the Priest as by the people as well at Mass as at Mattins as well at the Altar as in the body of the Church Indeed you tell us it might have been lawful if the Church had so ordered it But do you think S. Austin would have said so too is it not his business to distinguish betwixt the honour which was given to the Martyrs by the Christians and by the Gentiles to the Daemons and having said that they erect no Altars to them as the heathens did for sacrifice but sacrificed to God alone he adds that at this sacrifice the Martyrs were not invocated as the Gentile Daemons were but only nominated now what is it to his purpose to tell us they are not invocated at the Altar if they were invocated elsewhere well then your last refuge is the invocation of Latria which Saint Austin must be thought to speak of C. 21. because he tells us in his twentieth Book against Faustus Manichaeus that they do not worship the Saints with Latria Ans But who told you that invocation of them was not esteemed Latria by him why else doth he say that the Saints were not worshipped sicut dii as the Heathen Gods and then after this non invocantur Secondly Doth he not say non invocantur sed nominantur now I hope your invocation is not nomination and therefore 't is somewhat above it and consequently somewhat comprehended in that which he opposeth to it so likewise in the place you cite he tells us they afforded that cultum dilectionis and such as was given to holy men that were now alive yea saith he we sound forth their praises but we do not worship them with Latria where albeit Faustus there objected that they worshipped them votis similibus with such prayers or vows as the heathens worshipped their Idols with yet could he not get Saint Austin to acknowledge they prayed unto them at all but having told us that they praised them there he stops and riseth no higher albeit the objection and the business in hand which was to shew what honour the Saints did receive from them and what they thought not fit to yield unto them did require it Thus have we returned an Answer to our Authours pleas from Scripture and Antiquity our next work should be to confront to them those many arguments by which our Champions do confute this superstition and plead the cause of Christ against them but I shall wave it at present and content my self with evidencing the judgement and practice of Antiquity to run contrary to them And 1. Sect. 19 It is a strong presumption that this Invocation of Saints is not so pious so profitable as the Trent Council doth imagine in that we find neither precept nor example of all the Fathers of the Old Testament whereby this kind of service to them may be warranted To this the usual Answer of the Papist is Vid. Bellar. praefat in controvers de Eccles triumph ante that the spirits of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Worthies who flourished under the Old Testament were kept in limbus patrum a place nigh to hell appointed for these Fathers to be retained in till the descent of our Blessed Saviour thither But this Answer is evidently grounded upon a false foundation it being clear from Scripture that they were not included in such a place but did enjoy the Kingdome of Heaven Luk. 13 28. For Abrahams bosom is clearly propounded as the place into which the Blessed Angels before the death of Christ convey'd the souls of those which departed in the favour of God Luke 16. and that this bosome is virtually and in terms equivalent Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall ly down promised to those which afterwards should believe is sufficiently evinced from that place of Saint Matthew many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven for the joys of heaven are likened to a feast in which according to the custom then in use they lay down with the head of one towards the breast of another who is therefore said to lie in his bosom and therefore when 't is said of the faithful that believed after Christs death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall lie down at this feast with Abraham 't is as much as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Euthymius paraphraseth it that is they shall lie down in the bosom of Abraham adde to this that when God translated Enoch and Elias was carried up in a Chariot to heaven they could not be conveyed to this limbus patrum a place so nigh to the receptacle of the damned spirits yea 't is not likely they were conveyed to a place where they had no vision of God and yet there is no reason to think Abraham David Daniel and other of the Prophets should be in a worse place or condition then Enoch or Elias seeing they had as large a testimony of their pleasing God as they We go farther yet and urge against them Sect. 20 that in the New Testament it self we can descry no footsteps of this Invocation more then we did in the Scriptures of the Old Saint Paul doth frequently sollicite his brethren to pray for him and for the furtherance of the Gospel P. 1. but not one petition can we find directed to an Angel or Saint departed here presently they flie to their traditions but in vain for if any such tradition as this were at first delivered we demand how it should come pass that for the space of 360 years together after the birth of our Saviour we can find no mention in the Fathers of any such thing but on the contrary when urged by heathens that it was their duty to pray to Saints and Angels they stoutly denied it and cried away with such evil counsel Irenaeus in his first book speaks of Hereticks that had strange phansies concerning Angels attributing much unto them in relation to which he denies that the Church did any thing l. 2. c. 57. viz. in reference to miraculous cures by invocation of Angels or by incantations but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord which made all and invocating the name of our Lord Jesus Christ now whereas Fevardentius tells us that he speaks of the invocation of evil spirits we ask him why then is it that no limitation is given but all Angellical invocation absolutely denied why is it that he binds up the prayers of the Church to God the Father through the name of his Son Lib. de Orat. cap. 12. Tertullian saith we deservedly upbraid those prayers with vanity which are made without the Authority of any precept of our Lord or his Apostles for such are rather to be esteemed superstitious then Religious shew us then a precept of our Lord or his Apostles and we will cease to impeach your practice as superstitious vanity but seeing that is impossible
were to do it indefinitely appears because they are sent by him to all Nations not fixt to any part of his flock Yea I demand whether when St. Paul Act. 20. gave commandment to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock over which Christ had made them overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might not have charged them in these words feed the sheep of Christ Whether seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations common to him with the rest he might not indefinitely have constituted Bishops and given them this charge or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others were not an indefinite Pastor and had not a commission of feeding Christs Sheep or Lambs which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter If therefore what was given to St. Peter was likewise conferr'd upon all the rest how can it be that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded And whereas 't is argued that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christs flock indefinitely and therefore of the Apostles seeing they are Christs Sheep may it not with equal reason be concluded that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations and every creature they were commissionated teachers of St. Peter and he ought to be subject to them as a Disciple to his Teacher Yea the argument is more forcible seeing here we have mention made of every creature whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christs Sheep De Agon Christi c. 30. Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin Cum dicitur Petro ad omnes dicitur Pasce oves meas Nor Mr. C. p. 73. 4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only no this is common to them all for when in the Gospel of St. John Jesus said to his Disciples Receive the Holy Ghost he constituted them all such as was Peter to which Testimony may be added Hieron Ambrose Cyprian Hilary Austin Theophylact Leo Euthym. Bed Anselm Hugo Lyran and the Council of Colen All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s 6. Nor Mr. C. ib. 5. From this that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision or the Gentiles who yet will not be allowed to have this external administration Ibid. And to talk of a dedication of St. Pauls office by St. Peters going to Cornelius a Proselyte when St. Paul was at Tarsus is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation Especially if it be considered that notwithstanding this St. Lib. 1. de prov Dei Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak ubi supra Chrysostom will tell us That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul nay nor equal to him That he as another Aaron was anointed Priest over the whole world That he was a Pillar of the Church more firm not only than Peter but than any stone rock or iron To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed And which is most observable that he governed the whole world as one house or one ship In which ship as St. Ambrose tells us Christ is the foundation the Father is the Pilot the Holy Spirit Proram servat and which the twelve Apostles as her bank of Oares bring into the Haven So that here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter Now then these things being so I argue thus Either in these places our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration or he did not if he did then it follows evidently that he gave the same power to the Apostles also seeing what he gave to St. Peter we have proved he gave to them if not then let them tell us where Christ gave this power to St. Peter and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it 2. It is manifest 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter for he saith have not I chosen you twelve Joh. 6.70 Joh. 20.21 as my Father sent me so send I you 2. It is manifest that Christ gave supream jurisdiction to the whole company of Apostles and this your Bellarmine confesseth De Pontis l. 4. c. 23. yea that he gave them all power whether external or internal yea he proves it too 1. Because he saith as my Father sent me so send I you whosesoever sins ye remit c. But now saith he Christ without all controversie was sent with full and absolute power and therefore his Apostles must be so and this Exposition or Argument from the place he backs with the Fathers and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like 2. In locum He proves it hence that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church doth it thus first Apostles secondarily Teachers thirdly Prophets c. And this he doth when his design is to shew that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest and having done so puts the question Are all Apostles can they all plead to equal power with them Now had there been one supream over the Apostles why doth he say in general first Apostles when 't is his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church why doth he leave out the chief Certainly if the Apostles were all first Chilling to me it is very probable that no one was before the other for by first all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sence the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest or if you say that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors but St. Peter first of all then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles and therefore they must be first in the other sence and therefore no man and therefore not St. Peter must be before them Bellarmine elsewhere saith that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church but of those that were indowed with extraordinary gifts and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter But 1. What doth he think of Teachers were they extraordinary persons 2. If this be the reason why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11 where we have Pastors Evangelists Prophets Apostles without any distinction set over us till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men 3. He proves it because they had commission from Christ to go
Sect. 8 sect 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals is a strange miscarriage for albeit hee gives us this assertion in Italian Characters that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals yet doth hee assuredly impose upon the Reader for neither the Arch-Bishop nor Dr. Field have any such assertions in the places cited and therefore I am not obliged to consider what hee returns to a limitation which is framed by himself Lastly to the fourth condition that there appears nothing Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding He asks still who shall judge Wee Answ Who was it that judged the proceedings in the Council of Calcedon to be unlawful was it not Mr. C yea p. 51. 2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum that matters were unlawfully handled there need wee any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council is it not so legible that he that runs may read it and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholicks eye witnesses thereof Sect. 10 But were General Councils absolutely infallible and were their decrees without any limitations or demurs to bee assented to yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome which cannot shew that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto were ever determined by a General Council nay this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism in rejecting the new Articles she requires of us as conditions of her Communion Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing she requires them contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council which saith that it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any beleif beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice and that they which should dare to compose or tender or offer any such other Faith to any that were willing to convert from Judaism Gentilism or any other Heresie whatsoever if they were Bishops should be degraded if Layicks anathematized or excommunicated And this brings mee to my next Proposition which is this The Trent Conventicle was no General Council Proposition 5. This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe and give you authority for them where it is needful His words are these How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to bee present except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus entituled Arch-Bishop of Vpsall Or Sir Robert the Scotchman entituled Arch-Bishop of Armagh How was that General or so much as patriarchal where so great a part of the West was wanting wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassails and many of them the Popes parasitical hungry Pentioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdomes and Nations put together See the Review of the Trent Council written by a Roman Catholick lib. 1. c. 9. sect 8. chap. 10. sect 2. How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions at any one time upon a months warning Idem lib. 1. c. 10. sect 1. How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France id chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as might ensure thereupon yet did they never admit it And as it was not general so neither was it free nor lawful Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party it being in the Popes dominions and his Armies continually abroad Sleid. l. 17. Idem lib. 1. c. 7. sect 16. Where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopt or was turned out of the Council where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Fathers were noted to bee guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male where divers not onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Id. l. 1. c. 9. Nor yet lawful in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debit rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province and the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed and likewise in regard of the Judge In that 1. The Pope was a party whose reformation was urged And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge or President in the Council 2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council and it was never known that hee from whom the appeal was made should bee Judge in the very case of appeal Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again in every Judgement there ought to bee four distinct persons The Accuser the Witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Council of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself Hee was the right guilty person and yet withal the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly No man can lawfully be condemned before he be heard But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation but were condemned before they were called id sect 1. c. 5. Now in defence of this Council we are told 1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was onely straitned by their own respective temporal Princes and not by the Roman Court. Mr. C. p. 270. Answ It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope and for this reason the decision of things proposed was frequently prorogued because the resolution of the Pope and Court of Rome Mr. C. Ib. was not known unto them id sect 1. chap. 9. 2. Saith he the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby which it concerns not me to refute and therefore I refer you to the same Author l. 1. c. 1. sect 4. sect 6. c. 14. sect 1 9. l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1 2 3. in all which places the Author shews that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope 3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines Mr. C. p. 271. Answ True the History of that Council tells us they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans before they proceeded to debate the matter and the Bull of Paul the third bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us that the very end of calling this Council was the extirpation of