Novelties we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them And it being supposed by the Archbishop c. that without such a certainty it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church The Doctor is bound and â—here adjure him to declare expresly as in the presence of Him who is Supreme Head of the Church and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it that he is demonstratively certain that in all these Points charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils she is manifestly guilty and that nothing appears in this or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance which deserves to be esteem'd so much as a probable proof to the contrary For my part I here protest on the other side that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon nor believe there can any be produced which can warrant him to make such a Declaration 10. The second Condition is That in like manner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity the main grounds upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism to wit these 1. That the universal Church â—epresented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors that a particular Church c. discovering such errors may be obliged to separate externally 2. That a particular Chrâ—stian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationaâ— Synod and assented to by it and that a Nationaâ— Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical or any of them in regard of an Oecumenical formerly accepted and admitted If these Assâ—riâ—ous he Innovations as in our perswasion they are it is clear they destroy all possible unity If they be not let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church 3. That a particular Church c. in opposition to the Vniversal can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons 〈◊〉 Communities c. and what not And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary 11. Thirdly if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church but only from the Roman then to make this good he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods they ever have or can repair And since at the time of their first Separation they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church and the Members of it be must shew how when and where they entered into any other new Communion Lastly Since the English Church by renouncing not only several Doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby separated from both these he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly heretical with whom the English Church communicates 12. A fourth Condition is that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments to consecrate confirm preach God's Word c. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations Or if they be he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their Synods and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledg them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations 13. The last shall be that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils especially that of Trent If he will combate against her there he has a fair and open field and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense Otherwise he will declare himself as one who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed Now in exchange I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions But truly I know not where to find them except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children For the 39. Articles being almost all Negatives may as well be reputed the Doctrines of Iewish or Turkish Congregations since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Infallibility of Councils c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief as the Huguenots in France c. the Lutherans in Germany c only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith upon what motive I am unwilling to guess 14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable and even according to Protestants grounds also so necessary if the Replyer shall refuse to perform he will in the judgment of all discerning Readers be himself the Answerer and Conâ—uter of his own Reply and withall will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at but the satisfying his own or others interests passions and revenge against those who least deserve it All subterfuges all involved intricacies in answering all discourses which are not open candid and sincere will be confessions of guilt He may perhaps hide the weaknesse of his cause from credulous Women Trades-men or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry but to all considering Readers his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery Aristotle saies the Sepiâ— is the wisest of all Fishes because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour which hinders the sight of her But on the contrary Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent Quia cum se putat latere prodit seipso latibâ—lo for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour 15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans and from them other Reformerd took the name Protestants for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms Spires c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest What Edicts were made against them We Catholics might rather assume such a title if it were of any special honor having
arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles both to the Emperor to Iohn himself and others which being already produc'd by him need not be repeated Yet for all this neither Pelagius nor St. Gregory notwithstanding their detesting this Title did therefore quit their right to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church and their Iurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarks too nay they assert it in these very Epistles wherein they are most sharp against that Title as shall be shew'd 6. The reason of this 't is manifest the Preacher does not understand therefore let him not disdain to be inform'd The like Order that is observ'd in the Church of England he may conceive is observed in the Catholic Church that is that the same person may be both a Bishop an Archbishop and a Primat I will add also the Supreme head of the Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Eccâ—esiasticks For as for his Majestys Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs it is not in this place to be treated of Now my Lord of Canterbury is just like other Bishops merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bishops in it but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves which are not removeable by him unlesse they incur crimes that by the Canons deserve it Lastly he is a Primat over both Provinces that is the whole Nation yet without prejudice to the other Metropolitan in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose though he have a power to summon him to a National Council c. And in this regard he may be stiled the Vniversal Pastor of England and by being so makes the Church of England to be one National Church which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads Yet if any one should stile him the Vniversal Bishop of England it would not be endured because he can exercise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own By considering this well the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church 7. For though this Title of Vniversal Bishop taken in some sense might draw after it such ill consequences yet being apply'd to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church it might innocently signifie no more but such a general Superintendency as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors and with such an innocent meaning as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon without any contradiction of the same Council to Pope Leo Boniface the Third did accept it from Phocas yet having done so it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of Iurisdiction by it more than himself and his Predecessors had enjoy'd And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge If he can find any proof to the contrary let him produce it and I will immediately recall what I have said 'T is true as appears in the History of the Council of Trent written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates against naming the Pope Bishop of the Vniversal Church who in conclusion absolutely gained the silencing of that Title But this happened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church or over all Churches taken disjunctively for this they willingly acknowledged but they opposed this Title only as the Universal Church might be taken in a collective sense that is to say as united in a General Council whereby a right of Superiority over a General Council may seem to be determin'd to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil which in this matter they allowed CHAP. IV. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predecessors viz. St. Gregory P. Pelagius P. Felix P. Gelasius P. Leo. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon illegal Of the 2d Canon of the first Council of Constantinople 1. BEing now to demonstrate more than a Primacy of Order a primacy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third extending it self to all Christians all particular Prelates and Churches yet a Supremacy not unlimited for then General Councils would be useless but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church I will first to make it appear reasonable declare the ground of the necessity of it which in brief is as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers because since General Councils the only absolute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or great expences c. can very seldom be summon'd it would be impossible without an Ordinary constant standing Supreme Authority in the Church to prevent Schisms that is it is impossible the Church should subsist 2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sitting at the upper end of the Table a priviledge to speak first or to collect Votes Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to conserve unity as in a National Church so in the Vniversal is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians For all the subtilty of human wit without such a Concession can never answer the arguing thus If according to the Doctrin of the Fathers there be a necâ—ssity of setting up one Bishop â—ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop â—ver many Bishops and one Patriark over many Arch-Bishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history and experience But what expedient now without such a primacy of Iurisdiction can the Presbyterians find out against the mischief of Schism Truly no other but by rejecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the certainly visible unity of the Catholic Church that is by believing that Schism iâ— no such ill thing as that much care needs be used to prevent it But surely English Protestants not having blotted out of their Creed that Article since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as necessary to the â—nity of the whole Church to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised and without which the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions 3. Certain it is that the antient Fathers thought so
be a sin so unpardonable that no ignorance unless supposed such as is invincible which I fear much fewer then is ordinarily imagined of those who have any liberal Education can pretend to in that great evidence and light which they have of the continued succession unity of Doctrine perfect obedience to their spiritual Superiours penances and retirements from the world and several other signal marks of the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church no ignorance I say no surreption provocation c. can excuse it Some may be more deeply guilty and obnoxious to a heavier damnation then others as Ring-leaders more then followers but damnation is by the Fathers generally denounced as the portion of all 4. The true Reason whereof may be deduced from the example of all other Governments whatsoever The greatest offence a Subject can commit against Monarchy is an actual attempt or rather the attempt executed by which Monarchy is disolved Inwardly to condemn the Laws of such a Government to entertain Principles which if put in practise would withdraw Subjects from their due Obedience is an offence of an high nature but the actual cantonising of a Kingdom and the raising in it Courts or Iudicatories independent on and opposite to the Common Tribunal of the Country is the utmost of all crimes both the Seducers and Seduced are not only deprived of the priviledges belonging to good Subjects but pursued by Arms as the worst of all enemies 5. It is so in God's Church The main thing our Creed teaches us to believe of it is its unity without which it is not a Church Now if Vnity then Order then Subordination of Governours c. what therefore is the great sin against this fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism a dissolving the Communion and connexion that the members of this great Body have among themselves and with relation to the whole We all willingly acknowledge that the great sin of the Synagogue the sin that fill'd up the measurâ— of the crimes of the Iews was their murdering our Lord. Now sayes St. Chrysostom We shall not merit and incurâ—d less cruel punishment if we divide the unity and plenituâ— of the Church the mystical Body of our Lord then those have done which pierced mangled and tore his own Body And the very like expression hath St. Cyprian 6. There are very few Heresies that is only such Errors as are formally destructive to those very few verities or Articles of Faith without an explicite belief whereof no man can be saved which do in themselves simply as false opinions universally destroy Salvation Indeed if they have the formality of Heresie joyned to them and be maintained with a knowledge that they are contrary to the sence and authority of the Church then they have involved in them something of Schism or at least they are in an immediate disposition to Schism and in that regard all Heresies though in Points of themselves less important are damnative But Schism alone though there be no Heresie joyned with it immediately divides from the Body of Christ and consequently from Christ himself 7. But may not ignorance excuse the guilt of Schism No on the contrary in some regard it aggravates it For though Pride and Malice be far greater in the Leading Schismaticks persons of wit and learning yet ignorant souls and ideots seem more to contradict human reason because the more ignorant they ought to know they are and being confessedly no Pastors the more ought they to submit their judgments to Authority and consequently the preferring their own conduct or the conduct and direction of particular men or Churches before the universal Authority of the Church the excommunicating as it were the whole Church of God the esteeming all Christians both Pastors and Flocks as Heathens and Publicans is a presumption so contrary to human nature and reason that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them I speak not now of persons absolutely ideots who scarce know there are any other Pastors or any other Church then their own who pretend not at all to pass their judgements on other Religions but know only what their Pastors teach them having no ability by reason of their condition to examine Scriptures and Churches For such no doubt may by their simplicity and absolute invincible ignorance escape the malignity of Schism But I speak of inferiour Tradesmen of Gentlemen and Gentlewomen who have a capacity of being rightly instructed and better informed of that spiritual authority to which they owe their subjection and yet who by their own perversness become troubleâ— of the Church and who because they caâ— read the Scriptures take upon them to judge of the sence of them both for themselves and their Pastors c. Such as these no doubt have drunk in the very gall of Schism by usurping an authority which express Scripture sayes belongs only to Pastors 8. Some learned persons particularly Doctor Steward attribute much to the temper of the English Church which he sayes is like St. Cyprians Neminem condemantes aut a communione separantes and this alone they suppose will exempt Protestants as it did St. Cyprian from the imputation and penalty of Schism to which other violent Calvinistical Congregations are more obnoxious But the case is not the same This indeed did exempt St. Cyprian because as St. Augustin sayes the Church had not then decided the dispute to whose decision St. Cyprian would certainly have submitted The case of Protestants is evidently different If a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil authority would this excuse serve them to say We do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King we mean neither him nor them any harm they shall be welcom to come among us if they will we will be good friends we will not meddle with their doings But we will be govern'd only by our own Laws and Magistrates c I believe not Their civility in their rebellion will not change the Title of their crime nor free them from the punishment due to it it may perhaps qualifie the Princes resentment but the civillest Treason is Treason 9. Being to examine the Doctor 's Plea touching the Point of Schism I thought requisite to premise this consideration of its heynousness that both he and my self also should consider it as the most important of all other in which the least mistake will prove mortal I will add a bold word and undertake to justifie it Though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church had been guilty of Innovation in all the Points mentioned by the Doctor yet since by the Protestants confession those Points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her Communion will be in God's esteem very Schism CHAP. XX. How the Preacher vainly endeavours to excuse his Church from Schism Of the Subordination of Church Governors and Synods The breach of their Subordination is the
These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ambitiously seek Superiority nor after a secular manner Lord it over the Flock of Christ. 6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept Such an Argument as this being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print 'T is time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty CHAP. V. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority as exercised during the four General Councils Of the Title of Universal Bishop It is not generally admitted at this day 1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope as Successor of St. Peter is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas that is it began about the year 606. never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church To prove this all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him From this usurpeâ— Authority his English Church forsooth hath made a Secession as he demurely Phrases it and not from any Authority if any were exercised by former Popes especially during the times of the four first General Councils A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdiction 2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd especially till the end of the fourth General Council he must grant is no usurpation and therefore a Legal rightful Authority from which without a formal Schism they could not withdraw themselves He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority and give that only to the King not his unlawful and Antichristian So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church This he denies On the contrary I here engage my self not only to prove he had it but moreover that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised I may adde that the new usurped Title as he says sold to him by Phocas did not give him neither did he pretend to by it any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoy'd And this is I be able to make good then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession 3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that He says Boniface made with Phocaâ— what he gain'd by it and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great and Pâ—lagius refused it The Patriark of Constantinople Iohn out of an humor of lightness and vanity proper to the Grecians assumed the Title of Episcopus universalis or Oâ—cumenicus Vniversal Bishop or Bishop of the whole World A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo but which his Successors like't not Certain it is that Iohn intended little more by it but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Eastern Patriarks For whilst he took that title he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority not only of place but authority over him But being Bishop in a City wherein the Emperor of the world resided he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world as the Emperor was the Governor Perhaps indeed his Successors if this ambition had been either approv'd or but connâ—v'd at by the West would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title but would have invaded an Authority which the Title might seem to warrant Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn though the Emperor himself to gain a dignity to his own City favor'd it in him 4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him did not so much combate Iohns present intention though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed as the probable consequences of such a Title which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church For if he were the Vniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself And so their Successors the Bishops would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself For as in other Sacraments whoever administers Baptism whether an Apostle or an Heretic Baptismus solius Christiest says Saint Augustin And again Peter and Iohn sayth he pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands they did not give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. They as his Substitutes apply the outward Element but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself And as a Subject that receives â—n Office of Iurisdiction from the King will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person who presents him the Letters patents or invests him ceremoniously in the Office but only the King So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan a Primat a Patriarc or by the Pope himself and Iurisdiction given him they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him 5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues Vniversalitatis quoque nomen c. Do not give heed to the name of Vniversality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped c. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title Because if the Bishop of Rome the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark the Title would be taken away from the rest But God forbid this should happen c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd and probably he who is called Vnivâ—rsal will perish in his error and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth The very same
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them To the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule yet they admit certain universally received Traditions besides expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
For though he florish with Greek and Latinâ—quotations of Fathers joynd to Scripture which they do not yet since there is no visible Judge talk'd of in it but himself that is able to speak What is this but private spirit having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have So that let them preach as much as they will the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this Whether their last speaking Iudge in England or ours in the whole Catholic Church deserves better to be believ'd and rely'd on 5. It cannot be deny'd but that there is somthing of Truth in all these Sects The Guide which each of them respectively layes claim to is a justifiable Guide though being alone not sufficient For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us would be to become Beasts 2. To exclude Gods Spirit from directing us would be to cease being Christians 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity and Authority of General Primitive Councils would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable 4. And last of all to deny a judging determining power to the present visible Governors I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected Yet unlesse they all concur that which we take to be Reason and Inspiration and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and mis-guide us 6. Now it is only the Roman Catholic Church whose enâ—â—re Guidance proceedâ— from all these and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each mans Soul and universal peace in Gods Church which effects cannot possibly flow but from a complication of all these Guides Roman Catholics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture as the Socinians do but they give due bounds to Reason nay they silence it quite when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture they with the Presbyterians and even Fanatics acknowledge it is Divine Inspiration that moves the Soul to assent thereto and embrace the verities contained in Scripture directing their actions accordingly But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light neither can there be any Guide more dangerous then false Inspirations they conclude that all such pretended Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Suggestions which are prejudicial to Honesty Virtue Piety and the common Rules of Obedience both Spiritual and Civil All Inspirations which which incite private uncommission'd persons to reform either Churches or State all that nourish Factions or Commotions in the Common-wealth All that beget Pride and an opinion of self-sufficiency or an humor of censuring others especially Superiors In a word whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the community of the Prophets that is Church Governors such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected detested and sent back to the Infernal Father of them 7. Moreover Roman Catholics do willingly and confidently appeal to the Primitive Church the four first General Councils and the holy Fathers But universal experience demonstrating it impossible that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed and therefore not impartial or indifferent their last recourse is to the present visible Church which cannot declare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations that is by a General Council All Catholics submiting to this Council not their tongues only but also their judgments by following the Church thus with humility shew that they are guided both by Reason Inspiration and Examples of Primitive Fathers Hence St. Austin sayes We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church if we rejoice in the name of Catholics and in the Catholic Faith And elsewhere Contra rationem nemo sobrius c. No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason no Christian against Scriptures no lover of peace and unity against the Church And this only is the Guide that we say and presently will demonstrate to be infallible 8. Now that the final Decision of all Controversies in Faith can only be expected from such a Guide and consequently that all Christians under pain of damnation are obliged never to contradict this Guide and alwaies to assent when it requires we are taught not by Reason only but God himself also and this in the Law of Moses The whole Nation of the Iews saith St. Augustin was as it were one great Prophet the policie of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian to the twelve Princes of their Families answer'd the twelve Apostles to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples to the several Courts of Judgement our Ecclesiastical Synods to the great Sanhedrim a general Council and to the High Priest our Supreme Pastor Now for our present purpose the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law ran thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement c. that is as we find in 2 Chron. 19. 8. between blood and blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Iudgements then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall shew thee c. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right hand or to the left The man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel Upon those words in this passage unto the Iudge that shall be in those daies Ainsworth out of the Rabbins observes that if the high Synedrion had determin'd of a matter after another Synedrion rose up which upon Reasons seeming good unto them disannulled the former Sentence then it was disannull'd and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later So that the present Authority was alwaies to take place and no Appeals to be made from it For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking Iudges upon any pretence whatsoever either of a private exposition of the Law or the Authority of preceding Rabbies were allow'd there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue And observe that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of Judgment For otherwise it would be against Conscience in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law It is just so and alwaies has been so in the Catholic Church The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers
those Anathema's lawfull were they valid Or will he say those first Councils to which he professes assent usurped an Authority in this not of right belonging to them If those Anathema's were valid then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them as the sence of Divine Revelation and this under the penalties of being separated from Christ And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty But if those Anathema's were illegal and invalid then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others who still followed the same method not only impostors but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men 15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility than any of his Quotations can be against it Here we have expresse Scripture and universal consent of Antiquity Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England at least before their late restitution who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council Now could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge that when one of your 39. Articles declares that some General Councils have err'd the meaning should be â— that any legal legitimate General Council has err'd but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion And if this be the meaning the breach made by it may be curable 16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages as against this Point the concession of Baronius c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and continued two hundred years at Rome I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it Can no Church be Orthodox if Heretics rise and continue in the same City Is the English Church a Quaking Church because Quakers first began and still encrease at London As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it 17. The like we say touching the Donatists Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense Ingemuit orbis c. The world says St. Hierom sadly groaned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian that is after the Council of â—riminum But how was it Arian if it groaned c. for it could not be really Arian against its will But St. Hierom uses this expression because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the Catholics And true it was that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banish'd But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled it and presently repented Besides the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox but afterwards by the Emperors Tyranny and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian but capable of a good sense to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed yet to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth but presently after being at liberty both themselves and all the rest renounced And after all there remained but three years of persecution for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed 18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers and though one of them says All that were purely Orthodox that is such as he esteemed so because they were of his Opinion held that Doctrinâ— yet he thereby shews that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church But the truth is there was a double Millenary opinion the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years in base sensual pleasures banquets and women This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book as St. Hierom affirms And it is most deservedly detested by the Church But there was another Opinion that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights and ravishing consolation in a blessed conversing with him And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias St. Ireneus and St. Iustin Martyr For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves unwilling to censure it neither can the Doctor I believe shew that it was ever condemned by the Church 18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time and many years after such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally but withal take notice it was onely in one species Again it is confessed that from that Text Nisi mandâ—caveritis carnem c. St. Augustin c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism This appears first From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin c. the whole Church affirming that Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants 2. From his interpreting his own meaning in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina His words are these None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism thereby becomes partaker of the Boâ—y and Blood of our Lord and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body he should depart out of this World before he really eat of that Bread and drink of that Chalice For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament 19. That therefore which the Church since and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter was nothing at all touching Belief For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point but onely an external practise of the Church And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries which by frâ—quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too To conclude this matter For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenaâ—y Belief and Infant
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests
Doctrin odious and moreover to demonstrate the no grounds such Preachers as he have to accuse the Catholic Church of I know not what Idolatry in this matter of Images I will presume to borrow from an Author who will not be angry with me for it a passage touching this Point by which he will see that Catholics do no more than every mans own reason wil justify in the respect they give to sacred Images It is the namelesse Author of an Answer to Mr. Bagshaw's Treatise of Infallibility where he will find this following passage in which there are some glances that regard only such furious impertinents as Mr. Bagshaw which therefore I am far from thinking applyable to Doctor Pierce 2. â—hus then writes that Author intending to demonstrate that in the veneration of Images taught by the Catholic Church there is nothing at all swerving from common reaâ—on Give me leave saith he to propose to such a sober man as you are altogether compounded of Reason some few Questions First then suppose there were represented to you while you were thinking of other matters or talking a Picture of our Lord haâ—gâ—ng on the Cross couâ—d you pâ—ssibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done or suffered for you And if not being able to forbid the entrance of such thoughts into your mind on such an occasion would your reason dictate to you that you had done ill in changing your thoughts from the World to God would you repent of it asking pardon of God and praying that such a tentation might never befall you aâ—terwards Does your enlightned reason suggest â—his to you Truly it iâ— do I believe you are of a temper of mind almost specifically different from all mankâ—â—d besides and they must change their nature before you make them of your perswasion or Church And yours is no a common sense if it either tell you that by your beating down of Crosses and breaking Church windows our good Countrymen think more of God than they did while those Remembrances were standing or if they think less that it is better for them to forget him 3. To make a step further Let it he supposed that at the same time you saw before you several Pictures of several Persons in a contrarâ— manner regarded by you as of St. Peter and Iudas of our late Severaign and Bradshaw Or put case you had in one hand a Bible and in the other the infamous story of Pantagruel does not your common sense and reason tell you that such Pictures or Books force upon you quite contrary thoughts and affections which regard those Pictures or Books not simply considered but as representing such Persons and containing such matters Which thoughts being just and not at all harmfull to you and withall almost impossible to be avoided I cannot find any reason why Reason should forbid them I am sure common sense will not 4. If then it be according to reason and common sense and likewise unavoidably to admit such different thoughts will not reason also warrant you to express outwardly by words or actions whatever you may without any fault think inwardly For my part I cannot imagin any scruple in this If then I may and must think reverently or contemptuously of the Objects I may as well speak or behave my self externally after the same manner to them respectively For whatsoever is ill or good in words or actions is so likewise in thoughts 5. Now to shew that such thoughts or affections regard not the Persons only but the Pictures also as representations of such Persons ask your own heart and you will find that you would not place St. Peter's picture or the King 's in an unclean dishonest place If any one should spit upon either of them your heart would rise against him and tempt you to strike him â— which it would not do if the same contemptuous usage were shewed to the picture of Iudas or Bradshaw Now this is so naturally imbibed in the hearts of all Mankind that in all Kings Courts a respect and outward mark of reverence is requird to the Chamber of Presence or Chair of State and a refusal of it much more a contemptuous behaviour would be criminal To apply this to the forementioned Books You could not bring your reason to permit you to tear out a leaf of the Bible for an unclean use as you could without the least remorse do to the story of Pantagruel or Aesop's fables 6. Let us now consider what kind of respect this is that we expresse to such Images Comparing the Images of St. Peter and our Sovereign's together we find that a respectful regard is had to both and a contemptuous usage of either would displease us Yet it is not the same kind of respect For St. Peter's Image we consider as of a man that puts us in mind of Heaven ann Heavenly things one highly favour'd by Almighty God a principal Courtier in his Kingdom and one that by his writings and example has been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happinesse We do not so esteem of every good King Therefore to shew the difference of our respect to each we would choose to give St. Peter's picture a place in our Oratory and the Kings in our Gallery But what Names to give these different respects is not easie to determin It is plain that which is given to the King's picture is purely a civil respect But what shall we call that which is given to St. Peters If we say it is Religious you will quarrel as derogating from God Let us therefore call it a sacred Veneration or honor For since all things that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God of Heaven and the salvation of our Souls we call Sacred this Name may well be applyed to such a Picture But moreover because there are not invented such variety of Names as there are things and there are far fewer sorts of outward postures of our Bodys denoting respect than there are Names or Words Hence it comes to passe that when we would expresse a Civil and a Sacred yea a Religious respect we are forced to to use the same outward behaviour of bowing kneeling c. to Fathers and Magistrates which we do to God himself Yea we find in the Scripture Kings adored and a prostration of Bodies paid to them Yet for all this no man will suspect that thereby any dishonor was intended to God or the Honor due onely to him was paid to Creatures 7. In the next place let reason and common sense give judgement of the distinction between the respect that may be paid to the Picture of St. Peter and that which ought to be paid to Himself in case he appear'd to us glorified as he is A Divine respect we pay to neither though sometimes we use such postures as we do when we pray or worship God It is then a Sacred Veneration only But yet there are
some expressions of respect which we would use to the Person that would be ridiculous to the Picture as reverently to speak to him to beg his Prayers to God for us to ask a Question c. 8. Our last Enquiry shall be into the difference of regard if any there be to our Saviour's Picture and St. Peter's the former representing to us him that is both God and Man the later meerly Man However we shall find that the regard to both the Pictures is of the same species and nature that is only Sacred because a Picture we never look upon but as an instrument to put us in mind or to call to our memories an object And therefore it being of our own framing is not capable of any respect beyond that which is due to so material inferior a thing what ever the object represented by it be True it is that the internal affections and thoughts occasionally raised in our minds will be infinitely different for we shall think upon Christ with Adoration Love Resignation and Obedience due to God only Not so of St. Peter But the Pictures themselves will be treated by us as Sacred Pictures only that deserve a respect proportionable And since it is evidenâ— they are capable of a sinful dis-respect consequently a due respect may be paid to them I say may not alwaies ought to be For then it would never be fit to put on ones Hat c. in a Room where there hangs a Crucifix 9. To sum up briefly our meaning in this whole matter We find minds too apt to be distracted from meditating on Divine things Therefore we help our selvs by such as will call to our memories and fix our thoughts upon objects good for our Souls Such are holy Pictures both in times of prayer and out we find this benefit by them Being such sacred things we must renounce our reason if we deny a respect may be due to them But by honoring with an outward regard a Picture we intend only to give a testimony what respect we beat to the person or holy thing represented And though for want of variety of postures we shew some part of the same outward Reverence to the Pictures of St. Peter and our Lord yet that signifies we only venerate St. Peter as a glorious Saint yet a Creature but that we adore Christ as God And no man that sees or knows us can think otherwise So that unlesse it be a fin to show outwardly what we are oblig'd to think inwardly there is not the least fault committed 10. And now Mr. Bagshow give me leave to acquaint you with your mistakes First this respect called by the Church Honor and Veneration which we affirm may be payd to Sacred Images you call Worshipping of Images meerly to make in odious to your ignorant Proselites For worship is commonly taken to be that honor which is due only to God and which we abhor to give to Images But Secondly You give it an other name more abominable calling it Idolatry such as God punished in the worst of Pagans Once at least in your life speak your Conscience Do you think or only suspect that we Roman Catholics worship false Gods and true Devils Do we consider our Images as they did their Idols to which by Magical conjurations they annexed an evil Spirit to do wonders and to extort Devine worship from the seduced people Taketheed Sir how you persist in so unjust a Blasphemy against Gods Church A time will come that you will be called to a strict account for it It concerns you therefore to make some reparation 11. But after all this take notice that the Catholic Church though it declare that such a veneration may fitly be given to holy Images as common reason and human nature cannot chuse but allow Yet it commands none to afford them even so much You may be a Roman Catholic all you life and never be obliged to perform any external respect to an Image There is not in Catholic Countries a Groom or Kitchin-Maid so ignorant but would rather burn an Image then afford it any honor due to God only And shall those that think thus and do only what human reason generally approves and cannot hinder be esteem'd and publisht by you the only Christians in the World fit to be thrust out of all Christian Kingdoms and executed as Traytors though otherwise they be acknowledgâ—most faithful peaceable men and obedient Subjects Are you not afraid of In quo judicio judicaveritis judicabimini 12. You see Sir how sinee you will not admit of Authorities to justifie the Belief and Practise of Roman Catholics but only common sense and reason I have complyed with you And now in one world tell you that you must never hope to make any sober man believe that Roman Catholics are Idolaters or even faulty in the matter of Images till you can demonstrate 1. That it is unlawful to make use of our seeing faculty to put us in mind of God 2. That he dishonors the King that shall with reverence bare headed and in a kneeling posture receive a Letter or Mandate that comâ—â— from him 3. That it is a contempt of God to go through a Church with ones head uncovered 4. And that it is unlawful and irreligious to make a scruple of using a Leaf of the Bible in the house of Office 13. For a Farewel I will conclude this Point with a Story the truth whereof several Gentlemen Protestants too in this Town are able to justifie In the Year 1651. a devout Italian Friar being appointed to preach in the Great Dome at Padua the Arch-bishop present and having been informed that among his Auditors there were some English Protestants who in discourse had earnestly objected as you do Idolatry to Catholics He therefore that he might encounter such a scandal made choice of the Doctrine concerning Images for the subject of a great part of his Sermon And when he came to that Point holding in his hand a Crucifix he could his hearers That that Image did in one glance lively represent even to the most ignorant beholder our Lord Iesus God and Man and almost all the Circumstances of his most bitter and accursed death so patiently and willingly suffered for us Thereupon with great Passion and Rhetoric he magnified the love of our Lord hanging on the Câ—oss earnestly pressing his Hearers to return a proportionable Love and Duty to him And during this Discourse he often with great reverence and tenderness of affection embraced and devoutly kissed the Crucifix Having said much to this purpose after a little pause he pursued his Discourse telling them he could not believe or suspect that any one who had heard and seen what he had said and done could reasonably imagin that he had any intention to dishonor our Lord by that which he had done to the Crucifix which represented him much lesse that he adored it as if he thought it a kind of God that he
accident but only Death become two again so as to be in the same capacity as they were before they were married And for this reason the Iews though permitted to marry afterward yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God Those whom God hath joyned let no man separate 6. Much lesse does the second species of Separation or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye The only lawful cause of which Separation is by our Savior allow'd and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornication that is indeed Adultery under which are likewise comprehended as our most learned Doctors say other more grievous sins of unnâ—tural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may not must cause such a perpetual separation is because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith By this separation whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party neither of them not the innocent party are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage for then they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage And here the Preacher may do well to consider what 〈◊〉 Patron he has betaken himself to which 〈◊〉 Chemnitius who against our Saviours Law as all Antiquity and the practice of the Englisâ— Reform'd Church interpret it contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party so teaching formal Adultery This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual that is the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies and are in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance whether or no to receive them again into their former condition Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery 7. The other two Separations not Divorces one whereof is only a toro from the Bed the other from Cohabitation also may be made for other causes besides fornication As for sâ—m very infectious diseases for almost irreconcileable quarrels for attempts of killing or wounding one another c. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces each of the parties being bound assoon as these impediments of conjugal conversation are removed to return as before to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspondence And till then I would ask the Doctor whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed or even his house a Serpent not only full of venom but ready and attempting to kill him with it Or if he have not this courage whether he will acknowledg such a separation so necessary even to the preservation of life to be a Divorce damnable because not for fornication What he will answer I know not But what he must if he go about to maintain his Assertion I am certain will be very irrational 8. Let him reflect on the practise of his own Church where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii à mensa toro these two are both allow'd in England now I ask the Doctor of which does our Saviour speak If he say of the first then clearly the Husband of an Adultresse may marry again which is contrary to the Law if he say of the second still â—e contradicts his own Law which every day allows a separation for other Causes besides that of Fornication Can we believe the Doctor never read the ordinary Cases wherein Diâ—orses are granted as Pre-contract Fear Frigidity Consanguinity c. all which dissolve the very Marriage it self and yet in all these the Marriage was valid till actual divorce and the children shall bear the Fathers name and inherit his lands if there never happen an actual divorce this the wise men of our Nation do and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ. Something like this for the second branch of the distinction St. Paul himself does and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour If says he the Vnbeliever depart let him depart a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases that is the Innocent may remain separate and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty which the Apostle allows to every private Person or why may not a General Council determin such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation Thus I conceive it clear'd that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent or Both guilty CHAP. XIX Of SCHISM The unpardonableness of that Crime acknowledged by Antiquity c. No cause or pretence can excuse it 1. HAving followed the Doctor through all his vainly pretended Novelties of Doctrine We are at last arrived to the most concerning Point of all Schism Most concerning certainly for there is not any one of the fore-mentioned Doctrines which in themselves considered would absolutely destroy Souls though they erred about them But Schism alone whatsoever Error of Doctrine yea though no Error of Doctrine were either indeed or pretended to be a cause of it will be inevitably damning to every Soul guilty of it which damnation neither rectitude of Faith nor any good Works nor even Martyrdom it self will be able to prevent For this cause sayes St. Augustine our Christian Creed concludes with the Articles touching the Church because if any one be found separated from her he shall be excluded out of the number of God's Children neither shall he have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his Mother It will nothing profit such an one that he hath been Orthodox in belief done so many good works c. 2. This is a Truth generally testified by the ancient Doctors of God's Church and not at all questioned by the more sober Writers of the English Church who have written of Schism c. They all are ready in words at least to say with St. Denys of Alexandria That we ought rather to endure any torments then consent to the division of God's Church since the Martyrdom to which we expose our selves by hindring a division of the Church is no less glorious then that which is suffer'd for refusing to sacrificâ— to Idols And with St. Pacian Though the Schismatick Novatian hath been put to death for the Faith yet he hath not been crown'd Why not crown'd Because he dy'd out of the peace concord and Communioâ— of the Church separated from that commâ—â— Mother of whom who ever will be a Marlyâ— must be a Member And with St. Irenâ—us There cannâ—t possibly be made any Reformation of such importance as the mischief 〈◊〉 Schism is pernicious c. 3. But I do not find that Protestant Doctors have endeavour'd to penetrate into the true grounds why above almost all other sins a Christian is capable of committing Schism that is the setting up an Altar against an Altar or the relinquishing the external Communion of the Church the making Collects or Assemblies without yea against the consent of Bishops or Church Governours c. should
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
how to express the Catholick Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people and prevent Hereticks from abusing them Hence it was St. Athanasius said We meet here not because we wanted a Faith i. e. were incertain what to hold but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth Which Rule if Councils observe I think the Doctor would scarce refuse to obey them and our only difference in this point I hope is he thinks they do not observe this Rule and I think they do CHAP. XXVI The Preacher's boasting Catholicks cannot justly be obliged to shew from Antiquity Evidences of their Doctrines Conditions necessary to be Observed by the Doctor in case he Reply Of the Name Protestant 1. THus I have gone through and examin'd except to those who love to be contentious sufficiently all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholick Church I have likewise brought to the Test all the Allegations made by him either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Roman Catholick or at least to perswade us not to call it Schism And it seems to me I have demonstrated him unsuccessful in both Nay more which is a great misery if he would consider it with that seriousness which Eternity deserves I think I have prov'd that the fearful crime of Schism will lye heavie upon his Church though he had shew'd all the Points by him mention'd to be Novelties And having done this I must say with St. Augustin Vtinam verba ista infuderim non effuderim But considering the present temper of this Age I doubt I shall have reason to fear according to the same holy Father's expression lest when I beg them to afford their ears they should make ready their teeth 2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to complain as he doth in his Sermon of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the Four first General Councils Truly this Speech of his seems to me so vain and rash and shameless a boast that I cannot but blush for him when I read it and tremble for him when I see Truth so little consider'd by a Preacher sustaining God's Person as he pretended 3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of shâ—wing that Iota as to which they have left c. If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiquity or that we believe not even since we have seen their Answers that our demonstrations are unanswerable there are extant whole Libraries of our Controvertists sufficient to overwhelm him Particularly before he say so again let him enquire out and consider a Book written by Simon Vogorius Counseller to the French King entituled An Assertion of the Catholick Faith out of the Four first Oecumenical Councils and other received Synods within that time Or even let him review what is quoted against him here concerning one of his own Points Celibacy of the Clergy out of the Four first General and several other as ancient Provincial Councils Before all which Councils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his dayes about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an Iota with him How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive and Antiquity Antique enough to use his words Unless he will shrink up Primitive Antiquity from the 6th Age to the 4th from the 4th to the 3d. where few Writings being extant less of the Churches Doctrines and Customs can be shewn in them Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times as the Presbyterians in the Plea of Antiquity treat the Prelatists For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers when they are straitned with proofs are wont to retire So Bishop Iewel long ago made a bold challenge to be tryed by Antiquity for the first 600 years But after many hot Encounters between the Controvertists and after Antiquity better discover'd to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first A. Bp. Lawd more cautious contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrower to the Fathers of the first 400 years or thereabouts The Protestants saith he offer to be tryed by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years and somewhat further And since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years For the particular Doctrines saith he wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils And again We profess saith he to believe so much and not to be convinced by all the Reasons and Authorities and Proofs from Scriptures or the first Christian Writers those of the first 300 years or the Four General Councils Where by submission to the Four first General Councils he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost not obliging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these Four Councils and sate in them For though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age yet he claims a tryal by the Fathers only to the end of the 3d Age. Again by this submission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only he bars most of the chief Fathers and all those that are more large and Voluminous from bearing any witness against Protestants and leaves scarse half a score Authors of Note now extant and several writing only some short Treatises or Epistles whereby they are content to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity 4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity let us hear two or three bolder spirits that speak plain and freely What sayes Doctor Willet Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of supposed antiquity as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites and the reason is given for Anti-christ began to raign in the Apostles dayes in St. Pauls dayes What says Acontius Some of us are come to that that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers which I would to God they had performed with prosperous success as they hopefully attempted it c. I onely think this
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.