop that they are de post facto that is being received by the Universal Church diffused infallible as to the matters of faith determined by them and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the Roman Catholick Church in all ages an inference so entirely absurd and weak that t is a shame to insult over it nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church but at the most of a General Council only albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense for speaking of the Paschal Feast which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously he calls it a Divine command and gives this reason because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect to the Divine Will they medling not with humane affairs but Divine only and yet we add that if it were true which Constantine is deemed by him to say it would little avail him since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us albeit for a close we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict infallible But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecumenical of Gods Church and our Acts of Parliament viz. by denying your Church to be infallible for that is the dispute you talk at random and your reason because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions is as weak as it is old for we have often returned unto you that these Anathema's are no good Arguments that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty the same we have in our Courts of Judicature on which mens lives and estates wholly depend and yet are neither the Juries verdict nor the Judges sentence infallible as is evident from this that particular Councils nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible Not words but things are the objects of our faith therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption either by others or themselves and thence it is apparent that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals because attended with these Anathema's seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed nor can I imagine to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein you are mistaken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will this prove the Roman Church yea will it prove a Council to be infallible this sure is an easie way to become infallible would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines then must not
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
pontifical which tells us Cap 2. de bened Sanct. Crucis that the Pontifex in which name other Bishops are included ante imaginem crucis genua flectit eamque devotè adorat osculatur Magist Ceremon lib. 2. de feria 6. Majoris Heb. And feriâ sextâ or on good Friday when the Pope or Priest uncovereth Gently the Cross and crys ccce signum crucis and the singers answer venite adoremus that the Pope puts off his shoes or makes as if he did so genu ter flexo adorat osculatur and then all the rabble ad infimum caudatarium omnes crucem adorant osculantur So then you have no cause I hope to quarrel with us for saying you worship images when so many of your great Doctors that knew this practice of the Church as well as your self acknowledge that as a doctrine of faith which you so warily disclaim when General Councils yea and common practice can assure us of the truth thereof You ask us further Sect. 10. p. 158. whether indeed we think that you worship false gods and true devils Ans You may be idolatrous in worshipping the true God in an image as well as the Israelites in their worshipping God in a Calf 2. That you worship false Saints and Elilim De cultu Sanct. Ibid. see abundantly evidenced in the Sedan Divines 3. You ask whether we consider our Images as they did their Idols to which by magicall conjurations they annexed an evill Spirit to do wonders and extort Divine Worship from the seduced Ans What if some of the learned among the Heathens as Athenaeus confesseth Legat. pro Christ thought that the deity or some divine vitrue accompanyed the statute after consecration would it cease to be Idolatry if the Image of Jupiter were worshipped or any other Deity without these magical Inchantments 2. What shall we think of these images which you call miraculous which you say sometimes sweat blood sometimes nod their heads or stretch forth a wooden or stony arm unto their suppliants Vid. miss Rom. sub tit de ritu Serm. where you have as bad or worse in the Dedication of the Cross the Image of Saint John and the Agnus Dei. or of the form of Consecration Viz. Sanctifie O God this form of the blessed Virgin that it may bring saving health to thy faithful people that thundrings and lightnings may be driven away the sooner that immoderate rains or floods and civil wars may at the presence of this be suppressed Pont. Rom. 3. Might not the Jews have put the same question to those that accused them of idolatry in worshipping the brazen image 4. What matter is it whether the Heathens esteemed their Deity present or absent Quis nisi totus fatuus haec Deos esse credit seeing they acknowledge most evidently that they did not worship their images but their Gods by these images as you may see in Origen Contr. Cels l. 7. p. 384. Arnob. l. 6. advers Gentes Lact. l. 2. de divin Deos per simulachra veneramur Institut c. 2. we fear not the works of mens hands viz. these Images but those we fear to whom these are consecrated August in ps 96. I do not worship that stone or that image which is without sense but I adore what I see and serve him whom I do not see 5. 'T is evident that many of the Heathens thought their Gods to dwell in heaven Act. 14. and to be absent from their Statutes Hence the Lycaonians cry out upon the miracles wrought by Paul and Barnabas the Gods are come down amongst us See Price upon the place making out this by Heathen Authours and what said the Chaldeans to Nebuchadnezzar even that their Gods dwelt not with flesh Dan. 2. vers 11. what need I cite Max. Tyr. Plut. de Isid Osyr Cicero c. for a thing so clear Lastly you tell that us sect 11 there is not in Catholick countrys a Groom or Kitchin-maid so ignorant but had rather burn an image then afford it any honour due to God only Ans True But neither would these Heathens who thought them arrant fools who esteemed images to be God 2. Nor can we reasonably think that the Israelites intended any such thing in worshipping the Calf But 3. Tom. 1. de prob sp Num. 17. Gerson will tell you that people were so infected with Superstition as to yield divine honour to Images And Cornelius Agrippa that it is not to be spoken De vanit scient de Imag. fol. 73. how great Idolatry is foster'd among rude people by Image-worship while the Priests connive at these things and make no small gain thereby Cassander Consul de Imag. it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed and the Superstitious humour of people hath been so cherished that nothing hath been omitted among you either of the highest adoration or vanity of Panims in worshipping and adoring Images De invent l. 6. c. 13. And Polydor Virgil that there are many rude and stupid persons that repose more trust in Images then in Christ or the Saints to whom they were dedicated Lastly Simon Majolus a great stickler for Imagery Defens Imag. Con. 9. c. 19. confesseth that some rural persons esteem Images as if they were God You tell us Sect. Sect. 12 that it would be ridiculous to pray to an Image Ans To let pass your O crux Ave what can you say to Salve Sancta facies Nostri Redemptoris In quâ nitet species divini splendoris Impressa panniculo nivei candoris Salve vultus Domini Imago beata Nos deduc ad propria O felix figura Ad videndum faciem Christi quae est pura And again Brevar Rom. Reformatum in par Hyemali ad 3. Martii in festo inventionis Sanctae crucis O crux c. quae sola fuisti digna portare mundi talentum dulce lignum dulces claves dulcia ferens pondera salva proesentem catervam in tuis hodiè laudibus congregatam Lastly all your distinctions are used with you as miracles and the gift of tongues were not for them that believe but them that believe not For strangers and them that make objections not for the obedient that worship Images and break the Commandment Well Sect. 13 but you have Arguments as well as Pretences which must not be over-look'd Mr. C. p. 156. And First You tell us that in Scripture we find Kings adored and a prostration of body paid to them yet for all this no man will suspect that any dishonour was intended to God thereby Answer True and yet you may dishonour him by giving this worship unto Images seeing he hath commanded saying Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them which your Gerson paraphraseth thus In comp Theol. explic praecepti primi Thou shalt not bow down to
service Now that he for bids them 't is argued 1. Because he bids the Church Governours refuse them lest they should marry 2. He calls this marriage a casting off their first faith as all the Fathers Interpret it and tells them that it will procure their damnation Now saith he whether Widdows are esteemed by the Preacher to bee more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine Service by the Office of Deaconesses then men by Priest-hood It is expected he the Dr. should declare Now albeit this stale Objection hath received variety of answers Yet wil not our Antagonist take notice of any of them 1. Then the learned Camero tells us In locum Vide Thes Salmur de voto con pt Post Sect. 36. the Papists would have the Apostle here to approve the vow of Continency and dis-allow the solution of it upon any terms but saith he this must not be granted For the Apostle discourseth of such Widdows who had devoted themselves to the Ministry of the Church promising the performance of those Offices which were proper for persons so devoted Now seeing there was no legitimate pretence for such as were so addicted to decline the further performance of these Offices but the necessity of marriage When they began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Hesychius tells us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wax insolent and weary of this ministry to the Church partly for the labour and partly for the seeming vilenesse of it that they might become free they did pretend necessity of marriage as a covert of their pride and floath That therefore which the Apostle reproves in them is not their marriage but the using of it as the veil of their idleness and thence it is that he accuses them first of their insolency in vilifying that Ministry in which they were ingaged And herein is the wisdome of the Apostle Conspicuous that least he should seem to condemn simply the marriage of such He first shews wherein they had offended viz. not in that they married but that they did so out of such an end as knowing that such a pretence only was a just cause of rejecting the burden they had cast upon them For it could not be that she who was not sui juris but at the power of her Husband could bee able to perform the office of a Deaconess as then was requisite Now this interpretation is evidently contradictory to that of the Papists but that it is the truth I offer this Argument to evince Either the Apostle inveighs against the pretence of Marriage in these younger widdows or against their Marriage Not the latter therefore the former That it is not the latter I prove because the Apostle bids them marry Juniores volo nubere Verse 14. You will say with the Rhemists that he speaks of other widdows that had not yet enter'd into the Churches service not of those which had made this promise I Answ It must be extended to them also as may be proved First In that he requires that widdows should be blameless which condition could not well agree to younger widdows who were in danger of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for doing that which is blame-worthy in violating such a promise Secondly He would have such widdows refused which were in danger to wax wanton against Christ to marry and so violate their promise to the Church but such were those younger widdows which had made this promise Verse 11 12. Nor can it here be said that it could not be free for them to go back from their promise For 1. There can be no reason assigned of such an assertion seeing it must be made with this tacit limitation if the Church will accept them and therefore if the Church see cause to refuse them they are ipso facto absolved 2. Be it they had vowed which cannot be proved yet that vow cannot be obligatory to performance which puts a person in a real danger of waxing wanton against Christ of having the condemnation of violating his first faith it being absolutely unlawful for any one to continue in such a condition and contrary to the Apostles precept of abstaining from all appearance of evil and therefore such a vow made to binde one in such a state is a bond of iniquity and consequently Null Thirdly The Apostle would have such widdows refused who were in danger to be idle tatlers busie bodies wanderers c. but such were younger widdows already made Deaconesses verse 13. Fourthly The Apostle would have things so managed as that no occasion might be given to the Adversary to speak reproachfully but this could not be if younger widdows already Deaconesses should not be refused as well as others Verse 14. Fifthly The Apostle would have that altered which might be an occasion of turning young women aside unto Satan but such was the keeping of them in that condition and had been already as the Apostle tells us v. 15. For some viz. of these young Widdows are already turned aside unto Satan But you will say that the Apostle plainly saith they are therefore blame worthy because they have left their first Faith I Answ 1. They are therefore blame-worthy because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Pride Sloath and Insolency they have broken their Faith Not if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had left this office as being supposed to have made this promise only upon condition of the continuance of the gift of Continency seeing to make it absolutely we have proved unlawfull 2. By first Faith we may understand the Faith they took upon them when they first became Christians which because it bindes them not to be insolent but humble and ready to do the meanest office of love to their fellow-members not to be sloathful but to bee diligent in Gods service They that are guilty of these crimes may bee said to have made Null their Faith seeing it will be of no vertue nor efficacy to their souls 2. Others have long ago answered that the Apostle is to be understood not of any promise made to the Church but to God or Christ upon their entrance into Christianity and tell us that these women having haply moved with sorrow for their Husbands death cast themselves into the Colledge of Widdows and afterward finding themselves not to have the gift of Continence but to want the remedy of Marriage least they should be branded with the note of infamy inconstancy and lightness in departing from their purpose they chose rather to fall off from Christ unto Gentilism and Marry whence they are condemned of forsaking their first Faith not simply in that they would Marry but that they would do it cum abnegatione fidei Christianae religionis Obj. But you will say if they had a minde to Marry what necessity of doing it with Jews or Pagans Answ Because had they Married to Christians they would continually have been twited by them for their levity and inconstancy for their negligence in the office
of the Church gadding abroad c. yea and being such could scarce hope to procure a Husband among them and therefore that they might not fail of them and that they might live more free from these taunts and disgraces they rejected their office and faith together Now that they did so as it is probable from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies excutere habenas Christi so is it more then so from the 15 v. which tells us that they had turned aside to Satan a phrase in Scripture used to denote Apostacy from Christ and God For as turning from the power of Satan to God is a description of turning Christian so Apostates are said to be transfer'd again into Satans Kingdome Luke 11.13 And to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 6.66 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12.13 1 Tim. 1.6.4.4 as here also it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly That it cannot be understood of a solemn vow of Continency joyned with an abnegation of the married state beside what I have said before is proved 1. In that the Apostle denies that he would cast a snare upon any that is lay a necessity on them to contain unmarried but on the contrary gives this general axiom that it is better to marry than to burn And therefore it is altogether unlikely that he would now tell them that they must continue though he found they had not the gift of Continence under pain of damnation No rather he would have admonished them to repent of their rash vow and told them with Epiphanius Epiph. de tradit who is clearly ours as to this that it is better to have the guilt of one sin viz. a rash vow then of many viz. Continual burnings Calling the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a fault to which he enjoyns pennance the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which will bring damnation 2. If the vow of Continence be the first faith here spoken of then may not any woman or widdow make this vow by the Apostles charge till she be sixty years old Sess 25. C. 15. which how is it this day practized in the Romish Church since the Trent Councel admits them at sixteen Let them then confess that this Text speaks not of votaries or else that they sin against the Apostles precept by warrant of their infallible general Council For it is evident the Apostle bids them not admit a Widdow under sixty for fear of her incontinency and for that reason requires them to refuse those that are younger then so I confesse besides Bellarm who is very frivolous and every where confuted Estius tells us 1. That there is not the same reason for Widdows as for Virgins For these having not felt the pleasure of due benevolence are not so much tempted as Widdows But to this 1. It is evident you admit even Widdows long before this time yea at any time 2. Seeing marriage was ordained for the abating of this fire of lust sure it will somewhat do so not more inflame it and it is unconceivable that women though thirty or forty once marryed should bee more prone to lust then those of sixteen or eighteen never Marryed 3. Be it that there were some difference yet surely not such as will put Virgins out of danger especially when the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 7. that there may bee need and therefore he will not put a snare upon them 2. Hee tells us that they had no Cloisters to bee immured in then as there be now and therefore they were more obnoxious to this failing Answ By no means when it must be granted that Church Discipline was more strict then Christianity more lively and better practized then now 2. Solitariness doth not help this disease but increase it rather 3. That their Cloisters do not abridge them of occasions of lust appears by their frequent pregnancy and the above cited Authors neither ought they to change the Apostles precept upon such sleight and frivolous grounds In a word to conclude why may not this sense of the words pass for currant you admit younger Widdows into this Office upon their promise of continuing in that estate when alas they are in danger to wax wanton against Christ by this means and when they have done so to marry which course of yours will bring condemnation upon them This waxing wanton being an evident breach of the promise of obedience to the Commands of Christ which they made at their entrance into Christianity And whereas he tells us that his Exposition which makes it plead for their vow of Continency is not contradicted by any of the Antient Doctors Bishop Hall will tell him p. 725. I had thought I had read in Holy Athanasius wo to you that make void the first faith of Baptism I thought that St. Jerom had said in the preface to the Ep. to Titus They are not worthy of belief qui primam fidem Baptismi irritam fecerunt who have made void their first faith in Baptism Now if a contrary Interpretation be not a contradiction to the sense contended for I may say as well that the Interpretation of these two Fathers was never contradicted by any of the rest But it is the consent of antiquity in which our Adversary vaunts himself Sect. 12 And 1. M. C. p. 216. As for the councel of Eliberis which if we may believe him Can. 33. absolutely commanded to Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children let it be considered Melchior Canus l 5. de locis c. 4. Binius p. 239. Bellar. l. 2. de Imag. c 9. Baron ad An. 56. Hum. 119. 1. That when the decree of this councel is urged by us against Images they presently deride us as producing a Councel of nineteen Bishops met in a corner of the world telling us that it was an erronious Councel bordering upon Novatianism and manifestly void and null in many things viz. In those in which it thwarts their superstitions Now if these things be true what advantage can they have from these nineteen Bishops may not we as lawfully reject them as the Romanist 2. The Canon doth not command this abstinence to Bishops and to other sacred Persons absolutely but onely in the time of their ministration or whilst it is their turn to assist at the Altar which thing is determined in many councels and is not in the least manner contrary to us 3. The words of the Councel run exactly contrary to what you have given us even thus this Councel hath thought good not to command but wholly to forbid Bishops Priests c. to abstain from their Wives and not to beget Children And so it will be parallel to the Canon of the Nicene Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made in opposition to the condemners of due benevolence in Priests Another Councel produced by him is the seventh of
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
we have done it legally and with sufficient Authority due moderation and other conditions requisite yea we had the implicite consent of the Eastern Church which doth with us reject these Laws of the Church of Rome this we constantly plead in our own behalf and yet we must be Schismaticks though neither all nor any of these pleas can be invalidated Again saith he They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome and esteemed this Patriarchical Church Ibid. the only Orthodox universal Church and a separation from its Pastor to beformal Schism Ans And will not the worshipers of the Beast do so to him should the Graecian Churches entertain this Faith would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schisme because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical and your supreme Pastor an Usurper if so then must men be Schismaticks whether they separate from you or joyn in communion with you if not I pray you why but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars which is evidently our plea we found that what you called Antient Doctrines from the beginning were not held what you required to be embraced as a truth was evidently condemned in the Word of God c. and when you have talked your self hoarse about the nature of Schisme you will still labour in the fire till you have proved that we are under an obligation to beleive those doctrines as the truths of God which wee reject as contrary to his revealed will which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas You tell us from St. Austin Mr. C. p. 292. sect 11. Reply p. 89 90. that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations or the whole world To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against him it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures wee have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church it self but suppose it had been so the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church which was before her not locally but morally Well but to say thus Mr. C. p. 294. and to acknowledge the actual departure was ours and yet we are not Schismaticks as leaving the errours of the Church of Rome rather then the Church is to act the Donatist Answ Yes by all means because the Donatist pretended not to finde any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholick Church See Dally Apol. c. 6. from which they separated contrary to their belief both the one and the other taught the same faith read the same books exercised the same services well but the Donatists derive the word Catholick not from the Universality of Nations but integrity of doctrine Which is most apparently the errour of the Church of Rome which esteems none members of the Catholick Church but those which embrace her doctrines intirely but concerns not us who esteem them members of the Catholick Church that differ from us See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281. CHAP. XIX Our third Proposition that all Schisme is not damnable limited sect 1. Proved from divers instances sect 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered And 1 his similitude from Civil Governments considered sect 3. 2 His Arguments from the division of the Schismatick from Christs body sect 5. From the Fathers as St. Chrysostome St. Austin St. Pacian St. Denis and Irenaeus sect 7. His inference from hence that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical considered sect 8. MY third Proposition shall bee this 3 Proposition That all Schisme is not damnable Sect. 1 nor doth it alwaies carry such obliquity with it as to exclude the person thus offending from Gods favour Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion I shall propose this one distinction viz. that Schisme may be either through weakness viz. in persons desirous to know the truth and earnest endeavourers after it who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals or prejudices from friends or education or such like causes miss their aim or wilfulness as it is in persons who are either negligent as to their inquiry into truth or act against the convictions of their consciences now for these latter sort of Schismaticks I grant their separation to be damnable but for the weaker Brother the person or Church which out of frailty onely is Schismatical I undertake to be an advocate and free such though not from crime yet upon general repentance for unknown sins from the sad sentence of damnation For 1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival the West separated and refused Communion with the East for many years together now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismaticks for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatick or it was otherwise and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to it self as separating without cause and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God and were not cut off from Christ upon this account who dares deny who can without the greatest breach of Charity thus in the many Schismes which have happened in the Church of Rome about the Popes Supremacy in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto will any charitable Papist say that all who died on the erring part were necessarily damned Again the Myriads of Jews that beleived in Christ and yet were zealous of the law were guilty of this crime as requiring such conditions of their communion which they ought not to have required and excluding men from it upon terms unequal and yet to say that all these Myriads who through weakness and infirmity thus erred did perish and that their beleiving in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with Hypocrisie and Heresie is so harsh a speech that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it Yea further let but a man consider the variety of mens principles their constitutions and educations tempers and distempers weaknesses degrees of light and understanding the many several determinations that are made even by most Churches the various judgements of the most learned touching many of them I say let these things be considered and then let any man tell mee whether it be consistent with the goodnesse of that God who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share to condemn those to eternal torments who after diligent enquiry into the truth erre in some little punctilioes determined by the Church and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience
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
council may erre and whether the Pope bee the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ are questions which extreamly trouble the Church of God You affirm all this the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Now that it should here bee necessary for all the Eastern Churches all the Churches of the Protestants upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions and embrace what you obtrude upon them when you shall bee able to demonstrate and I see it done I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being professedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority Mr. C. p. 229. and consequently the preferring of their own conduct or the conduct of particular Churches before the Vniversal authority of the Church For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church both Pastors and flocks as Heathens and Publicans it is so impertinent as nothing can bee more is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason p. 230. as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots but such as discourse of matters of Religion and passe their judgements on them Now here do you not suppose that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church which wee are not very likely to acknowledge 2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements to the most or not If not why do you trouble us with this Argument If so then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour and under the Old Testament when Idolatry prevailed they were obliged unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason to become Idolaters and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ but rejected him as a Blasphemer the people were bound to do so too these and a thousand such like absurdities are the very natural consequences of your positions But you have Fathers to produce Sect. 7 And 1. Ad Eph. Hom. 11. That of St. Chrysostome we consent unto in this sense viz. that wilfully to divide the unity of Christs Church doth inevitably infer damnation as surely as the piercing of Christs body but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferiour moment out of humane frailty doth inevitably do so 2. Ad Sympr cp 2. As for that of St. Pacian who tells us that Novatian was nor Crowned because hee died out of the Communion of the Church Wee Answ That in St. Pacians phrase to dye out of the Communion of the Church was to dye without charity to the members of it as it immediately there follows hear the Apostle if I have all faith and have not charity I am nothing 3. De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10. In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us for whereas St. Austin saith it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church quod credidit that he believed in Christ or professed Christianity or did so much good without respect to the chiefest good Mr. C. will have him to asser t that it doth nothing profit such a one Mr. C.p. 226. that hee is Orthodox in belief whereas St. Austin speaks of Hereticks and presently cries out hear this O yee Hereticks and again quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona and a third time O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas Now separation from the Church by Heresie we acknowledge to incurre damnation The passage of St. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. Denis is very true viz. That all things should be endured rather then we should consent to the division of Gods Church but this he speaks not of the evil of sin but of pain and misery and what of this Lastly Irenaeus doth no where say there cannot possibly be made any reformation c. but only they viz. Propter modicat quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62. who for crisling causes divide the body of Christ who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels such as these can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division which is altogether impertinent to the design for which it is produced but of these two last places see the incomparable Chilling p. 256 257. From what hath been said we may see the weakness of this Argument which we finde p. 296. viz. Salvation may bee had in the Church of Rome and therefore it cannot be schismatical Albeit you cannot be ignorant that we distinguish the quality of persons considering your Church either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their Schisme and continuance in your church and of such we pass the heaviest sentence or in regard of those who owe their Schisme to want of capacity or default of instruction or such like involuntary defects and these wee say may have salvation albeit they continue members of your Church CHAP. XX. General Councils are not infallible whether considered with the Pope sect 1. Or without the Pope sect 2. Their infallibility not concluded 1 From Scripture sect 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16 sect 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect 6. Nor 2 from reason sect 7. Mr. C's Arguments answered sect 7 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it sect 9 10.11 Nor lastly is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity sect 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius Optatus Vincentius Lirinensis and St. Austin produced against it sect 12 13 14 15. 4 Proposition GEneral Councils are not infallible Now touching the infallibility of General Councils Sect. 1 1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope or one without or before his confirmation if the confirmation of the Pope bee requisite then without it is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible and if so then either the judgment of the Pope is so too or not if the first then the whole General Council is fallible in it's determinations for it can have no other members but the Pope and others and if both these be fallible 't is evident that the Council is so if infallible then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope and cannot sit as Judges of the cause it being very right and equitable that fallible persons who of themselves may dangerously erre should submit to the judgement of him who cannot do
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
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
private reason you reject 2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture who must bee permitted to do it touching the infallibility of a General Council which is no where evidently revealed 2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible and so to be esteemed whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture or evident demonstration whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials or of faith only whether she be contradicted by men of worth place and esteem or no whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding or not if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes private reason must sit as Umpire then what becomes of all your objections to the contrary ushered in with such solemnity and triumph if not then is he evidently left at uncertainties when the determinations of his guide are infallible when not it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded must be precognita to this 3. Whence shall hee fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility from Scripture this is already exploded from others neither can this bee rationally said seeing other assemblies consist of men that are fallible in themselves nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise which is not to bee found but in holy Scripture 3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures to acquaint themselves Acts 17.11 whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it cannot reasonably bee denied but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tryed by private men whether they bee conform to Scripture yea or no for I hope they will not say that the decrees of such Councils are of greater Authority then the Apostles Sermons which yet were submitted to the trial of private men by the rule of Scripture Add to this that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles motives very prevalent to induce beleif and therefore if they were commended who even in this case and after the Sanhedrims determination against their Doctrine and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees did thus make search into the word of God and determine according to their private interpretations of it how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us to plead for such a liberty in reference to the decrees of General Councils 4. The Scripture commands us to try all things and hold what is good to try the spirits whether they be of God or no 1 Thes 5. 1 John 4.1 to take heed least we be seduced by what touchstone I pray you must wee try by Scripture then have wee what wee so much contend for by a General Council then were not these commands in force 'till the daies of Constantine they concerned none of those to whom they were indited nor had they sufficient means to try the truth The Church diffused alas poor creatures must they travel throughout all the world to know the decisions of every Church and when this is done how shall they know that what they hold to day shall be held to morrow when they are divided how shall they know who are in the right judge by Scripture and reason they must not say you and what other judge could bee obtained for three hundred years after Christ and upward I am not able to divine Sect. 8 Again why are we bid to read the Scripture meditate in it day and night to pray for the illumination of our mindes the spirit of wisdome and revelation and the assistance of Gods holy spirit that we may know it is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith what need of the assistance of the spirit and the illumination of my minde to know the sense of Scripture if this judge must give it me and I cannot have it elsewhere yea why doth God promise that his secret shall be with them that fear him hee will teach them his covenant that if wee search for understanding as for Silver Prov. 2 2-6 and for hid treasures wee shall finde it what need of all this search by any excepting only Bishops who are to bee members of a General Council if it be so dangerous to judge without them and when they have once judged we have infallibly the truth Lastly That rule of faith is deservedly suspected which will not endure the tryal but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it is not that bruta fides which requires a mans beleif albeit he knows no reason for it but evident reason to the contrary You will say that hee judgeth this at least that 't is very unlikely the Church should erre and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational Answ Then the faith of Jews who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim of the Pagans who with their wisest men rejected Christianity must be good and rational And if private men must be allowed this judgement much more must it be granted to whole Nations wherein haply there bee ten times as many learned men as ever met in any Synod CHAP. XXIII Our eighth Proposition sect 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church sect 2. The Churcâ— Catholick not organical sect 3. It 's essential unity not external sect 4. What separation is the sin of Schism sect 5. To leave the Church and to leave her external communion not the same ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholick sect 6. Why from the Roman sect 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject are as old as St. Gregory sect 9. Our evidence to the contrary largely produced sect 10 11. My eighth Proposition is THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholick Church Sect. 1 8. Proposition or if it should bee granted that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves yet could they not justly bee charged with Schisme especially from the Roman Church Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold 1. From the internal communion of the Church Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity or obedience or external by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and publick worship 2. I assert Sect. 3 that the Church Catholick which we profess to beleive in the Apostles creed is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches for were it so none could be members of the church Catholick who were not members of some particular church and consequently should a Christian living alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome convert some of them to Christianity they
would not bee members of the church because not united to some Organical part of it Yea 2. In the daies of Elijah there would have been no Church there being no such organical body And 3. Under the prevailing of Arrianisme those Righteous souls who renounced Communion with the Arrians and fled into dens and caves must have renounced the Church Catholick as being Members of no such Organical Body Now hence it follows that the unity of the Church Catholick cannot be external which Mr. C. every where supposeâ—â— and takes for granted but onely internal or that of faith and charity and consequently to prove our separation from the holy Catholick Church it must bee proved that we have not that faith obedience and charity which is requisite to make us members of that Church which is a taske so hard that Mr. C. durst not set upon it 3. Sect. 4 That to be united in external Communion with some such part of the Church Catholick cannot bee necessary to my being a member of it Mr. Chilling p. 255. sect 9. this is evident 1. From the instances now produced 2. Because a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches external Communion and yet hee is still a member of the Church And this also strengthneth the former Corollary 4. Sect. 5 Id. p. 264. That not every separation but onely a causelesse separation from the external Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme This we have sufficiently proved above VVhence it evidently follows that those Protestants who say they forsook the external Communion of the Church visible that is renounced the belief and practise of some few things which all visible Communions besides them did believe and practise cannot precisely upon this account lye under the imputation of the sin of Schism any more then the seven thousand that refused to bow the knee to Baal or those in the primitive times that refused communion with the Arrian Churches As doing it upon conviction from Scripture Reason and Antiquity that all the visible Churches of the world had in these observances swerved from the Word of God Reason and Antiquity which is every where their plea. Mr. Chil. p. 265. sect 32. Now hence it follows that to leave the Church and to leave her external Communion is not the same that being done by ceasing to bee a Member of it that is by ceasing to have faith and obedience the requisites to make us such which can never bee necessary this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick worship and indeed were these the same it must of necessity follow that no two Churches divided in external communion can bee both true parts of the Catholick Church Mr. Chil. p. 271 sect 50. and consequently that either the Church of Rome which is thus divided from all other Christians is no part of the Catholick Church or which is more uncharitable that all the Churches of Christendome besides her must bee excluded from being parts of the Church Catholick as being divided in external communion from the Roman yea when the Western and Eastern Churches refused communion with each other one of them presently must bee excluded from the Catholick Church Yea it will follow that either there is some particular Church that is by promise from God freed from ever admitting any superstitions or corruptions into her Liturgies and publick services or else that to separate from superstitions and corruptions crept into these particular Churches is to become no Churches which is as rediculous as to say that to purge any person from those distempers which others labour under were to unâ—man him Indeed I know that the Roman Church pretends to bee the guide of the faith of others to be secured from these corruptions and consequently to bee the Root of Union to other true Orthodox Churches but this pretence is so assaulted by Mr. Chil. P. 337. sect 20. that I am confident they are not able to stand out against the evidence of his Reason Thus then hee Is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not one amongst all the Apostles who were men very good and desirous to direct us in the surest way to Heaven instructed by the Spirit of God in all necessary points of Faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this most necessary point of Faith should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Meethinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them especially this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary St. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Meethinks St. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their priviledge to them Meethinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which he saith also of the Thessalonians he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms that their faith was the Rule for all the world for ever but then sure he would not have put them in fear of an impossibility as hee doth chap. 11. That they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Jews ahd done Meethinks in all his other Epistles or at least in one of them hee could not have failed to have given the world this direction had hee known it to have been true that all men were to bee guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Meethinks writing so often of Hereticks and Anti-Christ he should have given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that St. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successours the Bishops of Rome How was it possible that St. James and St. Jude in their Catholick Epistles should not give this Catholick direction Meethinks St. John instead of saying hee that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God the force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the Sons of God should have said he that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it hee is a good Christian and by this mark you shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if hee consider as hee should the pretended necessity of this doctrine to salvation ordinarily can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation should be so deeply and affectedly silent in this matter as
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
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
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
Council hath decreed against The millenary Raign which most of the Antient Fathers held you have exploded as ridiculous Lastly The sentence of the purging fire which was to try and purifie all men even the most holy you have deservedly rejected whereas upon these three opinions did almost all the prayers of the Antients depend and how then can you be said to have retained the prayers which the Antients used albeit you retain some of their words who have wholly rejected those opinions upon which they did depend I confesse there were some other ends which I have mentioned above of the Antients prayers as the obtaining an happy Resurrection the augmentation of their glory at the union of their souls and bodies the blotting out of their sins at the day of Refreshment that they might finde mercy in that day and would the Church of Rome pray for them to these ends and these alone wee would very heartily joyn with her But shee hath added new ends of her own devising as the satisfaction of Gods justice the procuring pardon of venial sins not formerly remitted and a release from a purgatorian fire which shee hath kindled and is it meet that we who have rejected together with them these prayers as grounded upon such opinions which had confess'd Antiquity to plead for them should embrace them again upon such grounds as are not onely manifestly false but also void of all shadow of Antiquity To p. 189. l. 34. adde nor is it ever said in Scripture that the body of Christ is received unworthily but onely that the bread and cup are so further were it said so yet will not your transubstantiation follow hence without begging the main dispute betwixt us viz. whether such a passage must be understood litterally and rigidly or according to the custome of sacramental phrases that is figuratively and spiritually Lastly if they that despised the Apostles were said to despise Christ because they were commissionated from him as we have it Mat. 18.5 and he that offends a weak brother is said to offend against Christ because he doth it against one of his members why might not hee that participates the Sacramental elements unworthily be said to receive Christs body so as receiving that which represents and signifies his body and offers to the Receivers faith all the benefits thereof 2. The confirmation of all that I have cited from Dr. Hoyle may be seen in the margin of the places cited After p. 211. l. 17. adde we have something alledged p. 304 305. In defence of this half Communion which here may properly be considered we are told 1. That the Protestants use sprinkling instead of dipping Answ This is Elâ—â—châ—s Parium For 1. Albeit the Apostles used dipping yet did not either they or our Saviour command it he never said dip all that you Baptize as he said drink ye all of this and therefore that he and his Disciples Baptized in Rivers and by dipping will no more infer that we should do so then that they say down at this Supper or used a clinical gesture will infer that we should use it 2. Dipping is no essential part of the Sacrament but a mode or circumstance and therefore variable but the cup is an essential or at least integral part of the Sacrament as is fully evidenced by Crocius in his Antibec p. 214 215. 3. This we do in case of danger otherwise the Church requires dipping Now in such case the Scripture gives warrant for such an alteration both by example and precept telling us God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now hence to argue for a change in the institution of Christ when no such necessity in the Church can be alledged is as if the Israelites should have urged a general permission for eating the Shew-bread because David and his Servants had it to supply their necessities 2. Saith hee do we not think our selves obliged to communicate fasting albeit Christ instituted the Sacrament after Supper Answ No We think it highly convenient but wee dare not charge him with sin that doth it otherwise 2. The time is evidently a circumstantial not commanded or instituted by Christ depending upon the Passeover and therefore very unfit to bee paralleled with this deprivation of the cup. 3. Hee addes do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non obstantâ— the Apostles gave commandment to the contrary Answ Some who think the precept not temporary scruple yea refuse the eating of them and to such this instance must bee impertinent others that eat them do it upon this account because they suppose they have good reason to conclude the precept temporary and made onely to avoid the scandal which it gave unto the Jews and seeing this cannot with any reason be supposed of Christs precept the instance must bee impertinent to them also Yea wee have many Texts of Scriptures which seems to give us this liberty of eating any such things but there is not any thing which in the least manner intimates the lawfulnesse of with-drawing the cup from Layicks To p. 453. l. 14. adde Onely whereas hee saith that surely prudence and a most necessary care of our own salvation by continuing in the unity of the Church would dictate to us that seeing the Church is infallible as to fundamentals and therefore cannot mis-lead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her decisions as if they were of necessary faith for onely by doing so wee can bee sure not to erre in necessary points and wee shall be certainly free from all danger of Schisme p. 266. And by this means say you the Church of Rome is continued in unity and by assenting to all decisions her members are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary whereas Protestants by taking a liberty of discerning betwixt fundamentals and non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may bee fallible are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals I Answer This whole discourse to omit divers other answers very obvious depends upon two suppositions unanimously exploded by us 1. That the Church which wee hold to bee infallible in fundamentals is the Roman Church or at least a General Council whereas when wee assert the Church to be infallible in fundamentals we do not intend to assert that any one society of men is so but onely thus that whilest the world lasts there shall bee some men in the world which erre not in fundamentals Chill p. 105. or that religion shall never be so far driven out of the World but that it shall alwaies have somewhere or other some that beleive and profess it in all things necessary to salvation Thus therefore you argue Protestants acknowledge that some Christians shall bee infallible in fundamentals albeit they be neither the Roman Church nor a General Council nor any other visible Society therefore they ought in prudence to submit to the decision of the Roman Church or a
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men