Reign of Henry the Eighth agreed with the Church of Rome and all other Churches in her Communion concerning Faith and Doctrine is undeniable That at his coming to the Crown there was an Actual Church Government settled by a long continuance in Antient Possession is undebatable That Protestants alter'd the then own'd Faith and brake the Bands of that Government is manifest to the World Both the Time when and Occasion why can be assign'd Moreover That the first Protestants were born of Catholick Parents and Originally in the Communion of the Catholick Church is unquestionable and that they as desirous of Innovation voluntarily departing from that Church renouncing those points which were Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government ipso facto became Schismaticks is easily prov'd for Schismaticos non fides diversa facit sed communionis disrupta societas says St. Hierom on Matt. 11. Now how Rome should be guilty of Schism which did never withdraw from any known Christian Society or depart from the Communion of any former Church with which before she held Communion I cannot possibly apprehend she continu'd fix'd where she was as the Pillar and Firmament of Truth All Hereticks and Schismaticks go out of her this going out is an antient note of Falshood Truth being elder than Error They went forth from us 1 John 2. 19. And certain that went from us Acts 15. 14. and accordingly St. Austin 3. tract Epist Johan says Omnes Haeretici omnes Schismatici ex nobis exierunt i. e. ex Ecclesia exeunt And de Symb. Lib. 1. Haereses omnes de Ecclesia exierunt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice And in this Case the Rule of Optatus is very observable Videndum est quis in radice cum toto Orbe manserit quis for is exierit Lib. primo Now as for Luther and Calvin when they had voluntarily departed from the Roman Church they separated from all the Christian-Churches in the World and consequently from the Catholick Church for they did not adjoyn themselves in Communion of Sacraments to any Christian Church which was existent before their revolt from the Roman there being not one Church to be found upon Earth antecedent to their Apostacy to which they did apply themselves after their defection but they stood alone till they had acquir'd more Revolters out of the Roman Communion this is most clear and confess'd by themselves Luther in his Preface to King Henry says of himself Solus primo eram and Calvin to the same effect in his Epistle to Melancthon Absurdum est postquam discessionem a toto orbe facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab aliis dissilire So this New Church at the first was but one Person which by the accession of more Schismaticks grew numerous being protected by the Secular against the Spiritual Power But to prove your departure from the Roman Communion to be unvoluntary and consequently not Schismatical according to your definition of Schism you cite a saying which you say was King James's Non fugimus sed fugamur I must confess I never could be inform'd how the truth of these Words could be made out for Protestants before their Excommunication having made a wilful breach may be said to be Fugitivi rather than Fugati and accordingly their Expulsion may not so properly be term'd a driving them out of the Church as their Punishment for going out they having before deserted the Church of their own accord So she had too much reason to make use of her Spiritual Weapons for they by their Novel Doctrine and Schismatical Separation having first receded from her and by way of Anti-communion rais'd a new party of Pretended Reform'd Christians distinct from the general Body of the Catholick Church having instituted new Rites and moulded new Articles of Faith contrary not only to the Roman but to the Faith of all particular Churches then known immediately before they began their Separation and refusing to Communicate and joyn with her in Publick Liturgy and Participation of Sacraments disowning her Faith and Power to which they had submitted for above 900 Years and persisting obstinate in their Opinions and Separation the Church having with much patience attended their return and having try'd all Methods that might seem conducive to their amendment was enforc'd at last to proceed against them according to her Canons by a just Excommunication eliminating them from her Bosom for their Schism as St. Paul did the Infamous Corinthian for his Incest who by the heinous offence gave the first cause of his Excision So 't is manifest that the orignal departure was theirs and accordingly St. Hierom in his Comments Epistle to Titus avers Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo And Cyprian in his Fortieth Epistle Paenas quas meruerunt pependerent ut a nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent de Ecclesiâ se expellerent For the Church forsakes no Person neither doth she eject any but like a tender Mother cherishes her Children in her Vital and Fotive Breast unless such as wilfully separate themselves by their obstinate adhesion to Heretical Doctrines or by persevering in a Flagitious course of Life so as she is not now the hindrance of their Reunion so neither was she at first the occasion of their Separtion Protestants well knowing that their formal Schism can neither be deny'd nor maintain'd find themselves oblig'd to acknowledge the Matter of Fact but to blanch and candy their Crime pretend to have had a just Cause given them for their Separation and upon this supposition accuse the Church of Rome of causal Schism This is what I conceive Dr. Stillingfleet to mean when he says The Church of Rome imposing unlawful Conditions of Communion it was necessary not to Communicate with her Bishop Lawd is very clear herein The cause of Schism is yours says he for you thrust us from you because we call'd for Truth and Redress of Abuses As for Abuses if any were crept in they ought to have been redress'd and this is properly Reformation but to alter receiv'd Articles of Faith establish'd by Councils that is Heresie But I could not be satisfied what truth it was that the Bishop says they call'd for I am fully convinc'd that in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Reign our English Church did retain as a faithful depositary all those Sacred Truths which Gregory the Great convey'd unto us by St. Austin who I do fully believe did convert this Nation to the true Faith establishing his Doctrine with Miracles which Doctrine is still preserv'd unstain'd by the Catholicks of this Kingdom So I could not understand what the Bishop meant by calling for Truth neither could I tell when or by whom it was call'd for I must confess Henry the Eighth who open'd the Sluces to let in all the ensuing Mischief did call and that Vocally but not for Truth
fallaces Opiniones suas conantur defendere as Hilarius attests Lib. prim de Trint Vincent Lyrinensis to the same effect Nihil de suo proferunt quod non Scripturarum verbis adumbrare conentur This they formerly did and still do to reject the Authority of the Church and to avoid a living Judge they appeal to the Scripture then they assume to themselves what they deny the Church it 's Exposition perverting it's true Sense according to their wild Fancies and so crooken the Rule to their own Bent This was observ'd by St. Basil Hexam Hom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These falsifiers of Truth which do not teach their mind to follow the Scripture but contort the meaning of Divine Writ to their own Wills Now tho' the Scripture as being the Word of God is infallibly true yet it do's witness of it self that it is not of private Interpretation and those that dare Expound it that way may instead of sound Truths extract damnable Doctrines St. Austin avouches That all Heresies take their Birth from its wrong Interpretation in his 222 Epistle to Consentius Neque enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene To avoid this we must not Interpret them according to our Fancies but adhere to the Interpretations of the Church not at all questioning but that that Spirit of Truth which did direct it to distinguish Canonical from Adulterine Writ will likewise instruct it in the right Interpretation And herein consists the difference betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks as St. Austin observes Libro de Gratia Haeretici secundum suum sensum Sacras Scripturas legunt but we according to Antiquity and constant Tradition receiving both the Scripture and its Sense from the Church and her Authority is so considerable herein that St. Austin Epist Manich. says Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas The Second Reason is because you pay Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Of this I shall hereafter have occasion to take notice and likewise of your Honesty and Integrity in quoting them The Third Reason to acquit your self of Schism is because you own the first four General Councils and are willing that the difference betwixt you and other Churches should be decided by their Vmpirage but I must tell you That if you own'd Forty Councils instead of Four and revolted from the Church that would not discharge you of the Crime of Schism As for your pretended willingness to admit them as Judges in differences betwixt you and other Churches this will appear to be a very empty Compliment unless you can prove that they made Definitions concerning our Modern Controversies they conven'd to define about the Heresies rise in those days of the Arrians Nestorians Eutychians Macedonians not concerning those of Protestants a word not then known and had their Doctrines been then extant they would as certainly have been condemned as the foregoing I shall only instance in one point in one Council that of Chalcedon I am fully convinc'd that that Council which paid so much respect to Pope Leo acknowledging him to have receiv'd the custody of the Vineyard from Christ granting him when they sent their Relation to him to preside over them by vertue of his Legate as the Head do's over the Members would have severely sentenc'd your revolt from that See That Council which depos'd Dioscurus the Patriarch of Alexandria and consequently no Subject of Leo's as he was Patriarch of the West not for any Erroneous Doctrine but for his Sawciness against him whom they call his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord and because he dar'd to convene a Synod without leave from the Apostolick See would most certainly have condemn'd your defection ftom the Authority of your Occidental Patriarch and more your Opprobrious Revilings of him But why the first four General Councils why not a Stage farther why Hic Terminus haeret Can you prove that all Contests in Matters of Faith arising in future Ages and in much different Centuries could possibly be determin'd in those Councils Would you have an Heresie be condem'd before it be broach'd your referring all our Controversal Differences to their Decision is as irrational as if Macedonius who was condemn'd concerning his Heresie about the Holy Ghost in the Second General Council had appeal'd to the Nicene which assembled chiefly to confute the Heresie of Arrius concerning God the Son and determin'd nothing about the Third Person of the Trinity Besides I know no reason why the Church should be credited in the first four General Councils and slighted and disbeliev'd in the following Christ promis'd he would be with them to the consummation of the World I do not in the least question but that the same Spirit of Truth which guided and directed the Church in its first Synods did accompany it in all its succeeding Conventions rendring it inerrable in its Definitions of Faith I can find no place where Christ promis'd to be with them for a limited time so as to direct them in their first four Assemblies and to leave them for the future to themselves It would have been a great incouragement to all new Heresies if no Decision in Gods Church should have been after the first four General Councils The truth of it is this 'T is usual with Hereticks to be Enemies to those Councils and to reject them that have condemn'd their Opinions charging them with Error as the Arrians did that of Nicene the Nestorians that of Ephesus the Eutichians that of Chalcedon and accordingly the Emperor Zeno being an Eutychian having put out a Profession of Faith which he call'd Henoticon he left out the Council of Chalcedon which had condemn'd that Error embracing only the Faith of the three first Councils The next thing I shall Discourse of will be concerning your Church which you assert to have all the Essentials of a true Church and to be a sound part of the Catholick This I wish you had prov'd as manifestly as you confidently affirm it Had you done this I would never have forsaken its Communion You cannot but imagine it to be a very hard task for any to forsake his Relations his Friends his Countrey-men in Matters of Religion and thereby to expose himself to their Odium the severity of rigid Laws and his Temporal Concerns to ruine nothing but the saving of ones Soul can be preponderant to all these Mischiefs So you may conceive that had I imagin'd my self as safe in reference to my Salvation in your Church as where I now am I had most certainly fix'd my self there Clavo Trabali As to your asserting your Church to have all the Essentials of a true one I must tell you plainly this That I find in the Fathers many to be condemn'd for Hereticks for denying but one of those many Articles which you disown But as for Essentials and Fundamentals I know you pretend to them but I cannot see
p. 27 CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation p. 34 CHAP. V. Of Communion in one kind p. 43 CHAP. VI. Concerning Publick Prayers in Latin and of several other Points p. 50 CHAP. VII Concerning Protestants objecting Errors to the Church of Rome The Authors Apologie for himself His Advice to the Protestant Divine with some other Particulars p 56 PART II. CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter p. 67 CHAP. II. The difference betwixt Nathaniel's and St. Peter's Confession of Christ and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum p. 74 CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ p. 86 CHAP. IV. Concerning Christs Reply to St. Peter's Answer Whether the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy be grounded on Scripture Of Christs being the Rock and St. Peter's being the Rock Of St. Austin's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram p. 95 CHAP. V. Concerning St. Peter's Faith or Confession being the Rock And how those Fathers who Interpret that to be the Rock Exclude not his Person p. 109 CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place p. 117 PART III. CHAP. I. Of the Keys That they denote Supreme Power Whether Sobna were High-Priest Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs The differenoe betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood p. 133 CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. p. 144 CHAP. III. Of the Keys In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest That what Christ reply'd was directed immediately to Peter only In what Sense 't was extendible to the Rest How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church receiv'd the Keys in St. Austin's Sense Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys With Advice to him p. 156 CHAP. IV. Of St. Peter's being call'd Satan And of his Denial p. 171 CHAP. V. The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission Why St. Peter was sorry for Christs thrice asking him The Reason of the trine Interrogation That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only p. 176 CHAP. VI. That St. Peter's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation That Peter by vertue of Pasce Oves meas had Vniversal Jurisdiction Several nice Distinctions answered That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor With an Apostrophe to him p. 190 CHAP. I. Containing the Introduction and concerning St. Peter's True Successor SIR I Had no sooner perused the Papers you sent me but by way of a Letter I imparted unto you my Sense of 'em and withal acquainted you that I would answer ' em But having at that time Imbarqu'd my self in a particular Study which my Genius warps to with a stronger propension than to Controversal Points in Divinity I could not prevail with my relucting Fancy to relinquish it and reassume Polemics till I had conducted it to a Completion But I need not make use of any excusive words for this my long silence matters of so high importance as I am now about to handle ought to be maturely perpended and not spurred on with a hurrying precipitancy However if the adjournment of this my rejoynder hath seem'd to you too long protracted I am content to afford you a proportion'd consideration for your forbearance which you shall find lapp'd up in these Papers As for Disputation I am not so much a forreigner to my self as to be ignorant of its being an imployment not only discordant to my Temper but surmounting my Abilities requiring a richer Exchequer of Learning than I can pretend to So I would not have you figure to your self that I catch at the name of a Disputant I yield that Dignity to those whose politer Temper and more embellish'd Parts entitle 'em to that Honor. But if my Talent did excell this way I should very unwillingly grapple with so topping an Antagonist as you are It might seem presumption in me who am but a Laic to enter the List and take up the Gantlet against so eminent a Controvertist But that which makes me more backward herein is my fear you being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of incurring the displeasure of the rest of your Coat who like the Bells in Joves Dodonean-Grove hang so close together that if one be touch'd all of 'em sound this inconvenience I have fully surrounded so I shall not here so much pretend to oppose you as to defend my self which in Honour I am oblig'd to do And I hope hereby I shall not disgust any Ingenuous Person for you having answered me so briskly and so convincingly as you fancy'd I could do no less than try whether your or my Opinion were erroneous and so expiscate the Truth which I find not to float on the Surface of the Well but to dive very deep according to the saying of Pyrrhon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth lies at the bottom It will then be my present employ to examine those Papers which I composed both for the Satisfaction and Defence of my Brother and withal to bring your Answer to a strict Disquisition this is my whole proponiment my pretensions aspiring to no more than what every Christian ought to have a short Scheme and Diagram of his Religion which is what St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a Platform of Sound Doctrine is attainable by one of the Laity if he will bend his Mind to the Acquisition of it and not indulge himself in a lazy desidious acquiescency For as St. Chrysost affirms Serm. de Sigillis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Soul hath in it self the Seed of Divinity Now if it ever were necessary to possess such an abridgment of wholesome Principles 't is much more so in this humorous inquisitive Age which presents us with so many varieties of false Opinions dress'd up in the semblance of Truth that if a discerning Circumspection be not made use of the fallacy may pass
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
things besides God are to be Adored as in August de Civit. Dei Lib. 10. c. 4. Homines si multum eis addatur etiam adorandi and Cyr. Alexand. Hom. de Deipara Crux adoratur toto orbe torrarum Accordingly Lactantius Flecte genu Lignumque Crucis venerabile adora And St. Hierom Epist 17. says Baptistae cineres adorate St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration on Theodosius praises the Empress Helena for setting the Cross upon the Crown of Kings that it might be ador'd in them Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit locavit ut Crux Christi in Regibus adoretur And St. Hierom in Epitaph Paulae reports of her that having at Hierusalem found out the Cross upon which Christ suffered she ador'd it as if she even had seen our Saviour hanging on it St. Chrysost is very clear herein in several places but more especially in his Hom. de Adorat Crucis That the Primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Cross may be prov'd out of Tertullian in his Apology where he acknowledges that the Heathens took notice of it and accus'd them as Crucis Religiosos This double acceptation of the word Adoration was well known to Mr. Thorndike who affirms the words Adoration Worship Respect and Reverence to be equivocal and the cause of this Equivocation to be for want of words to signify those conceptions which flow not from Common Sense and from this Equivocation in those words the greatest part of the difficulties which occur take their rise So you may see how deceitfully you deal by us herein always taking the words Adore Worship as importing Supreme Honor to God and then falsely accusing us of giving Gods Honor to a Creature or Image which we detest with a greater abhorrency than your self The other thing the Council took care in not to leave the least umbrage of suspition of Idolatry to any Rational Man is that they did disown any Virtue or Divinity to be in them that upon that account they should be respected or that they should be requested any thing or any trust reposed in them as the Gentiles did c. and this puts me in mind of what Gregory several hundred Years before the Council wrote in his Seventh Book of his Epistles to Secundinus who it seems had desired Gregory to send him some Pictures which he did and likewise instructs him in the right use of them agreeable to the Council Scio quidem quod Imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas sed ut ad recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas cujus te imaginem videre desideras nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur sed illum adoremus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed in Throno sedentem recordamur CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation THe next Point by which you would prove Rome guilty of Schism is Transubstantiation which you have lewdly abused and injuriously represented but I am afraid you are not so much offended at the word as at the meaning of it As to the word the Church was pleas'd to make use of it as fit and proper to declare the change of the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ Quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat As the Lateran Council says Canone Secundo And accordingly the Council of Trent Quae conversio convenienter proprie à S. Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellatur The Council defines not the word to be of Faith but makes use of it as a fit word expressive of their Sense so that if you can tell me a more proper one than this I shall not quarrel with you about it For names of words speaking in their rigour are not Objects of Faith as Athanasius shews in his Reconciliation of the Verbal Controversie of Person and Hypostasis but the Matter and Sense therein couch'd As to the newness of the word which is often objected tho' it was never in Latin publickly authoriz'd before the Council of Lateran yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be prov'd to be very antient and the thing thereby signify'd seems as old as Christs celebration of his Supper For a Point of Faith may be elder in it self than the Council that defines it The Consubstantiality of the Son and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost must be admitted to be elder than the Council of Nice and Constantinople that defin'd them The Conciliary Definition being generally occasion'd by the emergency of Heretical Opinions contrary to the Sense of the Church which had they not arose the Church had never been necessitated to a more Explicit Declaration Thus it happened here Sundry monstrous Opinions being broach'd about the Blessed Sacrament the Church was oblig'd to intervene with her unerring determinations establishing the Truth and dispelling Error Now tho' this Article was always in it self of the substance of Faith and tho' the thing signify'd by the new term was always held as a Divine Truth yet it was not obliging under that notion till the Solemn Declaration of the Church Quae veritas etsi prius erat de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata as Scotus says Now that the Church has power to coyn a new word for the Elucidating Truth and that she hath made use of this Power is clear by the Council of Nice which to declare Christs Consubstantiality with the Father found out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Council of Ephesus which to express the Mystery of Christs Divine Incarnation made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara That the Fathers long before the Council of Lateran and Trent did believe a Real change after the consecratory words is most evident and accordingly to express their belief of a Real Conversion they make use of Real Changes mention'd in Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent Water into Wine Hence the Greek Fathers call this mutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming after the Consecration the Symbols to be chang'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek words importing Transelementation Transfaction Transmutation Transfiguration Thus St. Ambrose Lib. 4. de fide Per Sacrae Orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur sanguinem and Lib. 4. de Sacramento Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod jam corpus est Christi ipse dixit factum est And again Sermo Christi qui poterit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant And accordingly George Nyssen in orat catechet Recte Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credo transmutari And Cyril Hieros in his Catech. Myst says Panis
and perplex'd that I think no Point stands more in need of an Assistant Hand to unclue its Intricacies and to restore it to its native undisguis'd Visage than this And if as Greg. Nazianzen affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Truth is with difficulty demonstrated and made visible This may seem to require more pains than most others to represent it clear and manifest it containing so many difficulties seemingly insuperable and so many Knots inextricable that to solve all the Doubts and Objections about it would be a very fit Task for an Elias to undertake For tho' this Point has had very Eminent Champions who with the richest Bullion of their Learning and Florid Eloquence have maintain'd it yet has it had no want of considerable Opposers to impugn it who guided either by their Judgment or Interest have not fail'd to make a fair Scene and Pomp both of their Reading and Talents to undermine it I who incidentally fell upon this Subject am not insensible of its being too Sublime for me to handle nor ignorant of its being too momentous and weighty for me to sustain its Pondure but finding my self engag'd therein and discovering in my self a particular curiosity in penetrating deeper into it I shall not now stop my pursuit and indagation after it but continue the quest till I have given my self full satisfaction and rescu'd this Captive Truth from those Fetters you have enchained it with in your obscure Durance And as you have united all the Forces of your Wit to the numerous Auxiliaries of Quotations and Spoyls of plundred Authors pressing even the unwilling Fathers to fight for you in defence of your Opinion so I question not but to meet you with as great a strength and to vie and drop Citations with you attended with larger Shoals and Clouds of Testimonies Now tho' this is likely to prove a toilsome and operose Province yet I am resolv'd to undergo it hoping to meet with some alleviation of my Fatigue in the detection of your Errors which cannot be but delectable and satisfactory for as we have in us a Principle of Abhorrency from being impos'd on so we are naturally endow'd with a strong Appetite and bent to the investigation of Truth and as Cicero observes Veritatis luce menti hominis nihil dulcius nothing is more luscious and pleasing to our Natures than Truth This is that fine Mistress which Men of all persuasions pretend to Court but is enjoy'd by few most being cheated by the Counterfeits and Impostures of Error dress'd up in her semblance for Error Fallacy and Deception arise from the appearance of some similitude as Aristotle observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when one takes a Parhelion for the Sun or embraces a gaudy painted Vapor for Juno This is the Method which St. Chrysostom says the Devil takes in deceiving Mankind he introduces Error into the company of Truth then he paints it with his deceitful Colours adding some false Strokes and lineaments whereby it may somewhat resemble Truth and thereby cozen the seducible His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall now gird my self to the performance of what I have undertaken detecting those many false semblances you have made use of to countenance your Opinion and laying bare all those Deceits you have covered with the specious Mask of the Authority of the Fathers refining the Truth from those Adulterate Mixtures you have endeavoured to debase it with by rendring it pure and unalloy'd The first thing that encounters my view is your accusing me of laying a false Hypothesis at the Foundation of St. Peters Supremacy by my asserting that he first knew Christ's Divinity This you deny affirming St. Andrew and Nathaniel to have got the start of him in the knowledge of that Mystery Now because the Foundation of every Fabrick ought to be firm and strong to support the Superstructure I shall throughly dissect those Reasons you have made use of as so many Machins to evert and undermine my Hypothesis and manifest unto you how unsufficient and unable they be for such a Design and withal discover with what false Topicks you have deluded your self The Argument you use to evince St. Andrew elder in the knowledge of Christ's Divinity than St. Peter is deriv'd from the first Chapter of St. John where it appears that St. Andrew was the first of the Apostles who acknowledged our Saviour for the Messias Now say you he first knowing him to be the Messias consequently knew his Divinity because in the 9th of Isaias v. 5. the Emanuel is styl'd God This your Argument do's not seem forcible to me For tho' I grant that the Messias is called so by the Prophet yet it do's not follow that St. Andrew by the Hebrew word El or Deus which was not Gods Incommunicable Name but Jehovah should know the Messias to be the natural Son of God of the same essence and substance with the Deity but rather that he apprehended him as some eminent Person extraordinarily endow'd by God sent to free the Jewish Nation from the Bondage of the Romans to whom they were subjugated This is Theophyl his Opinion they did expect that their Messias should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Saviour and Redeemer from those afflictions which lay upon them and from the yoke of Bondage which the Romans had impos'd on them and to Reign in a Terrestrial Kingdom This seems to be their plain Sense of the Messias and accordingly in the following Verse of Isaias 't is said of him Super solium David super regnum ejus sedebit This made Nathaniel after he had confess'd Christ to be the Son of God to add Tu es Rex Israel This made the Apostles before our Saviour's Resurrection ambitiously to court the highest Preferment and Dignity in his Kingdom looking on it as Terrene Aspectable and Pompatick And we find Cleophas no meaner a Person than the Brother of St. Joseph the Father of the two Apostles St. James and St. Jude very intimate with the whole Apostolick Quire in the Twenty fourth of St. Luke to describe our Saviour in the Character he gives of him not as the Consubstantial Son of God but as an Eminent Man an Illustrious Prophet Jesus Nazarenus qui fuit vir Propheta potens in opere Sermone c. Hence Theophyl takes notice of his diminutive thoughts of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See what a low and slender Opinion they had of our Lord they call him a Man a Prophet such an one as Elias or Moses Then he freely discovers what great expectations they had fomented of his glorious Atchievements Nos sperabamus quod ipse redempturus sit Israel upon which St. Ambrose in his Ninety sixth Psalm Enarrat glosses thus Jam spem perdiderant non enim dixerunt speramus eum redempturum sed sperabamus quòd esset redempturus Israel And accordingly Theophyl observes that they spoke this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as defeated
Christi periculis by repressing the Hereticks Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrin in this case why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem or to the Primate of Africa The Reason given is because they concluded those Hereticks would with more ease yield to Innocentius as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture Now this Power which they did desire him to shew was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal but his Papal Power for Palestine was no Limb of the Western but Eastern Patriarchate and consequently out of his Jurisdiction as he was the Occidental Patriarch This Power of his which they desire him to make use of they acknowledg'd to be drawn out of the Scripture which cannot be made out but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius who having attributed high things to him proves what he says ex dictis Domini I shall now come to take a view of the words which the Fathers in the Milevitan Council of which Austin was one used to Innocentius which in Epist 92. of St. Austin I find were these Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa perniciosa sentiunt cessuros The words are very plain and clearly discovering their Opinion that his Authority was from Scripture but because this is a truth that must be suppress'd 'T is very pleasant to see how 't is deprav'd by Expositors Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae that is says Chamier Tibi veram doctrinam a Scripturis expromenti But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield by quoting of places out of the Scripture and so confute their Heresies that the African Bishops themselves or any other might have done if they had pleas'd but by vertue of his Supreme Ecclesiastick Authority to which the Fathers imagin'd these Heretick would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture This is the genuin Sense of those words but I shall add no more on this Matter but confine my following Discourse chiefly to St. Peters Supremacy First You must understand that I do believe as firmly as you do that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church the Lapis summus angularis a nullo alio dependens the Lapis fundamentalis cui totum innititur aedificium on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and Peter himself is Mystically superedified as St. Austin affirms Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Christ is the Foundation and unmovable Basis of all containing and strengthening all to the end they be well supported for we are all of us built on him Thus you may perceive that we do not go about to despoil our Savior of his due Honor and invest Peter with it as you traduce us with for if he be the Rock of Church much more Christ is to deny which would be Antichristian But Peter is not hereby excluded notwithstanding this but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ And thus St. Basil Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if Peter be a Rock he is not such a Rock as Christ sed sicut Petrus Petra est whereas Christ is really and of himself a Rock unmoveable Petrus autem propter Petram Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial Absolute and Independent Rock the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity whereas Peter is a Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subordinate Vicarious Ministerial by Commission and Derivation from him laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabrick next to himself as Theophyl observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter This thing belongs to you says he as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church Hence you may easily perceive that things Subordinate combate not one with another but suppose one another therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Foundation are no repugnant duelling Propositions but friendly and compatible And thus as it was observ'd by Cardinal Perron Moses saying That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Aegypt to the Promised Land and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel aliud from Christ but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel alterum not alterius generis as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum for as Salmeron well observ'd Respectu Christi non est fundamentum sed aedificatio nec caput sed membrum praecipuum tamen respectu nostri caput fundamentum This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul or else you must grant a Contradiction For as in one place he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation and that no other can be lay'd He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations Now this difference cannot be reconcil'd but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation Hence 't is that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations Fandamentum Christus primum maximum c. Si Sacramenta cogites Christus sanctus sanctorum si gregem subditum cogites Christus pastor pastorum si fabricam cogites Christus fundamentum fundamentorum Thus it seems to be in the Church as in the State For as in the State notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings and Lord of Lords Yet has he establish'd here on Earth Principacies into whose Hands he has committed the Sword whom we are in duty oblig'd to obey so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church and do's rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes yet has he establish'd a Visible Monarchick Government in it with which he invested St. Peter propagating it to his Successors Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter he himself is the main Basis of the Structure and as Christ is the Head of the Church God is the Head of Christ who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholick Church I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock disrobe not St.