to bee the Messias when none of the Rulers thereof beleived on him when Nicodemus was so twited by them for offering to speak for him yea P. 259. did they not with their President condemn him Mat. 26.57 Oh! but say they Christ was now come and their infallibility was ceased and God now permited them to be deceived Answ But was it not necessary that they should bee acquainted with the will of God for how else could the Senate be accused or the people for following their determinations when the Senate by the vertue of this promise as they interpret it must needs suppose themselves to be infallible in their judgement and the people being bound also to esteem them so must necessarily assent to their determination and had just cause to help forward his condemnation insult over crucifie and blaspheme him 2. Christ accuseth them of committing the like errour long before in killing and condemning the Prophets sent to them Mat. 21.35 36. compared with verse 45. And Stephen which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted slaying them which shewed before the coming of the just one yea our Saviour tells them they were blinde guides such as would neither go into Heaven themselves nor permit others Mat. 5. 15 23. His next Argument from Scripture is very rediculous Sect. 4 if God hath promised Gen. 49. that the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor the Law giver from betwixt his feet that is that they should alwaies have a civil Government as all interpreters that ever I met withall do agree then must the Church or Ecclesiastical Government be infallible But the former is so and therefore the consequence must be good But did this Paragraph speak of the Jewish Church as undoubtedly it doth not yet what hath it of infallibility or if it would infer infailibility in some portion of the Jewish Church must that necessarily bee the Sanhedrims When Mr. C. is able to make these things good I shall hee contented to let this passe for a demonstration 3. Sect. 5 Our Author in his chapter touching the infallibility of the Roman Church produced in a Parenthesis that passage of the first Ep. c. 3. v. 16. P. 100. Tim. where the Church of Ephesus is stiled the Pillar and Ground of truth which because it was altogether impertinent in that place I have referred hither And Answ 1. With Mr. Chillingworth That it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy and the sense of the place run thus that thou mayest know how to behave thy self as a Pillar and Ground of truth in the Church of God This exposition offereth no violence to the words at all but only supposeth an Ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek very ordinary neither wants it some likelihood that St Paul comparing the Church to an house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house according as he had given other principle men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church an house to name it presently a pillar which seemeth somewhat Heterogeneous 2. The Church which St. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and that not the Roman now such you will not have to be infallible That this is the very truth is manifest from an impartial consideration of the place for the Apostle writeth to Timothy and giveth him directions that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of Ephesus and not the universal in part of which St. Paul was when he wrote this to him and consequently in a particular Church Now the same Church in which he directeth him to behave himself the Apostle calls the Pillar and Ground of truth therefore he gives this title to a particular Church 3. Mr. Chill Should wee grant you this on courtesie yet must wee put you in remembrance that many attributes are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not of necessity what the thing or person is but what it should bee Yee are the fait of the earth faith our Saviour to the Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to bee so for if it could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of being cast upon the dunghil as unsavory so the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet it may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 4. We say that this part of the verse may bee connexed with the following after this manner The Pillar and Ground of truth and without controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And that 1. Because Irenaeus seems to have read it so for in the beginning of his third book hee tells us that the Apostles had delivered to them the will of God which they before had preached in the Scripture to be the pillar and foundation of our Faith 2. Otherwise the Apostle would begin a new sentence with a conjunction copulative which is somewhat harsh 3. The Jews were wont to introduce those doctrines of their Church which were of greatest moment and consequence with such a form as this is thus Moses Aegyptius in the beginning of that great work which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks thus the foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdome is the knowledge of the first and supreme being 5. We say that if this also were allowed yet must this sentence be understood of the Church diffused which will be alwaies the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truths that being essential to her very being not of a representative Church collected in a General Council What hee adds farther that our Saviour enjoyned obedience to all the commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair cannot bee serviceable to him to prove an infallibility in the Sanhedrim For 1. How will it appear that he speaks of them considered as members of the Sanhedrim and not rather as teachers in their Synagogues in which case sure they were not infallible 2. If he plead for the infallibility of the Sanhedrim seeing he the Shilo was already come the Sanhedrim must bee held infallible after his coming which as it is contrary to Mr. C's assertion in this very place so it laies a necessity on us to acknowledge that either their decree against our Saviour was to bee believed by the Jews or that to believe in the Messiah was no fundamental But 3. This clause of yeilding obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees is to bee limited to what they taught from and according unto Moses and the Prophets For elsewhere hee puts in a cave at against the doctrine of the Pharisees Mat. 16.6 12. calls them blind guides whom to follow
perhaps tell you that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the end of the world refers to the end of the Jewish state and so signifies only the end of that age as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time Now if this sense be taken as no reason but it may then did this promise dye with the Apostles and so could not be entaild on their successours But because I will not be too rigid with him it shall be The end of the world 2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world ergo the Roman Church is infallible Well leapt Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation were you not first resolved to be infallible and then catch at any thing to prove it For here is not one syllable of infallibility and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that I will be with you to the end of the world that is say you I will secure you from all errour and why not as well I will exempt you from all sin or from all persecutions are not these as express in the promise as infallibility and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin and not lyable to any persecutions Again could not Christ be with them unless he endowed them with infallibility Is there no other way for him to be with his servants unless by inspiring them with that Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church and must all Christians be therefore infallible If in a word wherever Christ is present by his spirit there is no errour then is every individual Christian infallible and then what need of any other infallible guide but if where Christ is present by his spirit there may be errour then how gross is the inference that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit that therefore he exempts it from all errour 3. This argument fights alike for every cause and may be listed for the service of all pretenders What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility would it not serve our turns as much as yours What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves how would you answer them Is not this consequence Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world ergo The Greek Church is infallible as good as yours that because our Saviour hath made such a promise ergo the Roman Church is infallible What disparity can you give unless you first suppose what 's to be proved And then what answer you would give to them the same give to your selves Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus Christ hath promised that when two or three of them meet together in his name he will be in the midst of them surely to direct them therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only Ans This Argument is far more frivolous if that can be then the former Is Infallibility promised here or is it not if not then this Text is nothing to the purpose if it be then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible and then what need of General Councils seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies Mr. C. must own this inference if his own is good seeing therefore this is false his can not be true 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth as the Canons of the Trent Council Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines how would you Answer him fancy what Reply you please and that 's the very same we give you How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know Answ Now he seems to misgive and a little to mince the matter that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert what need of his running to that either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things or not if the latter then he either gives up the cause or beats beside the Question but if the former then let him speak out and let us see how sound his proof is Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible and therefore sets down no particular Text as he is wont to do in his other proofs Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles That he would send them his Spirit that should guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and shew them things to come which we find fulfilled Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles or if to any why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks the Abassines the Georgians c Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you that is as strong for your adversaries as for your selves Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they A. But the mischief of it is that this is the very thing to be proved Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future and though she did the event would soon confute her infallibility and therefore this promise belongs not to her It s a pretty inference that because the Apostles were infallible that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so But prettier still that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised that against his Church built upon St. Peter the gates of hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie Answ As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings he must now be impertinent too what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies which we grant his task if to the purpose is to prove That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true
the most publick service should be in the most publick tongue but Latine is the most publick tongue in Europe But 1. This Sophisme will turn our Sermons into Latine which yet the Romanists notwithstanding their other impudent oppositions to the word of God have not asserted Secondly What reason can any mortall man imagine why the service of God should be celebrated in that Language which is most publick in Europe rather then in Asia Thirdly How blind were the primitive Churches which could not see so great a fitnes in this way of worship Cont. Cels l. 8. singuli precentur propria lingua Just novel 123 Ed. Haloandri for amongst them as Origen tells us every one prayed in his own tongue and Justinian commanded all Bishops and Presbyters to celebrate holy prayers and mysteries clara vernaculâ voce so that the vulgar might understand telling them out of the Apostle to what little putpose it was to do it otherwise and that they should not only be accountable for it at the day of judgement but punished by him also upon transgression of this command Fourthly We deny that the Latine tongue is the most publick in Europe or that there is any fitness that the Service of God should be celebrated in all Europe in that Language which is most publick And what if the Latine tongue be understood which yet is not always true by those that frequently recite the prayers Sect. 18 even as the unknown tongue which S. Paul so vehemently cryed down was understood by him that spake it what if that were a truth which you so crudely suggest p. 175. that a great part of the service was composed for the Clergies proper use when as the thing you are blamed for is that in the publick service which concerns the common people and according to the Apostles Doctrine ought to be done so as that they may understand it and be edified thereby is lock'd up by you in a tongue unknown Again why do you marry in the Latine tongue is that proper to your Clergy Your last evasion is Sect. 19. Ib. 6. that by this means viz. the keeping of your service in the Latine tongue your Doctrine is kept from being innovated whereas by the change of other Languages the Doctrine would lie under a danger of being changed Liturgyes preserved the same in the Latine tongue must ever and anon be altered and infinite expences be laid out in Printing them Ans Is not this a shrew'd sign of a sinking cause to lay hold upon such bul-rushes as these to catch at such vain and empty shadows what is it better that the poor people should want the bread of life the comfort and edification of the Churches service then buy a Common Prayer Book once in 20 or perhaps an 100 years Is there any danger of being undone by such a contribution of the parish that in an age will rob each family of a single peny should these infallible keepers of the truth of God fear the loss of their Religion upon the change of a word or 2. In the Chruches Liturgy what new Doctrine hath been broached by having our Liturgy in the vulgar tongue what great need have we had of new translations or what danger have we found by turning Paul the knave of Jesus Christ into the servant of Jesus Christ how did the Syriack Greek c. corrupt in the time of the Antient Fathers who yet did never complain of these inconveniences or think them sufficient to make use of the Latine tongue in their publick service these objections are so absurd as that nothing can make them more ridiculous For a close he tells us that Popes have granted p. 177. that the service of God should be celebrated in that maner which we contend for one of them having been induced to it by a miracle Sect. 20 A. And is it not wonderful that they should dare to contradict a miracle and when upon their consultation touching this matter God answered from heaven let every tongue confess unto me should say not so only the Latine tongue shall do it Farther he saith Sect. 21 that haply an indulgence may be granted Ans Very good but till then let them not blame us for not communicating with them seeing we continually proclaim that we are ready to communicate with them when ever we can procure a dispensation from these and the like enormities yea let them acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath erred by introducing this service into the Church hath contradicted the verdict of the infallible word of God which that it is the very truth we come now to demonstrate from that place of 1 Cor. 14. mistaken if we may believe him by the Doctor Now to pass over those arguments which with sufficient evidence may be drawn from the 11 first verses of this Chapter in the 12 vers Sect. 22 the Apostle thus exhorts these emulators of the gift of tongues that seeing they so importunately desired to abound in gifts they would do it to the edification of the Church endeavouring to excel in that which tends unto this noble end Now what was that the Apostle Ans The interpreting of tongues that the people may know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the import of the voice wherefore seeing we ought with greatest vigor to pursue those things that make most for the edification of the Church he that speaketh with an unknown tongue let him pray that he may interpret where two things may be inquired 1. To what part of service that verse refers Ans Prayer As is evident from the reason given vers 14. Let him pray that he may interpret for if I pray in an unknown tongue c. Secondly Why must he pray that he may interpret Ans That the Church may receive edification vers 5. Yea this is farther evident from the series of the words vers 12. seek that you may excell to the edification of the Church wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret as also from the Apostles precept that all things should be done to edification and consequently prayer Now hence I argue That which is requisite that we may excell to the edification of the Church we ought to practise in our publick prayers for as much as the Apostle bids us seek to excell in this matter to the edification of the Church but praying in a tongue known to the people which joyn in service with us is requisite to this and this being the end of our praying that we may interpret therefore we ought to practise it Our Authour here tells us that the Trent Council observes the mind of the Apostle in that she hath commanded all Pastors during the Celebration of the Mass to expound some part of what is read An Answer worthy such a cause For 1. Was it ever heard before that expounding perhaps an Epistle or Gospel or something else which to be sure is not a
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible seeing therefore it is evident that most of the questions proposed by mee are variously maintained by men of learning and abilities and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them it seems apparent unto mee that he never intended a general Council as a Judge to whose decisions upon pain of damnation wee must assent and to which wee must necessarily submit our judgements if wee would avoid the ruine of the Church For sure it cannot bee that what is so necessary to the unity that is the being of the Church should bee left by an all-wise God at such infinite uncertainties And I appeal unto your self whether we who say the Scripture must bee Judge in fundamentals or things necessary to Salvation as that God is and that hee is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him that hee is holy just and good that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners dyed for us rose again will raise us up at the last day and bring us unto judgement that faith repentance and obedience or holinesse of life are necessary for our attainment unto happinesse are at such uncertainties Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity Are they not writ as with a Sun beam Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if shee doth not Now as for other things which may bee variously conceived and held without the destruction of faith or good manners a liberty of judgement may bee allowed onely with such restrictions as shall obviate all publick disturbances of the Church Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals seeing it cannot rationally bee denied that whatsoever is so is perspicuously laid down in Scripture albeit we cannot say è contra that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental 4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England he would have the infallibility of General Councils to bee asserted by Dr. White Dr. Field and the most Reverend Arch-Bishop Lawd but it is no where so affirmed by them Arch. Lawd confer sect 37. Num. 3. Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points fundamental and this he had reason to affirm but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council appears 1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages And 2. Those that have been assembled have not taught all fundamentals but some only at the most And therefore he understood it if he ever said so which we have Fide jesuiticâ of the visible Church diffused through the universe The other passage out of sect Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essentiall and diffusive Ibid. sect 21. N. 5. that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise one could not possibly beleive him For he tells him divers Protestants beleive the same with him Cites Keckerman thus speaking The question is whether the whole Church universally considered for all the Elect who are members of the Militant Church can erre in the whole faith or any weighty points thereof and answering 't is simply impossible And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus that 't is impossible that the Church should ever by Apostacy and mis-beleif wholly depart from God taking the Church for all the beleivers now living and in things necessary to be known expresly And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy he thence infers that she the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in fundamentals albeit she may erre in superstructures for if shee could shee would not bee Holy but Heretical it being most certain that no assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy He goes on and tells us that the Arch Bishop asserts Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is p. 254. when it's decisions are admited once and received Generally by Catholicks Now because he could not but know that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation instead of sect 38. he gives us sect 33. But to pass that the Arch Bishop saith only this That a General Council is a very probable but yet a fallible way of introducing truth but after it's determinations are admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also infallible that is saith he it deceives no man for so all truth is and is to us when it is once known to be truth So that he only saith this when the Church hath found it's determinations true they are infallible Hear his words 'T is true a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church which he supposes cannot erre in matters of faith is then infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath truly determined already without errour as that is supposed to bee which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith But that a General Council a parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be infallible in all it 's after determinations what ever they be I utterly deny P. 305. What hee further cites from Mr. Ridley Dr. Bilson Dr. Potter is evidently inconsequent nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely that the will of God is to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality as our Ceremonies are as you may see in his preface sect 6. Lastly As for the consent of universal Antiquity Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour bee alledged nay we have strong presumptions that they little dreamp't of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for and indeed had it been otherwise how is it that in so many Volumes writ by them against all kinde of Hereticks they never touch upon this Argument never press the infallibility of General Councils never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost or tell their adversaries that they must yeild the same obedience to them as Scripture had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church should have over look'd so facile and compendious a proof and yet they have not only done so Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem eâ—postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians Epist ad Epict. but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence Thus Athanasius 't is
in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith when they have the divine Scripture more powerful then them all from whence the Argument is apparent that which is more powerful then all Synods for the stablishing of faith is a sufficient means of unity because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so but such is the holy Scripture according to Athanasius Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this in what is cited from Athanasius by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without errour For what consequence is this the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene whose decrees were Orthodox and regulated by the Scripture cannot be changed without errour Ergo general Councils are infallible especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety so then this is the reason of their immutability because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures 2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev speaks thus we must seek Judges viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists Cont. Parmen l. 5. and us Catholicks on earth there can no judgement of this matter bee found viz. none which is infallible as appears from the words precedent no body may beleive you nor any body us for we are all contentious men and again by fiding the truth is hindred we must seek a Judge from heaven but wherefore should we knock at Heaven when we have it here in the Gospel in which place he evidently concludes that no convention of men are to bee beleived for their own Authority nemo vobis Donatistis nemo nobis Catholicis credat 2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversie upon earth both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility 3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question Adv. Her c. 1. how a Christian may bee able surely to discern the Catholick truth from Heretical falsity adviseth us to this end to fortifie our Faith 1. By the authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholick Church Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli this way saith he I was directed to by almost all the Learned men I enquired of So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from errour and here let it be considered 1. That by the Tradition of the Catholick Church hee doth not understand the definition of any General Council but partly the universal consent of the members of the then present Church partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Antient Church Cap. 3. as his own words do evince unto us for he tells us that is properly Catholick Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est which is believed every where at all times and by all men this saith he we must be careful to hold as we shall he if we follow universality antiquity and consent What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence De formali objecto fidei p. 210 c. are taken off by the Learned Baron 2. Let it here bee noted that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book direct us to the determinations much less to the infallible determination of the Pope Roman Church or a General Council as the way to discern truth from Heresie and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined in a treatise written purposely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us full and certain directions to avoid Heresie if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion St. Austin's testimony is as clear for thus he speaks Ep. 19. ad Hieron I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honour as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned so ever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judge it but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true If therefore this honour of being free from errour in their writing is only to bee ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture then must the decretal Epistles of Popes the decrees of General Councils be excluded from it according to St. Austin as being writers which are not Canonical For the particle solas excepts all that are not so yea hee doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest but their writings also as in this same Epistle Only to the holy Scriptures Ep. 112. do I owe this ingenuous servitude so to follow them alone as not to doubt that the writers of them erred in any thing And again If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures it is undoubtedly to bee beleived but as for other witnesses or testimonies whereby we are perswaded to beleive any thing Tibi credere vel non credere liceat wee are free to beleive them or not But undeniable is that of his third Book against Maximinus neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the Authority of this nor thou of that let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason by the authorities of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both Here wee are told that St. Austin speaks not his own minde but the minde of the Hereticks he hath to deal with an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel or some other Commentator upon Aristotle who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way tell us that he speaks ex mente aliorum Philosophorum but the truth is otherwise as appeareth from the 18. and 19. chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where the like passage may be found and the Question being there stated which is the true Church hee desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops c. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books and c. 19. gives this reason of his demand because saith he neither do we say that they ought to beleive us to bee in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Ambrose or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colledges c. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith These are the documents of our cause these are it's foundations these are it's upholders as
that was the fault of the reformers saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation Add to this the King protested he reformed out of conscience his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own by the Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245. all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation and yet the putting away of this wife must bee called a carnal interest yea our freedome from their superstitious austerity and prayers the doctrine of Devils the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning fornication or many Concubines this must be called a carnal interest and as if this had not been sufficient we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent hee will ask us next I suppose whether wee dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven or a Sun in the firmament for let any man read the History of that Council and the Review of it writ by a learned Roman Catholick and he will finde the many carnal interests of that Council to be as apparent CHAP. XXV Protestants not obliged to be opponents sect 1. Mr. C's rediculous Arguments sect 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer sect 3. An answer to the first ibid. To the second sect 4. To the third sect 5 6. To the fourth sect 7. What conditions we require from him sect 8. IN the sixth sect Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. Wee are told that Catholicks cannot bee obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome Answ This is very unreasonable for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be beleived Mr. C. p. 235. then such as either are expresly or at least in their immediate necessary principles contained in divine Revelation it follows that what doctrines they propose to us to be beleived they must bee proposed as such and our assent must bee required to them as such and such an assent the Church of Rome requires of us to all the particulars disputed in this Book Now seeing to assent to them as such without evidence that they are so is evidently to lye and say the Lord saith when hee hath not said it is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations seeing by so doing we evince that to bee rquired to assent to them is to bee required to lye and therefore seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them as a condition of her communion shee must demonstrate that shee hath reason so to do or else acknowledge her condition is unjust as being the profession of a lye We are told indeed that you were in possession of those doctrines or most of them for above a thousand years but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer In civilibus causis ubi jus possessionis valet qui possidet pulsatur loco quem tenet cedere compellitur in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet Qui se possessores esse affirmant ii nos petunt id agunt id urgent ac contendunt ut nos suam illam quam jactunt possessionem secum adeamus postulant enim a nobis ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant Ergo si causae totius ingenium si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id quod intendit probare omnino hoc istis incumbere ut veris legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam Dal. l. 1. de demonst fidei ex Scripturis c. 4. You go on and say that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors not only as Englishmen but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate yea of the universal Church and this as far as any records can be produced Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence and so abundantly proved that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy viz. from divine right it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation nor ever appears to have had is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that hee hath said to the contrary sect 2 3 4 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof 2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession and therefore by your own grounds are not bound to produce their evidences but you who seek to dispossess them if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution p. 50. against which no prescription pleads hee onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that hee hath had it nearer Christs time Wee Answ Be it so yet must their title stand good till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christs time then they which you will never be able to do 3. Seeing this title is held by divine right and no other pleadable is it not evidence sufficient against this plea to shew that there is no such right for it to build on which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it 4. If it had been our parts to oppose wee doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei Sch. dis p. 29. by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles which survived St. Peter should be subjected to his successors Bishops of Rome which yet they must have been if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession and by the many ages before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian Lastly When the dispute is whether our separation from your Church be the sin of Schism herein 't is impossible that we should be any other than defendants or you any other than opponents for when you accuse us of Schism surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good and 't is sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us Your seventh sect is the strangest inconsequence imaginable put it into Syllogism and it runs thus if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible that is that some members of those that profess the Christian faith shall bee kept in all truth necessary to salvation then must the proofs that
r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 205. l. 23. dele by p. 208. l. 1. r. eat p. 225. l. 20. r. and. p. 230. l. ult dele if p. 233. l. 32. r. the. p. 237. l. 5. r them l. 25. r. non negant p. 239. l. 16. r. as that l 23. r. the. p 242 l. 12. r. Cabrera p. 249. l. 27. r. enormities l. 40. r. what p. 158. l. 20. r. retractations p. 262 l. 38. r. or two p. 267. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 277. l. 16. dele of p. 283. l. 26. r. the. l. 28. r. this p. 284. l. 35. r. Saint p. 371. l. 6. add the. p. 376. l. 34. r. this p. 377. l. 21. r. it p. 391. l. 14. r. intimated p. 395. l. 20. dele that p. 397. l 25. r. the. p. 398. l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 410. l. 23. r. theses p. 422. l. 6. r. think p. 448. l. 32. r. ridiculous and so elsewhere p. 461. l. 4. r. it l. 8. r our p. 475. l 5 r. hath p. 487 l. 37. r. they in the Margin p. 4. r. Print p. 41 add lib. 2 Indic 11. p 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 61. add D. Field p. 81. r. ut vos p. 182. r. Scr. p 38◠r. dist 82 and Cap plurimos and Taraca and Wigorn. p. 388. add commun p. 402 r. ablutionis p. 473. r. Greg. CHAP. I. Popish Cruelties Sect. 3. No evidence of their fidelity Sect. 4 5. The Council of Lateran is for the destruction of those whom they call Hereticks Sect. 6. Which is the judgement of the most eminent Papists ibid. I Cannot forbid my self to wonder Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irrefragable a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary and obtains a Commendam from many Protestants should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions such as if all advantages were taken would stretch an Answer into many Volums for to return our Antagonists words upon him I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary not one instance but I will undertake to shew that it is either very impertinent ushered in with disadvantages to the truth or open forgery or lastly such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore And are we not come to a fine pass Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem when to transcribe a Bellarmine should I say or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Popes Supremacy as if we had not been able to transcribe their Answers when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism to unchurch her and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members And first Sect. 3 With what truth do you insinuate that the Doctors Sermon is of a stile so different from the Court Sermons which the times of our late glorious Soveraign and Martyr did produce Pag. 3. can you not remember one single instance of a Sermon in those dayes that hath employed your pens for an Answer Pag 4. yea with what face can you charge the Doctor with any bitterness in saying That his Sermon might be like to meet with men that are apt to confute their opponents with fire and faggot for are not you the men that have disputed against us with Flame and Gun-powder with Armies and Navies are not you the men that murthered so many thousands in cold blood in Ireland that destroyed the Monks of Bangor for living contrary to the manner of the Roman Church who can be ignorant of the floods of Christian blood that have been shed by the Roman hands in Savoy France Poland Germany Bohemia Ireland England of the treacherous conspiracies that have been made by these Popish Emissaries against our Kings and Queen in England of the butcheries of Princes and Nobles committed by them elsewhere how truly have they been drunk with the blood of Saints and would not these blood-thirsty men pretend as high to Loyalty as you now do was it not the Papal interest which you jointly manage that prompted them to the commission of such execrable facts was it not an opinion that we were Hereticks which you also passionately assert that emboldned them to these actions and can you blame his Majesty or his Parliament if they endeavour to secure their Protestant Friends and Subjects from such cruel and unreasonable men Be it acknowledged that Catholick Religion cannot stand justly charged with these crimes Sect. 4 yet must it be acknowledged also that many yea the greater part of Papists are guilty of a world of blood-shed upon this account and that you are not such who sojourn with us but Loyal to his Majesty what security will you give us shall it be your Oath of Allegiance to our King Fr. White against Fisher p. 571. many Papists refuse it yea persecute those who hold it lawful to be taken Shall it be your subscriptions to any form acknowledging his due Supremacy Alas do not we know that 1. many amongst you allow of mental reservations and equivocations an Artifice that will excuse and free you from the most accurate Oath imaginable and what if you swear that you take your Oath without any mental reservation may you not mean any that you intend to acquaint us with how can any man be assured that you do not all hold these mental reservations seeing you may deny the tenent by a mental reservation and yet hold it but admit that none of you held this Tenent yet do not many of you say That you may break your faith with an * Vide Crakenth def Ecc. Ang. where you have the judgement of Symancha Thom. Aquin. and the Counc of Constance for it p. 625. See also Dr. Mortons Popish posit and practices for Rebel Pacenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist monit Jac. Regis Tit. B. 2. 3. Dr Morton ib. Heretick and all of you that we are Hereticks but were this otherwise Thirdly Do not many of you hold that if the Pope dissolve the Oath you are freed from it as also when he declareth it unjust which when he pleaseth he may do hear the excuser of the Powder Plot from the imputation of cruelty because both seed and root of an evil herb must be destroyed thus deriding the simplicity of his Majesty in composing and requiring the Oath of Allegiance He thought saith he that no man could any way dissolve with a safe conscience the Oath which he had made but he could not see that if the Pope dissolve the Oath all its knots whether of being faithful to the King or of admitting no dispensation are dissolved yea I will say a thing more admirable you know I believe that an unjust Oath if it be
witness And he shall be intestate and not have power to make a Will nor come to succession of inheritance And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause but he shall be forced to answer others And if he be a Judge his sentence shall be invalid and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing If he be an advocate his Plea shall not be admitted If a Notary or Register the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void and damned with the damned Author And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed Thus the Council The Summ of which is that all the Pope calls Hereticks must be condemned and destroyed That all Kings Princes or Lords that will not execute his sentence and root them out must be dispossessed of their Dominions and the subjects absolved from fidelity whatever Oaths they had taken and all others that do but favour or receive them be utterly undone and exterminated Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth and we have this with the decernimus firmiter statuimus of a general Council this must be acknowledged to be so Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees Epist Monit ad Johannem Barclaium But against this Eudaemo-Johannes asks if the business were so Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Vnus quidem reclamavit cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire ausus sit Yea why is it so generally Extant in all Editions Coâ—t Barclaium 2. Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant omnibas consentientibus laudantibus to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place who all consented to and applauded the determination and by another at Rome under Paschal the second by one at Colen under Gelasius the second at Rhemes under Calixtus the second at Beneventum under Victor the third at Placentia under Vrbane the second and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy and as many in Spain fifteen in France twelve in Germany England and Scotland seven besides many others which unquestionably he had not read I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperours and deprive them of their Kingdoms if they be Hereticks and must it not thence follow that this Dominus fac totum this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King and exterminate all that do oppose them all that are Loyal to their Soveraigns doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them and may make insurrections against them without scruple and then not to add their Jesuites Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts CHAP. II. Why this Work was undertaken by the Author Sect. 1. M. C ' Protestation incredible Sect. 2. His Slur cast upon his Majesty Sect. 3. OCcasionally perusing this Author Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book that was not either disingenuously forged or fully and satisfactorily answered already by Protestant Divines and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I though I should profess no greater abilities then to write and read to evince this unto the world and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties but old and bafled arguments such as any man may Answer who can write and read And here I tremble to consider Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent to say no worse to call God to witness upon his soul Pag. 10. that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavilling distortions either of Text of Scripture or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called pâ—as fraudes corruptions of either And that he would alledge nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church Purgatory Invocation of Saints Celibacy of Priests but especially Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacy and if he do not find Scriptures miserably distorted Fathers not only wrested but corrupted I will forfeit presently my life And is it possible that any man should believe him perswaded that his proofs are unanswerable who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the famous Chillingworth and Reverend Dr. Hammond out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments He that considereth his Discourse upon the Churches practice of Praying in the Latine tongue will find it altogether unpossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God And Thirdly Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty Pag. 11. of transgressing his injunctions to his very face doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face CHAP. III. The Challenge of Bishop Jewel owned by us Sect. 1. M. C's malitious accusation of our Church Sect. 2. His mistake Sect. 3. Antiquity not acknowledged to run contrary to us Sect. 4. His abuse of Dr. Hammond ib. Not We but the Romanist self-condemned Sect. 5. This evidenced from their Indices expurgatorii Sect. 6. M. C's Mistake rendring his whole Book impertinent Sect. 7. An Answer to his Questions Sect. 9. Scripture not abused by the Doctor ib. IN this third Chapter You begin with a bold assertion Sect. 1 Defen Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s 3. Ecclesia illius temporis ad 600. annos sola nostra est nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum vide quae sequuntur Demonst of the Problem in fine Defence of the way c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church whereas we
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
you citation still impertinent Again is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny P. 142. 1. in his reply where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age but only that the three first ages and four general Councils were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines and traditions it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles P. 141. as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them the like we have in his Schism disarmed Câ—â— S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth And when Bishop Laud tells you 〈◊〉 28. p. 2â—7 that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years and somewhat further doth he not give you scope enough if you cannot find any of your doctrines received by the Church of God as Articles of faith or necessary to be believed within that time is it not a shrewd sign that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers 〈◊〉 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church and for proof of this you refer us to the Protestants Apology the triple cord with an c. Pag. 313. at the end of it and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies Dr. Feilds Appendix c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus comm dum iis sensum affingimus Answ 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England as to be ignorant that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton in folio and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii how many thousand sentences of your own Authors will he find condemned and ordered to be expunged only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess as Mr. Dally hath it That when we oppose unto them in disputation the errors as they are pleased to call them of the Antient Catholicks they do either extenuate or excuse them or very frequently find out some artifice or invention to deny them or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world and having expunged some of the most evident places against them will let him pass thus gelt as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks into the world that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them Yea to pass over your additions to detractions from De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s 10. Index Belgicus yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers of which tho learned Dally Chrakanthorp and others afford sufficient instances let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat Opera et si non justificent sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria out of the Index of St. Chry. sost Fide sola hominem justificari salutem esse ex sola gratia non ex eporibus out of Hilary's Fides sola justificat albeit they be his very words out of Ambrose Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum vident out of the Index of St. Jerom Impium per solam fidem justificat deus Vt Abrahae ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt sola fides ad justitiam reputatur out of St. Basils Haeâ— est perfecta gloriatio apud deum quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse sola autem fide in Christum justificatum with other passages of the like import which evidently speak the mind if not the words of the text it self what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us or make it speak what you know it doth not In the same Section Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth Pag 19. have been produced 100 times whither this be so or no I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him You go on and say Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached Pag. 20. ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively Ans This is an evident untruth but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent nor would you have been able to have found any thing which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth is not imaginable the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise it being not imaginable that even a Papist though impudent enough to do it should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence Ans Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued Indeed the Doctor saith They ever complain we have left their Church but never shew us that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God or the Apostles or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils now I hope to say We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them is not to
delivered for the proof of this we shall consider first his reasons secondly his testimonies thirdly his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy Well then to make it appear reasonable Sect. 2 he tells us That since General Councils the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical either for want of agreement among Princes Pag. 45. or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates or their great expences c. can very seldom be summond it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supream Authority to prevent Schism that is it is impossible the Church should subsist This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus That without which the Church cannot subsist ought in all reason to be granted But Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope the Church cannot subsist Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light The minor is thus proved That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms is that without which t is impossible the Church should subsist but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope is that without which t is impossible to prevent Schisms To give a satisfactory Answer to this it will be necessary to premise that Schism is a rupture of one part from another and that of the visible Church as appears because t is a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate which it could not be if it were a secession from the invisible Church only 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers which he imagins inferiour to him and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another may be either in things necessary to salvation or in things not necessary but of lighter moment Now then to answer to his Major if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature t is true for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church In this sence therefore we grant the Major but deny the Minor If he understand it in the latter sence we deny the Major as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts or circumstantial businesses doth dissolve the visible Church but it may subsist with such a breach if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved and the Sacraments truly administred For if the Church of God remained at Corinth when there were divisions Sects emulations contentions quarrels and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith We have no such custom who dares deny them to be the Churches of God who differ from others only in circumstantials What would such men have said to the Galatians who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ purely kept and preserved in other Churches that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them that they were bewitched and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ they were faln from Grace Christ would profit them nothing whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God writing to the Church which is in Galatia Secondly Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury the Patriarch of Constantinople or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches 3. We deny that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end even to the suppression of lesser Schisms yea or expedient for were it so then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity or difference of judgement Not the first for t is not possible for the Pope to insuse charity into any party or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture which any other man may do If it be expedient for difference of judgement seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself it would then 1. Be expedient that he should be judge in his own cause as for instance T is doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church whither t is expedient such an Authority should be admitted whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to and publickly maintains be true whither the contrary which he persecutes be false whither he be infallible in his sentence and Cathedra and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus and Pasce Oves be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient will the Church of France say that he should judge in all these Causes the Church of England that in any and doth not reason say so to and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary if we could perswade our selves that it were thus or if this were so necessary that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it it were impossible to prevent Schisms and the destruction of the Church thereby is it not wonderful that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms which are so destructive to the Church prevented That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth to break off their Schisms all the means to prevent it should neglect that without which it was not feasible that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable and whither to have recourse to avoid them If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things c. he would have added and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ otherwise no Minister at all but an Heretick And when he tells them that perverse Teachers should arise and commends them thereupon to the Word of God a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks nothing more pernitious and that he should commend them to the Pope Yea 3. That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto there is no truth in them when we ought not to meddle with them especially so as to judge with the judgement of discretion what 's Truth and Errour that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits Yea try all things and hold fast the Truth and that directing us to
no other touchstone then Scripture and reason that sure word by which we are to take heed is not agreeable to these pretentions for should it be that we may try no other truth yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no and so be Judges of our Judge which sure is dangerous Yea 4 Is it not wonderful that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up Eph. 4.4 One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God should forget one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch without whose Soverain power if our Author may be believed the Church of God cannot subsist Sure if there had been any such thing this had been a proper place wherein to mention it No had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors it would not have been to the Law and to the Testimonies but to the Popes Council and his Cardinals 4. To multiply no more the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter but to its subsistence in statu meliori Now thence to infer that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church is as Illogical as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition were its members impeccable to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it Or because the making them all of one mind or enlightning them with the truth would prevent Schism and Heresie therefore God should do so or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass To infer that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves to slight the judgements of many thousands that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect is to endanger even the being of Religion that we may the better secure its Circumstantials Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth He that affirms the Popes infallability puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks and t is Granted they may be so and even to hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his Grounds cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice nay which is most Horrible yet a certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable so to say Which I say and maintain however you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real enemy Lastly to submit to him so as not to bind our Consciences to consent but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations is 1 That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous 2 T is very Dangerous seeing by these means the practice of Religion the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome the witnesses of the truth silenced and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus which yet is necessary to salvation Yea 3 Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man and to a General one when it may be had then to that Sect. 3 Well Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians and it is this If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism there is say they as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only and not among Bishops Arch-bishops c. which is contrary to reason truth history experience Answ I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument but I can tell what returns have been made to it before ere it was managed by the Presbyter And had they not been like you at least some of them in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments they might have spared all their pains in this particular 1. Then let Ocham tell us the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part seeing one may sustain the Hearing Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom or Country but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world In like sort though it be expedient sc for the preventing of Schism that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem adde tamem proclivis ad errorem nam talem unitatem Turcae talem Haeretici talem ipsi Philesophi habere possunt si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac Bonon Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum Davenant de sup Judice controversiarum seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world Besides saith he it would be most dangerous to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head especially when they are taught that he is Infallible Out of all that hath been said we have three Answers 1. That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism which the other is not 2. That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism 3. If it were expedient to prevent Schism yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy But 2 I answer that in respect of a Diocess or Parish there is a particular Authority resting in one and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all might be fild with Schisms so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority and
Christian and an Abbess over her Nuns But you argue thus Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops Pag. 83. they do not so to the King ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root Answ We grant the whole who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction or that it was only jure Regio 2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience and therefore he is in a sense the root of it Sect. 7 But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom 1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity 2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its supream Pastor Answ Yes Because the person you speak of is some Utopian Pastor and both these surmises are evident untruths And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects Answ Yes because they have a right to it As if the Bishops were indep on his Majesty he no title but usurpation which it would be dishonourable to permit Again say you Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate to whom we owe no obedience a thousand miles off Answ Yes because he is a thousand miles off And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home who are by his Majesty over us to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due who are present with us Answ No. What follows is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress when their interest leads them to it the royal prerogatives and I leave it to their Answer CHAP. IX Of the Infallibility of the Church Mr. C's State of the question Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith Sect. 2. Why we pâ—efer the four first General Councils before others Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture Sect. 6. Mr. C's Calumny Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason Scripture or Antiquity Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture Sect. 9. Mr. C's Arguments for the Churches Infallibility first From Deut. 17.8 9 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christs promise of his presence with his Disciples considered Sect. 11. From Christs promise of his presence with two or three Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth Sect. 17. These promises not to be applyed to particular Churches Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory Constant and the Anathemas of Councils Sect. 9. Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility Sect. 20. The Doctors Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants Sect. 23. IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith and the guide of it and then tells us that to the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only rule is the holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule yet they admit certain universally received traditions besides express Scripture But as for the guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule he tells us That Dr. Pierce Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church or four first General Councils but since their writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking judge of the sense of all these is our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons the authority of the Church c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason so that let them Preach as much as they will the result of all the dispute between them and us must come to this whether their last speaking judge in England or ours in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believed and relyed on But it s the Roman Catholick Church alone that is guided both by reason God spirit the primitive Church and the visible Governours of the present Church this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful as gross For Sect. 2 1. You tell us P. 90. s 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule yet we admit beside express Scripture certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith why did you forbear to name some of them and yet confidently assert that we hold what we know we do not hold do not all English Protestants prove against you that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule And though we make use of universal tradition yet not as a rule but as a motive or argument for our faith as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word is the attestation of the Church in all ages which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable to confirm and conveigh this to us and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity such as Celsus Julian Porphyrie c. But we say you Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils Sect. 3 whom if we can believe you we constitue judges of the traditions received by us Answ We do I confess appeal to the four first general Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it but
because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to
Church doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem but now you say t is poisoned and destroyed by Heresie If then this promise was made to no particular Church why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church Before you use this Argument to any purpose first prove yours to be the Universal Church but of this you presume it s a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted Ar. 5. He hath commanded that whoever shall not obey his Church Sect. 15 shall be cut off from his body as an Heathen and a Publican therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith Answ 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers it will be superfluous to Criticize in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by not applying it to any established Christian Government when it may be and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews by others to any multitude by agreement convened as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.20 and then what 's all this to the Churches Authority but let this go 2. What 's this to Infallibility will he infer that particular Churches are infallible because their Decisions must be submitted to if he will then he proves what himself will deny and constitutes us infallible Judges at home without recourse to Oecumenical Councils but if he doth not then how enormous is his deduction because the Decisions of particular Churches which are granted to be fallible must be obeyed therefore the Church of Rome is infallible 3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees are they infallible too children are commanded Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things are all Fathers too therefore infallible we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes cannot they err neither and is not the inference as concluding We are bound to obey Parents and Governours ergo they are infallible as because we are bound to obey the Church therefore that is infallible 4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren but doth it follow that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels that it may be Judge of our faith too if it do we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize without going to Rome its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man 5. The Greek Church saith she is the true Church and you are Hereticks but to your selves you are the true Church and she is Heretical How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you if they tell me as you do that unless I obey the Church that is their Church I cease to be a Christian how shall I answer them if you can teach me you will but teach me how to answer you Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity which is an unappealable and infallible Authority shall never be wanting in the Church A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to preserve unity without an infallible Authority as you have with it We believe the Churches unity yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith and an agreement in the essentials of Religion we are all but one in Christianity and so one Church But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions as you would perswade us we must believe against experience for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own which would be a most uncharitable presumption we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith And if there were no Church without it then your selves must be unchurched seeing you cannot deny but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves even about the very means to preserve unity Urge us not then with this Argument any more till you can prove that we believe any other unity in the Church beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith and that you are any more then so one among your selves Now let all that 's rational judge whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine when you can exhibite no better Credentials for it then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks and so your selves who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven to be most notorious cheats and impostors By these Answers Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more I hope t is clear that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Churches infallibility Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth viz. That all these promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church Governours I say disingenuously For 1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chillingworth only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown For 2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is that suppose God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture would it follow thence that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture not only sufficiently but irresistibly he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night and a pillar of cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance is he not free from his promise and yet you in an errour too do not call this a shift but shew that it is so 3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift read and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the
Christ be thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor his Sacred Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Nicene Council thus decreed and what else you could design I am not able to imagine And have you not a good stock of confidence Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope one bafled Sophisme and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour can challenge the consent of all antiquity whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule and guide whereby we are to judge of Doctrines as you may see evinced as elsewhere so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion from p. 299 to 372. but especially from p. 357 to the end Lastly How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reverend Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infallibility because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council seeing they also promise and so doth every regular son of the Church of England to submit to the determinatious of the Church of England and acquiesce in them without the least manner of opposition and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them Yea 2. The places cited speak only of a General Council which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused See Dr. H. Her s 13. nu 2. s 9. nu 1. 3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Roman Church whose infallibility the Doctor questioned and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done against her tyranny and superstitions To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie He tells us 1. Mr. C. p. 105. That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith unless you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled and then repented Answ Can this be affirmed with any truth when as that saying was almost Proverbial Athanasius opposed the world and the world Athanasius Theod. His l 2. when Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him Answered There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong Ep. 48 ad VincentiuÌ„ When the Professors of error as St. Austin confesseth surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven When the Author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world Iâ— vita Naz. Iâ— Orat. con Artan pâ—oâ—se ipso Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out Where are they that reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by her multitude and despise the little flock they have the people but we the faith Yea lastly When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents Her c. 6. Did you never read Vincentius Lirin complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis partim vi partim fraude dece tis calgio quaedam mentibus effunderetur Orâ—t in Athanas Nor that of Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a very few which either because of their vertue resisted or by reason of their obscurity were contemned all obâ—yed the times i. e. became Arrians differing only in this that some did it earlier some later some were ring-leaders in that impiety of Arianisme some were in the second place either by fear or gain flattery or ignorance circumvented and drawn in which ignorance will not saith he excuse them it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith Nor that of Basil We may now say that we have neither Princeps Basil ep 71. Propheta nor Praeses left us in so much that he cryes out Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches is it the last hour doth the defection now take place by which the son of perdition is to be revealed but if all these must be overlooked must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes telling you that tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est ingemuit tot us orbis c. doth St. Jerome here tell you that no Bishops changed the profession of the Nicene Faith or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field who informs us that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundness of the Faith only Athanasius excepted and some few Confessors that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians His second Answer is Ibid. That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth that presently after being at liberty themselves and all the rest renounced what they had subscribed to Answ We grant that when the Council was first called the major part were Orthodox Socrat. His Ec. l. 42. c. 29. as their Epistle to the Emperour Constantius shews but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East who tells them That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum Apud Soâ— l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpitius l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim imbecillitate ingenii partim taedio peregrinationis evicti dedere se adversariis sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus that is till 400 came to 20. see c. 5 6. Soz. His Ecc. l. 7. c. 2. and which either compelled by force or enticed by deceits à fide tum quidem desciverant yet now they were returned to a sound mind subscribed to the Nicene Faith and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema So then all these Bishops of the West as well as the whole East Jerusalem excepted did à fide deficere and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme yet confessedly for sometimes they yeilded to it And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council why did the
is the body which we worship Saint Austine will tell us presently no for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus You eat not the body which you see I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer but onely to note that our Adversary hath added it to worship determining the object which Saint Austine did not and by the same reason saith the Lord Du Plessis may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words Lib. de trans towards the end If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain formes consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand That which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burn'd that was subject to the injury of rats and mice of worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought as they have at Rome in these last ages might not they have said why might not we as well as you Do not you worship that with divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the oven first hardens And then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell then the silver and gold upon our images Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons by way of Triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us But did not the Jesuites carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances In vain it would have been to have replyed Yea but ours is the true God and yours the false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument In the mean time all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you upon this account since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and Illusion and need no particular consideration Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did I answer But were not there wise and subtle Apostates such as Julian such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause Doth not Saint Paul tell us that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth 2 Tim. 1.15 And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this when as Avicenna presently cries out Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis CHAP. XII The State of the Question Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea Sect. 5. Nor lastly from communions sent to other provinces Sect. 6. Christs institution respected Laicks as well as Priests Sect. 7 8. An evasion obviated Sect. 9. Further evidence of the Laicks interest in the Cup and a farther evasion obviated Sect. 10. Christs Institution a Command Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance Sect. 13 14. Three Arguments against it Sect. 16 17 18. The vain pretences alledged for this half communion Sect. 19. Vpon what conditions a dispensation may be granted Sect. 20. THe State of this Question is not Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion Albeit that be very true but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people or Priests non-Conficients capable of it in both kinds be not necessary necessitate praecepti or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour or in a word whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ If so then farewel Trent Council Now this we assert to be so our Author on the contrary will make it good that the Fathers thought the contrary and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience Ibid. whether if he should side with us in it he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty And first he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone Ibid. and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions To which we Answer P. 184. First in the words of Doctor Featly That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds and not in one as the Romanist here pleadeth And this is proved from Justin Martyr who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church saith thus Of the things that be consecrated viz. the Bread Water and Wine they give a part to every
be multitudes little sensible of Religion and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body albeit some of them may haply vomit him som spit him out again some throw him to the Dogs c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground then devoured by wicked men Secondly Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church Mr. C. p. 142. Ans But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth and here our Authour leaves Divining though some of his brethren adde that should the Laity have the Cup then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards some might be ejected with their spittle and if I may be permitted to adde my Symbol some of them may be poisoned by the cup the Romanist knows how to play such pranks Oh Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had seeing the Trent conventicle or the General Council of fifty Bishops hath referred this matter to the Pope Ans Very good but with these provisoes 1. That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith doctrine and manners of the Roman Church and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod Secondly That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law unless the Church decree the contrary and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks that is she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless Thirdly That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing with other the like stuff and after all these things 't is but videtur posse concedi it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation But were it as he would have it seeing we openly declare this as one ground of our separation that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion but also to profess that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God is it possible that the Schisme should be on our part who proclaim our selves willing to close with her if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us CHAP. XIII The state of the Question Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice Sect. 2. Preaching call'd a Sacrifice and the Testimony of Saint Austine considered Ibid. Almes call'd a Sacrifice and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered Sect. 4. In some sence propitiatory Sacrifice and the testimony of Saint Chrysostome considered Mr. C. saith no more then our Church doth Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice Sect. 7. THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice Sect. 1 and that propitiatory This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist and we are now to consider whether Scripture Reason or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it 1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. Collor in Lovit l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2◠De Civ Dei c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice Rom. 15.16 where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice the Gospel of God Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel and Cyril of Alexandria that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome and others and hither we refer that of Saint Austine cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps They shall be Priests with God and Christ and shall reign with him 1000. years he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church but is to be extended to all Christians so stiled as being members of their high Priest So that he saith they are Priests properly so called not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them of which no mention at all was made but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders Seipsum obtulit ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice is extremely evident in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments they could not be so Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves even as saith he after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body Secundùm quendam modum and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood which therefore according to Saint Austine are such only by way of similitude or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signified and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account And hence it is that elsewhere he saith L. 10. Cont. Faust c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione perticipatione corporis sanguit is Christi That which by all is called a true sacrifice is the sign of a true sacrifice and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance or the remembrance of a sacrifice § 3. Secondly Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God Philip. 4.14 and Victims Heb. 13.16 * l.
are they not Earth and taken out of the Earth But as for me I have learned to tread upon the Earth not worship it So Saint Augustin saith they are worse then bruit beasts Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum and if you are asham'd to worship the one you may be asham'd to worship the other So Origen we do not venerate Images with many other like places In Consul lit de Imag. which made Cassander cry out How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione from all veneration of Images one Origen declares Cruces saith Mintius Felix nec Colimus nec optamus and there we find it objected to them cur nulla nota simulachra habetis Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these Images appear not not as if they had any kept secretly but as * Dallie puts it beyond dispute because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images and terrene figments God hath made thee straight and when other animals are made prona ad terram depressa thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven thither look thither direct thy eyes not to Images seek God above The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was there should be no Images in the Church * De Imag. Ep. ad Demetr Lib. 2. cap. 19. Lactantius tells us there can be no Religion where there is an Image Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Idea's and divers Figures of Images Yea Ambr. de sugâ secul c. 5. this was so notorious to the very Heathens that when Adrian commanded that Temples should be made in all places without Images they presently conceived they were for Christians Lamprid. in vit Alexandri Severi What should I say Orig. in Cels l. 2. p. 373. there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you Nay you can scarce find out any excuse which they have not prevented with their contradiction 1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your memories the Objects they represent Orig. tells us If we be not out of our wits we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Images and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby In Ps 113. Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is borrowed from the Heathens who use to say I neither worship the very Image nor the Devil but by corporcal representation I look upon the sign of that which I ought to worship Dissert 38. And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent That in procuring them you do like lovers who willingly behold the Images of those they love that so their memory may be stir'd up in them 2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tels us we help our selves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Common people In Ps 113. But Saint Augustine saith they are very dangerous especially to them for who is it that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps Have this in your memories beloved Children not to bring Images into the Church nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints no not into any ordinary House but alwayes carry about the rememberance of God in your hearts Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros Tom. 1. oper Hier. Ep. 60. for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried about in suspence by his Eyes and the wandering of his mind He will tell you that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture Give charge against it He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant An. Dom. 754. Eus Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra and tear such a one though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour Amphilochius will adde we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables because we have no need of such things but by virtue to imitate their conversations Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custome from the Heathens And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence who tells you that the use of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoniam tenuitatis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was the cause of it You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it Sect. 11. They say that God and Religion forbid it And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder and the Jews abhorred it had they razed out their natural principles You say that we call this Honour given to him worship sect 9 to make you odious Ans 2. Council of Nice by them General Sâ—e the places in Dally de Imag. Cat. Rom. par 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Colantur licet illis cultum adhibere In 3. par Th. quaest 24. Art 3. Orthodox Consul par 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest 25. Art 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr ib. p. 796. Hath not a General Council call'd it so an hundred times do not almost all your writers call it so Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped and that it is lawful to worship them and that it hath still been done to the great good of the faithfull Doth not Cajetan tell us that they are painted that they may be worshipped ut adorentur as the frequent use of the Church doth testifie And Boverius that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church imagines piâ religione colendas esse will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you that albeit you speak warily in this matter yet the very truth is that the faithful in the Church do adore not only coram imagine sed imaginem Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better that you must downright and absolutely say that images are to be worshipped in Churches and out of Churches and that the contrary is heretical And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so Yea and Arriaga for a close will tell you Haeretici negant non Exemplarium venerationem and what you plead for he does not think any Heretick so simple as to deny I might here adde half an hundred of your Authors who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar but I let that pass for haply I may have another opportunity to acquaint you with them I shall conclude with the Roman
pontifical which tells us Cap 2. de bened Sanct. Crucis that the Pontifex in which name other Bishops are included ante imaginem crucis genua flectit eamque devotè adorat osculatur Magist Ceremon lib. 2. de feria 6. Majoris Heb. And feriâ sextâ or on good Friday when the Pope or Priest uncovereth Gently the Cross and crys ccce signum crucis and the singers answer venite adoremus that the Pope puts off his shoes or makes as if he did so genu ter flexo adorat osculatur and then all the rabble ad infimum caudatarium omnes crucem adorant osculantur So then you have no cause I hope to quarrel with us for saying you worship images when so many of your great Doctors that knew this practice of the Church as well as your self acknowledge that as a doctrine of faith which you so warily disclaim when General Councils yea and common practice can assure us of the truth thereof You ask us further Sect. 10. p. 158. whether indeed we think that you worship false gods and true devils Ans You may be idolatrous in worshipping the true God in an image as well as the Israelites in their worshipping God in a Calf 2. That you worship false Saints and Elilim De cultu Sanct. Ibid. see abundantly evidenced in the Sedan Divines 3. You ask whether we consider our Images as they did their Idols to which by magicall conjurations they annexed an evill Spirit to do wonders and extort Divine Worship from the seduced Ans What if some of the learned among the Heathens as Athenaeus confesseth Legat. pro Christ thought that the deity or some divine vitrue accompanyed the statute after consecration would it cease to be Idolatry if the Image of Jupiter were worshipped or any other Deity without these magical Inchantments 2. What shall we think of these images which you call miraculous which you say sometimes sweat blood sometimes nod their heads or stretch forth a wooden or stony arm unto their suppliants Vid. miss Rom. sub tit de ritu Serm. where you have as bad or worse in the Dedication of the Cross the Image of Saint John and the Agnus Dei. or of the form of Consecration Viz. Sanctifie O God this form of the blessed Virgin that it may bring saving health to thy faithful people that thundrings and lightnings may be driven away the sooner that immoderate rains or floods and civil wars may at the presence of this be suppressed Pont. Rom. 3. Might not the Jews have put the same question to those that accused them of idolatry in worshipping the brazen image 4. What matter is it whether the Heathens esteemed their Deity present or absent Quis nisi totus fatuus haec Deos esse credit seeing they acknowledge most evidently that they did not worship their images but their Gods by these images as you may see in Origen Contr. Cels l. 7. p. 384. Arnob. l. 6. advers Gentes Lact. l. 2. de divin Deos per simulachra veneramur Institut c. 2. we fear not the works of mens hands viz. these Images but those we fear to whom these are consecrated August in ps 96. I do not worship that stone or that image which is without sense but I adore what I see and serve him whom I do not see 5. 'T is evident that many of the Heathens thought their Gods to dwell in heaven Act. 14. and to be absent from their Statutes Hence the Lycaonians cry out upon the miracles wrought by Paul and Barnabas the Gods are come down amongst us See Price upon the place making out this by Heathen Authours and what said the Chaldeans to Nebuchadnezzar even that their Gods dwelt not with flesh Dan. 2. vers 11. what need I cite Max. Tyr. Plut. de Isid Osyr Cicero c. for a thing so clear Lastly you tell that us sect 11 there is not in Catholick countrys a Groom or Kitchin-maid so ignorant but had rather burn an image then afford it any honour due to God only Ans True But neither would these Heathens who thought them arrant fools who esteemed images to be God 2. Nor can we reasonably think that the Israelites intended any such thing in worshipping the Calf But 3. Tom. 1. de prob sp Num. 17. Gerson will tell you that people were so infected with Superstition as to yield divine honour to Images And Cornelius Agrippa that it is not to be spoken De vanit scient de Imag. fol. 73. how great Idolatry is foster'd among rude people by Image-worship while the Priests connive at these things and make no small gain thereby Cassander Consul de Imag. it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed and the Superstitious humour of people hath been so cherished that nothing hath been omitted among you either of the highest adoration or vanity of Panims in worshipping and adoring Images De invent l. 6. c. 13. And Polydor Virgil that there are many rude and stupid persons that repose more trust in Images then in Christ or the Saints to whom they were dedicated Lastly Simon Majolus a great stickler for Imagery Defens Imag. Con. 9. c. 19. confesseth that some rural persons esteem Images as if they were God You tell us Sect. Sect. 12 that it would be ridiculous to pray to an Image Ans To let pass your O crux Ave what can you say to Salve Sancta facies Nostri Redemptoris In quâ nitet species divini splendoris Impressa panniculo nivei candoris Salve vultus Domini Imago beata Nos deduc ad propria O felix figura Ad videndum faciem Christi quae est pura And again Brevar Rom. Reformatum in par Hyemali ad 3. Martii in festo inventionis Sanctae crucis O crux c. quae sola fuisti digna portare mundi talentum dulce lignum dulces claves dulcia ferens pondera salva proesentem catervam in tuis hodiè laudibus congregatam Lastly all your distinctions are used with you as miracles and the gift of tongues were not for them that believe but them that believe not For strangers and them that make objections not for the obedient that worship Images and break the Commandment Well Sect. 13 but you have Arguments as well as Pretences which must not be over-look'd Mr. C. p. 156. And First You tell us that in Scripture we find Kings adored and a prostration of body paid to them yet for all this no man will suspect that any dishonour was intended to God thereby Answer True and yet you may dishonour him by giving this worship unto Images seeing he hath commanded saying Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them which your Gerson paraphraseth thus In comp Theol. explic praecepti primi Thou shalt not bow down to
Carthage Sect. 13 for that which he calls the second was indeed the seventh which thus he gives us Can. 2. it was agreed unto by all the Bishops that Bishops Priests Deacons As you may see in Calixtus de con Cler. p. 286. Mr. C. p. 215. and such who dispense Sacraments should be observers of chastity and abstain even from their own Wives that so what the Apostles taught and Antiquity observed we likewise may keep Answ Now here again Est quidem alia lectio secundum quam quod unus Faustiâ—us dixit universis Episcopis tribuitur sed eam mendosam esse cum resipsa tum Graecus codex evincit Quomodo enim ab universis dictum est quod mox Universi mutarunt alitur extulerunt Calix ibid. he is somewhat dis-ingenuous and takes some part of the sentence of Aurelius and joyns it to the proposal of Faustinus And 2. Taking advantage of a spurious lection makes that to be agreed upon by all the Bishops which was onely the proposal of one Faustinus a legate of the Roman Church to which the Synod doth not assent I will faithfully transcribe the whole matter that you may see the truth of what I say Aurelius then speaks thus It pleased the Bishops Priests and Deacons to be continent in all things which sure they may be in marriage as it behoveth Bishops Priests and Levites or those who serve at the Holy Sacraments that so they may obtain what they aske of God and that what the Apostle taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again defraud not one another except it be with consent for a time 1 Tim. 3. 1 Cor. 7.5 that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer and Antiquity observed in abstaining from those lawful pleasures at such times of fasting and prayer and ingagement in Divine Service Vide Can. 3. 4. We also may keep Thus Aurelius Next comes Faustinus and proposeth that Bishops Priests and Deacons and all who handle the Holy Sacraments should abstain even from their own Wives to which the Synod answereth onely thus It pleaseth us that those who wait at the Altar should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve chastity And therefore it doth not at all appear that they consented to his proposal seeing chastity may bee preserved in lawful Wedlock as the Carthaginian Bishops in the third Synod do acknowledge The like prevarication we meet with Sect. 14 in your citation of the 28. Can. of the Afric Coun. which in brief runs thus Aurelius the Bishop said Uxores nisi eustodita pudicitia duxerint lectores legere non sinantur Can. 19 Vide Calix edit Helm p. 397. See Mr. C. p. 215. I add Reverend Brethren that which hath been confirmed in divers Synods in their relations or consultations about the temperance not intemperance as Mr. C. of Clerks with their own Wives and chiefly Readers That Bishops Priests Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the Holy Mysteries in their proper turns of service words which our Author thought good to change should be Continent even from their Wives and be as if they had them not which if they do not c. Indeed the Canon as it is in latine agrees with his interpretation as far as it extends but that wee should rather follow the Greek version appears from this that the Canon in its full extent is no where extant in latin and now for the sense of it that it intends the prohibition only in propriis viois suae temporibus appears 1. From the very words which determine and prescribe this Continence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according not to former decrees but to the proper terms of their attendance 2. Balsamon upon the Canon tells us that this was the very mind of the Councel nec prohibuit eis Synodus cum ipsis consuetudinem nisi in propriis terminis i. e. in prestitutis uniuscujusque vicis dieâ—us Yea the general Councel at Trullo Can. 13. doth evidently declare for this interpretation their words are these Wee know that those who met at Carthage being carefull of the holiness of Priests decreed that Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons handling the holy Mysterys should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of the Greek Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words do not only evidence this sense and tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are proper turns of administration or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also evidently explain the meaning of that clause in the former Canon that so what the Apostle taught and Antiquity observed to be the very same which I have imitated from what hath been said I thus argue they which limited this abstinence to a certain time did not intend that it should be perpetual seeing regula firmat in non exceptis but thus did these Synods Ergo. Thus have we returned answer to his Synods Sect. 15 it follows now that we produce our Synods against him And 1. I will begin with the Nicene Councel the History of which wee have related by Gelasius Cyzicenus and in that this passage It seemed good to some Bishops in the City to introduce a new law or custome into the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to define that Bishops Presbyters Deacons Sub-Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any other sacred Persons ought not to use those Wives as Companions of their Bed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being Laicks they had married these things being thus determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paphnutius rose up and cryed with a loud voice Oh do not make grievous the yoke of Priests for Marriage is honourable amongst all and the bed undefiled least by too much exactness or severity you rather bring detriment to the Church then good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither are all sufficient to exercise this Apathy thus to restrain their sensual appetite nor will any I suppose be kept in chastity if women should be thus deprived of their husbands Moreover I affirm that the affording due benevolence by any man to his lawful wife is honest chastity wherefore her whom God hath joyned or whom any being yet a Lectorer or Singer or Laick hath married do not you separate Soz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which the whole Synod assented and left every man to his freedome to abstain or not This history we have in Suidas Verb. Paphn in Gratian C. Nicaena dist 31. In M. Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 1. c. 14. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. Now there is scarce any thing asserted in this chapter which is not contradicted by the decree of this Nicene Councel doth he tell us that a matrimonial use of Wives to the formerly married Mr. C. p. 215. Cujusque arbitrio abstinentiam ab uxoris consuetudine permittentes Soc. Mr. C. Ib. Mr. C. p. 206. was forbidden the Story tells us that it was left free by the Synod to abstain or not Will he cite some
did not beget children though others did if throughout all Aegypt it had been unlawful for a Bishop to have had a wife or beget children in that condition For that he is so to be understood is evident because he tells him how he might live in the condition of a Bishop nor did it concern Dracontius at all what lives the Bishops lead before their instalments but what they used to bee when they ascended the Episcopal Chair 3. Why doth St. Jerom though dealing with one by Nation a Spaniard and inhabiting in France fly to Aegypt and the East but that he knew there was no such matter observed in Spain France and other places of the Western Church St. Jerom is so far from shewing that this severity obtained in the East that he rather evidenceth by this that it obtained not generally in the West but onely in the Roman Diocesses or the Suburbicarian Churches The second place produced from St. Jerom runs thus Epist ad Pammachium All Bishops Priests and Deacons and the whole Sacerdotal and Levitical Chore know they cannot offer sacrifice if they use the Act of Marriage Answ True if they use it at the time of Sacrificing or when their turn of attendance upon the Altar comes or 2. This must be understood onely of the Clergy of the Church of Rome of which he was a member as also Pammachius to whom he writeth in this Apology or else there can be nothing of truth in it Mr. C. p. 214. it being so evident that our Author is even forced to grant it that the Eastern Bishops did generally allow themselves a liberty in this Next you produce the empty name of Origen to whom you have a sufficient answer in Calixtus and tell us M. C. P. 159. 160. that Eusebius saith somewhat which you durst not produce P. 227. 228 229. To. 3. l. 17. c. 9. sect 11.12 13 14 15. Haer. 59. because haply you knew that it was evidently impertinent as you might have seen in Calixtus and Chamier Epiphanius you introduce to inform us that a Bishop Priest Deacon Sub-Deacon that is the husband of one Wife and begets children is not admitted in the Church Sect. 21 especially where the Canons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very exact and severe which was not in many places then he objects that in some places the Presbyters Deacons and Sub-Deacons beget children To which he answers Ibid. that this is against the Canon viz. the exact Canon he before spake of and to be imputed to the minds of men so quickly languishing 2. Haply he speaks onely of the Church of Cyprus and Salamis where he was Bishop or some parts adjacent For what shall we think of the Canons of the Nicene Councel and of Gangra were they not sufficiently exact From the Western Church he produceth onely the testimony of two Fathers Sect. 22 The first is l. 1. de officiis c. ult St. Ambrose whose testimony makes the Marriage of Priests impure corrupt a stain and violation of marriage which Mr. C. dares not approve of 2. He tells us that not in certain as Mr. C. but in most places more obscure then Mediolanum the Priests did beget children Ep. 82. Non quo excludat ex sortem conjâ—gii sed ut conjugali eastimonia servet ablationis suae gratiam Lib. de adult conjug c. 20. Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 3. c. 4. p. 348. 3. The same Ambross elsewhere tells us that the Apostle when he commands viz. the Bishop to be the Husband of one wife doth it not to exclude the unmarried but that hee viz. who had not the gift of Continence but lay under the danger of fornication should keep the grace of his Baptism by using this remedy of Wedlock The second Father is St. Austin who saith onely this that the continence of those Clerks who were snatched as it were into the ministery and violently compelled against their will as it was with Austin himself with Pinianus ordained against his will and the tears of his Wife with Panlinianus whose mouth was stopped that he might not deny it was proposed by him as an example to others and they are said to bee taken ad eam sarcinam subeundam because they were hastned to the Ministery before ordination and after that time the Church permitted them not the use of marriage But yet here is nothing of an Ecclesiastical Law much less a Divine but onely an irregular action which as matters then stood laid a necessity upon persons thus abused to be single Nor can it be imagined that such men ever made a vow of single life as the Popish Priests do or that these were fiting circumstances for a vow Thus have we gone over the Fathers produced by him Sect. 23 as clearly as the matter will well bear I shall be very sparing in confronting Fathers to him referring you for the triumphant evidence of Antiquity to Calixtus Chamier and Bishop Hall 1. Then Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing to Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus who as it seems would have brought his Clergy into this snare exhorts him Euseb l. 4. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee would not put this heavy Yoke of Continence this burthensome purity upon his Brethren but would have respect to the infirmity of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Const Apost l. 6. c. 17. Si male intelligatur non solum libidinem sacerdotum Graecorum defendat sed Latinis quoque ad petendam quod concedi non potest aditum praeparet muniat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athenug apol ad Anton. Philos Had there been any Apostolical sanction or Ecclesiastical constitution in this case how durst Dionysius have disswaded the exercise of it or called it a grievous Yoke not to bee imposed on the Brethren why doth hee speak particularly to Pinytus yea why doth not Pinytus in his Answer minde him of it and defend himself with it but only tell him that they should not perpetually be fed with milk but at last come to more solid meat 2. The Author of the Apostolick constitutions vulgarly attributed to St. Clemens tells us that Bishops Priests and Deacons if at Ordination they bee married must not bee joyned to others but content themselves with her whom at their Ordination they enjoyed words very pregnant and emphatical which Turrianus himself acknowledgeth and therefore contends for another Lection viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which hee is sufficiently confuted by Chamier to 3. l. 16. c. 7. sect 11 12 13 14 15. 3. When Athenagoras and Justin Martyr to whom you may add Irenaeus Tatianus Theophilus Antiochenus come to answer what was objected against the Christians concerning Promiscuous Mixtures they tell them among other things that they are so far from such uncleanness that there might be found amongst them many Ante medium both Men and Women that were unmarried even to old age the like hath
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
Ministers a vow of Celibacy which is a snare the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kinde which is open Sacriledge the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue which bids continual defiance to the Apostle there is a necessity of our separation from her and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical This being so Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church Mr. C. p. 232. had been guilty of Innovation in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession those points are not fundamental their voluntary separating themselves from her communion will be in Gods esteem very Schisme For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned as the truths of Christ and the practise of such of them as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God as the Dr. every where asserts he apparently affirms that albeit it be required of us to beleive what we count an errour which is impossible to assert an Innovation to be the truth of Christ which is to lye to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God which is to live continually in Hypocrisie and disobedience to the revealed will of God yet cannot these conditions bee refused but we must incur the guilt of Schisme And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt he must consequently enjoyn us to lye to live in continual Hypocrisie and disobedience to his will as being necessary to this end albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes which is horribly blasphemous And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book As 1. Where he saith Mr. C. p. 259. that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing not fundamental contrary to the sense of the Law the Jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them which obedience required a submission of judgement and internal assent to such commands that they are agreeable to Gods law because it would bee utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men which the subject beleived to be contrary to Gods law Ans And sure it may be reasonably thought that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbies which the Jewish Nation did afford some might believe that to bee contrary to Gods law which indeed was so and then poor creatures they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty to an impossibility viz. of yeilding internal assent to that as agreeable to Gods law which they beleived to bee contrary thereunto is it not wonderful that the decision of seventy persons contrary to Gods law to the belief of which all Jury was obliged should not only disanul the obligation of seven hundred thousand of giving credit to that law but force them upon the utmost penalty to beleive the contrary that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those who say Ezek. 13. the Lord saith when he hath not said it should yet enjoyn his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe to say so too That he who sends them to the Law and to the testimonies telling them that those who speak contrary unto them have no truth in them should yet oblige the same persons upon the utmost penalty to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies as the truths of God Credat Judaeus Apella Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears saith he in this Sect. 5 Ibid. that it was a less evil and inconvenience that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed then that contentions and disputes should be endless Answ God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters as his breach upon Uzzah and the sons of Aaron doth evince 2. How unwarrantable is it to plead an inconvenience against a Precept for whereas hee talks of a command we shall consider that pretence hereafter might not the greatest Rebels who pretend Religion for their Rebellion plead with parity of reason 't is a less evil and inconvenience that some petty precepts of subjection to Governours should be transgressed then that Religion should bee hazzarded But 3. What is this but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing and to keep close to his precepts were the way to make contentions endless or that if the disobeying of any of Gods precepts might conduce to the ending of contentions we might do so in pursuit of such an end And is not this apparently to do evil that good may come on it to say that God hath need of our lye and disobedience to preserve the unity of his Church The like wee have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect 14. where he tells us that albeit upon supposition of the Churches fallibility in non fundamentals she should erre in such decisions which he is pleased to call not much concerning and by consequence our assent would be erronious yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenced with the most acceptable virtue of obedâ—ence love of peace and unity which accompanies it Answ Let him not talk of obedience till he can shew a precept something from God which obligeth us to beleive an errour or to tell a lye when their Church commands us To disobey God and play the Hypocrites that we may perform obedience to her injunctions to deny his truths out of humility and to purchase peace and unity by these means 2. Seeing fundamentals that is doctrines See Mr. C. c. 19. sect 6. without an explicite belief whereof none can be saved are very few doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God yea of assenting to what is contrary to it if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions and is this agreeable to Gods frequent injunctions to try all things and hold fast the truth And whereas he further tells us Sect. 7 that both truth and errour in such things lyes only on the Churches Ibid. and not at all on their account This cannot bee built upon any other foundation then this that wee are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church of Rome or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schisme though contrary in our judgements to reason and the Word of God which is the very thing in question 2. If this be truth why doth Christ call us out of Babylon least we should be partakers of her sin and consequently from any other assembly with which wee cannot communicate without sin seeing their sins whether they be erronious practises or opinions lie only on their account not ours Seeing therefore it is evidenced 2 Proposition that we are free from the guilt of Schisme it follows undeniably Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must bee the Schismatick as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust and this
if he should have said not these which I have mentioned before but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith but our Authour hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin though little to the purpose And 1. St. Austin saith the last Judgement of the Church is a general Council Ans So say we and yet question their infallibility Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4. this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topick of petitio Principii His second instance from St. Austin runs thus The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church before the Schisme of Donatus made many great men endowed with great charity Fathers and Bishops so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions did for a long time waver till by a General council of the whole world what was wholsomely thought was confirmed and the doubts removed or if Mr. C. will needs have it so was without further doubts confirmed good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us now what of all this is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council no sure But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian had this Authority been declared in his time would without doubt have beleived it Answ Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesie else he would never abuse them so grosly as he doth for St. Austin saith not crederet he would beleive but cederet he would submit and that not simply but if the truth of the Question being declared and made evident Eliquata had been confirmed by the Council but the words immediately foregoing that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later sufficiently shew what was the judgement of St. Austin and here not only the fabrick of the words but the occasion of the question being a matter not of fact but of faith doth put by all the Answers given to the place and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron in the place fore-cited to whom therefore I refer you CHAP. XXI The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils propounded sect 1. Mr. C 's cavils against them considered sect 2. And 1. The liberty which they allow not destructive to our Church sect 2 3 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should erre not impossible nor improbable sect 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition sect 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals sect 8. Wee may judge of the legality of their proceedings sect 9. No General Council hath determined against Protestants sect 10. The Trent Council not general sect 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council considered sect 12. BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils Sect. 1 yet do wee esteem highly of them and the Worthies of our Church affirme Bishop Lawd Dr. Field that their decrees are to bee observed by every Christian provided 1. That they keep themselves to Gods Rule and do not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them 3. That there bee no gain-saying of men of worth place and esteem 4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church in such cases wee must not saith the learned Dr. p. 666. Field so much as publickly professe the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt carefully seeking to the Scriptures and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth neither is it necessary for us expressely to assent Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field are esteemed by him very licentious and rediculous and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph and yet to mee it seems easie to blow off what ever odium hee can cast upon them And 1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been Mr. C. p. 254. or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of Gods Church He may do well to acquaint us whether to dissent from a decree be to annul it whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annul'd our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them and refusing obedience to them 2. Whereas hee tells us Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament Mr. C. ibid. there being many men of esteem yea the greatest part of the world who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them Which objection is also largely managed p. 267 268 269. Ans But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling thus trifle P. 282. sect 71. and P. 286. sect 80. hath he not told you long ago true others may make the same defence as we do a murtherer may cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so justly nor so truely the question is not what can be pretended but what can be proved The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Churches constitutions as we do against yours but that they can prove their accusation so strongly that appears not To the Jews and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter answered wee must obey God rather then men the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give mee now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs though it were obnoxious to bee abused by traitours and rebels certainly therefore this is no good consequence Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church though unjustly and untruely therefore we may not pretend to it though justly and truely we can do it against the constitutions of your Church And what if men of worth and esteem think otherwise then our Church doth Do wee say that it will excuse our people to erre with men of worth and esteem Or doth hee that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not bee refused unless there bee a gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem assert moreover that when ever it is so this will legitimate to any the refusal of
innovations in doctrine and irregularity in manners which is the confessed purpose of these laws Secondly For the Emperour Charls the great which was the Doctors second instance wee are told by the Emperour himself that hee convocated Bishops to counsel him how Gods Law and Christian Religion should bee recovered Apud Surium die 5. Jun. Therefore saith hee by the council of my Religious Prelates and my Nobles wee have appointed Bishops in every City and Boniface their Arch-Bishop and appoint that a Synod shall bee held every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and the Rites of the Church may bee restored and Christian Religion may bee reformed Yea he tells us that hee resided in his councils not onely as an hearer but Judge also and by the gift of God determined and decreed what was to bee held in these inquiries Part. 1. pag. 3. As you may find in the collection of Goldastus yea hee made a decree against the worshipping of Images and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary hee speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire We have sent our Deputies unto you to the intent that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances such as wee thought to beemost necessary for you Let no man I entreat you think or censure this pâ—ous admonition for presumptuous whereby wee force our selves to correct what is amisse to cut off what is superfluous and briefly to compact what is good But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity For wee have read in the Book of Kings how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him to the service of the true God by going about it by correcting and admonishing it So that here wee have him not onely acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince but particularly by the council of his Prelates and his Nobles acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion yea without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous correcting what was amisse and justifying himself by the example of King Joas who undoubtedly reformed Religion it self c. 24. sect 7. as our Authour confesseth of the Kings of Judah Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times that they were onely the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws De imperio sum potest Now this is evidently otherwise for as Grotius tells us Justinian made new Patriarchates ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops which was very usual for Emperours to do as Tollet there confesseth to omit many other instances of like kind And as for Charls the great hee tells us from Bochellus that it was very well known that antiently as oft as Synods were assembled their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel and if any things there displeased they were exploded which saith hee from the Council of Tours Cabilonensi and Chaloun under Charls the great wee have already demonstrated thus Bochellus Yea farther the same Emperour added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa and gives us notice that hee did so by annexing or prefixing of this clause hoc de nostro adjicimus but I will not trouble my self any further to insist on this seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods thus convened by them But 2. Bee it so that these Imperial Laws were the Churches faith and Canons for discipline and consequences of the Churches authority then must it bee acknowledged that the decrees of Charls the great against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council was a part of the Churches faith a consequence of her authority Justin nov 123. S. ad haec jubemus Carol. mag capit l. 1. c. 70. and regulated by the Laws of the present Church And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus that Divine Service should bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue as being required to bee celibrated so by the Apostle and by God himself who would require an account of them who should do otherwise at the day of Judgement the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary must bee all actions regulated by the Churches of their time and according to the faith and discipline of the same And what hath hee to perswade us that what he saith was the very truth as to the practise of Charlemain just nothing and for the Emperour Justinian as bad as nothing for what saith hee but that the Rules of the Holy Councils viz. the four first General Councils shall obtain the force of Laws for their Doctrines wee receive saith hee as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules wee observe as laws ergo all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian though made touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing were regulated by the Law of the present Church again our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules that is such of them as required only things determined by former Councils ergo they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but all of them as consequences of the Churches Supremacy Balsamon must bee called a malitious Schismatick Sect. 5 though Mr. Mr. C. p. 283. C. would be angry if we call him so and then we must be told that he saith only that the Emperour hath an inspection over the Churches Bals in C. 38.6 Syn. in Trullo so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. Answ But this c. cuts off the most material part of the sentence which tells us that the Emperour may not only set a form for the election of Bishops but for other administration of them so as he shall think good which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy nor is this all that is there said but we are told moreover that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth I am not able to divine If Balsamon here have not
said enough let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch where hee saith the Patriarch himself shall bee judged of the Emperour who hath cognisance over the power of the Church peradventure as Sacrilegious an Heretick or guilty of any other crime for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceedings To the last example of reformation Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah Ibid. he answers 't is granted here was a reformation of Religion but adds 1. That they are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the high Priests or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves Answ Bishop Andrews tells you that seeing it cannot be denied that Kings were to bee Nursing Fathers of the Church to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament every where complains of their neglect in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice and when the people became Idolatrous 't was imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel you ought to shew us where these limitations are to be found you shall reform but not all the Priests not the High Priests though they go before the people in Idolatry not against the Priests if they are minded to continue their Idolatry not without the Priests albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of Gods worship No in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf and hee satisfie their desires in making one these Calves must be continued by our Moses or chief Governours unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them This I am confident would have been new Divinity to King David Could ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam have reformed without reforming all the Priests who were manifest Idolaters or at least transgressors of Gods law and therefore can it bee avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the waies of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry as well as Aaron yea was he not think you in the daies of Elijah and might not Jezabels whoredomes have been corrected notwithstanding were the declarations of the Church necessary to legitimate such a reformation why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation why not the Priests and especially the High Priests but constantly it is charged as the Princes fault that the High places were not removed 'T is true the Priests lips should preserve knowledge as Mr. C. hath it and when they do so even the King should seek it at their mouths asking their advice in matters of such great concernment but if they turn Idol shepherds causing the people to erre if both Priest and Prophet bee prophane then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation as to reform them before and above others and indeed had it been otherwise Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so But 2. Neither is this our case our reformation in the daies of King Henry Edward or Queen Elizabeth was not a reformation without or against the whole body of our Priests but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party the Doctrines reformed by K. Edward were reformed by the consent of a lawful Synod of Bishops and other learned men and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense even so Queen Elizabeth by the advise and concurrence of her true reformed pastors legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land Nor doth he invalidate this example by saying that these Reformers were Prophets as well as Kings for neither were Hezekias Josias or Jehn Prophets nor did they act here as Prophets but as Kings or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect who were no Prophets were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church or would this have argued them to be so to let their Children suck in the poyson of Idolatry But he hath some objections which come next to be considered And 1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord hee that heareth you Mr. C. p. 286. heareth me Ergo the supream power may not purge the Church from it's corruptions though by the advice and consent of the Nobles and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy Again Christ never said nor can we finde in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that commâ—ission as my Father sent me c. Receive the Holy Ghost a new commission teach all Nations ergo Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy and with the concurrence of Parliament reform corruptions in the Church I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations ever to defend the Kings supremacy 3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles or rather a prediction that when the spirit should be sent to them hee would guide them into all truth which saith hee was never made to Princes any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors no nor then neither Ergo they may not with the advice c. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church and the Church from them 2. I can tell him of a promise that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him and he will teach them his Covenant if they search for wisdome c. then they shall finde it if they do the will of Christ they shall know the Doctrines whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiours any errours or advise them to what is Superstition or that when so they cannot have the benefit of those promises or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently bee guided into all saving truth without them 4. Saith he Princes are sheep not pastours yea are sons of the Church Answ True but notwithstanding all this they are Nursing Fathers of the Church 2. All the families of any Parish are sheep not Pastors Ergo they may not reform themselves without their Pastour His second unavoidable demonstration is Sect. 8 that if Kings bee independent on any Authority on Earth Mr. C. p. 287. then must there be a spiritual power over of them all which is in the Church Answ Bishop Brambal tells you Reply p. 287. that the Kings of England are under the forreign jurisdiction of a General Council and is not this an unavoidable demonstration that forceth us to acknowledge what we do acknowledge did ever Dr. Pierce deny this but if we should
Romanists bring against the Church of England though in themselves but probable be demonstrations but the first is so ergo which is no better then this if the Moon be made of Green Cheese then is the Roman Church infallible but the Moon c. Again Sect. 2 if wee acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to dissent from the Catholick without an evident demonstration that is such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines held by the fourth part of Gods Church and denied by all the world besides be so much as probabilities but the first is so What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these I shall not envy you We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply And the first is this to declare expresly that in all the points handled in this Book we are demonstratively certain that they are errours and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils for saith he without this certainty according to the Arch-Bishop it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church Which reason will then be valid when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God for of that only as we have evidenced the Arch-Bishop speaks not till then 2. It doth not lye upon us to shew that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith are novelties and errours but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere whence it can be made evident that they are Articles of faith traditions received from the Apostles for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion which require us to beleive they are such 3. We are sufficiently convinced that your veneration of Images is a novelty that your prayer in an unknown tongue the infallibility of the Church of Rome are so many untruths and that nothing in this or any other Book said to the contrary is convictive 2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation 1. That the universal Church represented in a General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so mislead the Church by errours that a particular Church c. discovering such errours may be obliged to separate externally Answ This is so far from being a main ground of our separation that it is no ground at all neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one Iota contrary to us That which he calls the second ground of our separation hath been considered already Our third ground of separation must be this Sect. 5 that a particular Church in opposition to the universal can judge what doctrines are fundamental what not in reference to all Persons States or Communities and then he requires that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent or else demonstrative reason be alledged why such an one is not necessary Answ This I binde my self to do when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to bee fundamental against the universal Church or are concerned to do so yea could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us which yet is a contradiction seeing we are a part thereof yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental which is thus practised and as for his catalogue of fundamentals 1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated that such a Catalogue is not necessary c. 3. sect 13. 2. I promise to give it him when he shall be able to evince it necessary or shew demonstrative reasons why wee do not 3. We urge him with as much vehemency to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome without which no man can tell whether or no his errour be in fundamentals and render him uncapable of salvation Well Sect. 6 but if wee deny our external separation from the present universal Church we are saith he obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with in whose publick service we will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods we ever have or can repair Answ This as also the question following hath been sufficiently answered already under the eighth Proposition Lastly saith he since the English Church by renouncing not only several doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby departed from both these we must finde out some other pretended members of the Catholick Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly Heretical with whom the English Church communicates Answ Every line is a misadventure For 1. This passage supposeth that wee cannot be in the communion with those from whom we differ in any doctrine so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council the adoration of Latria due to some Images the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno and the like cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world which all hold the contrary 2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches unless we receive the same Councils for General which they do 3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General which wee do not which is untrue 4. That the Reformed Churches are manifestly Heretical Yea 5. If he would not bee manifestly impertinent hee must infer that to renounce any Doctrine received by these Churches or not to acknowledge any Council to be General which they do not must necessarily bee Schismatical and unchurch us which it is impossible to prove unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so Lastly wee say the Church of Rome can produce no Churches but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical with whom she communicates His fourth condition is Sect. 7 that wee must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments and to bee no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations or shew how wee can acquit our selves from Schism who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods and to whom a General permission is given to acknowledge them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Churches Here again are many suppositions like the former As 1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical is to be Schismaticks which makes the whole world Schismaticks for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical in the difference about Easter and did they not both convene in a General Synod yea did not the Orthodox Bishops resort to the Synod at Arriminum where there were many Arrian Bishops was the Church of Rome Schismatical for resorting to the