place informs us for saith he St. Paul here stirs up Timothy to be solicitous in preaching himself and to make choice of others who were fit for that work and therefore he saith The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses i. e. confirmed by the Law and the Prophets and the Hagiographa or other sacred Writings the same commit thou to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others also i. e. to Men of a sound Faith who shall be fit by the example of holy life by their Knowledge and by their Eloquence to teach others also Now what relation this hath to Traditions or why this Gentleman brought it in as a proof of them I cannot devise These are all the Scripture proofs which he offers for Traditions but he hath a Reserve of two passages out of two of the Fathers to make good the Reer The first of which he tells us is to be found in Epiphanius Haer. 61. in these words 'T is necessary to admit of Traditions for all things cannot be found in Scripture and therefore the holy Apostles delivered some things in writing and some by Tradition How far this will serve the end he aims at is now to be considered That in some cases it is necessary to admit of Traditions was never denied by us nor did we ever affirm That all things are to be found in Scripture nor do we deny but that the Holy Apostles did deliver some things in Writing and some by Tradition i. e. by word of Mouth But we deny that it is necessary to admit of Traditions i. e. unwritten Traditions in all cases or indeed in any unless it can be made appear that they have been universally received by the whole Church in all Ages And we do affirm that though the Scriptures do not contain all things yet they do contain all things necessary to be believed by us in order to our Salvation And though we do not deny but that some things were delivered by the Apostles in Writing and some by word of mouth yet we do deny that what was delivered by word of mouth was either besides or against what was written by them What was delivered in writing hath been carefully preserved we have it before our eyes and are sure of it but of those things which were delivered by word of mouth some we are sure have been lost as for instance Those many other things which Jesus did mentioned by St. John c. 21. v. 25. and the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. Paul 2 Th. 2. That Records are a much more faithful keeper than Tradition appears by these instances those few that were written being still preserved and believed and those infinity that were not written being all lost and vanished out of the memory of Men. And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible You will not you dare not say that God would suffer any thing to be lost that was necessary to Salvation nor can you deny but that he hath suffered these Traditions to be lost and therefore the Knowledge or Belief of them though it were a profitable thing yet is it not necessary And if so then with what face can you require us to assent unto this Article upon pain of damnation when we have no footsteps or print remaining which with divine Faith we may rely upon All which considered may we not truly say That Epiphanius here if rightly understood is neither for them nor against us For we say with him that it is necessary to admit of Tradition in some but not in all cases We acknowledge also that the Holy Apostles delivered some things in Writing and some by Tradition and when any thing is made appear to us to be of Apostolical Tradition and delivered by them as necessary to Salvation we will enquire no farther but will readily admit and embrace it His next Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nyssen l. 3. contra Eunom p. 126. where he tells us these words are to be found 'T is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors it having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles and convey'd down to us by a continued Succession of the Faithful in all Ages I see nothing to all this but what without any scruple we may readily assent to Gregory Nyssen says It is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors And who these Ancestors were he tells us in the next words It having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles So then the Ancestors here spoken of were the Apostles and the Tradition here mentioned was what was left us as an Inheritance by them Now what was it that was left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles but only the Doctrine of Christianity contained in their Writings which Doctrine hath been convey'd down to us by a succession of the Faithful in all Ages i. e by Universal Tradition That this is the sence of this Father in this place is plain from his own words and is agreeable to the way and manner of speaking among the Fathers by whom the Gospel it self and the whole Religion of Christ is frequently called A Tradition De praescription advers Haereticos Concil Constantinop 6. Act. 4. Eadem Actione Basil de Spiritu Sancto 2 Th. 2.15 So the Articles of our Faith are by Tertullian called An old Tradition So the Faith of the Holy Trinity in the Council of Constantinople is called A Tradition And the Faith of two sundry Natures in Christ in the same Council is called The lively Tradition of the Apostles So St. Basil calls it A Tradition To believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost And in this sence St. Paul calls the Apostolical Doctrine A Tradition This is all that he produceth in the behalf of Traditions Now whether he hath hereby proved that the Romish Doctrine of Traditions is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers I leave the Reader to judge His next Effort is to make good the latter part of this Article touching all the other Observances and Constitutions of the Church And here we might reasonably have expected that he should have told us what those Observances and Constitutions are which we are required to admit and embrace But that is not the way of the Church of Rome she expects that her votaries should rely upon her guidance and conduct with an implicit Faith and observe her Dictates with a blind Obedience And therefore the Vindicator here like a dutiful Son of such a Mother never stops to us what is required of us but without more ado goes about to prove That whatsoever those Observances and Constitutions are it is our duty
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
and Interpretation of Scripture and we are not to admit of it but according to Her Sence then it will be necessary to know which is the Church and whether that which pretends to be so be indeed the true Church for without that we cannot with any certainty depend upon Her Judgment But how shall we know that but by the Scriptures Nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Chrysostom in opere imperfect Hom. 49. Ecclesiam Christi sicut ipsum Caput Christum in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis debemus agnoscere Aug. de Vnitat Eccl. c. 66. St. Chrysostome saith It is impossible to know it otherwise And St. Augustine for the discovery of the true Church directs us to the sacred Scriptures And indeed how is it possible to know this or that to be a True Church i. e. of a sound Judgment and pure in the Faith unless we first know the Rule of Faith which is the Word of God But how shall we know either the one or the other but by making use of our own Reason and judging for our selves of those Evidences which are produced So that in fine If we should grant all that the Church of Rome requires of us yet must we make use of our own Reason to understand that Sence and Interpretation which she gives us of the Holy Scriptures Which is no more nor less than resolving all at last into a private Judgment And that all Christians not only may but ought in this manner and in these cases thus to judge for themselves we have good warrant and Authority from the Word of God in which we are advised Not to believe every Spirit but to try the Spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World 1 John iv 1. And to prove all things but to hold fast that which is good 1 Th. v. 21. And to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us 1. Pet. iij. 15. And our Saviour tells us If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch Matth. xv 14. And he severely reproves those who did not receive his Doctrine saying And why even of your selves judge ye not what is right Luke xij 57. But notwithstanding all this and much more which hath been told them oftentimes oyer and over yet the Vindicator like a stout Champion of his Church undertakes to prove That this Article and every Branch of it is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Let us see now how he acquits himself in this undertaking This he tells us is founded upon the Doctrine delivered by St. Peter 2 Ep. i. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation From whence he thus argues And if it be not of private Interpretation private persons must apply themselves for the true Sence of it to some others and to whom but unto those whom God hath put over them whom he hath commanded them to hear to submit to and obey c. When Men by their own diligence and industry cannot attain to the true sence and meaning of Holy Scripture or after all their care and pains in the use of all proper means are not satisfied therein that in such a case they should apply themselves to those whom God hath set over them as their Spiritual Guides we think to be a method not only safe and reasonable but very necessary But whether this be deducible from or can be built upon this Text of Scripture I take to be very questionable or rather that it is out of question that it cannot And therefore before we proceed any farther let us make a stand a while and take a view of the Apostle's design in this place and of the full and genuine importance of these words St. Peter having faithfully discharged his duty in preaching the Gospel and now finding the time of his departure hence near at hand he commits to writing the substance of what he had preached that so those to whom he had preached might always have it in remembrance so little did he rely upon Tradition That this was his design appears plainly from the 12 13 14 and 15 Verses of this Chapter And that he might not burthen their memories too much he gives them a short Summary of what he had preached unto them viz. The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ v. 16. And to assure them of the truth and certainty thereof he lays before them two undeniable Arguments I. A voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased This was at his Transfiguration in the Mount at which time Peter James and John were with him and were Eye-Witnesses of his Majesty and Ear-Witnesses of that Heavenly Voice vers 16 17 18. II. But lest they should distrust them or look upon this as an illusion or a dream and fancy of their own he furnisheth them with another Argument which he was well assured would not be rejected by them and that is taken from the Prophetical Writings for which those of the Dispersion viz. the coverted Jews had a mighty regard saying We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed c. v. 19. meaning that Prophecy of holy David Ps ij 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And then he adds Knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scriptures i. e. no Prophecy contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament to distinguish it from the dreams of those Men who pretended to prophesie but had neither Mission nor Commission from God so to do is of any private Interpretation i. e. proceeds from any private or uninspired person or is an invention of Man. And that this is the full importance of this Expression the Apostle himself seems plainly to intimate in the very next words where he saith For the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man i. e. The Prophets of old did not prophesie either what they pleased or when they pleased but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost i. e. they published nothing but what was dictated to them by the Holy Ghost nor at any time but when they were moved by him v. 21. And if we consult the Original words they cannot well be construed otherwise for what in the 20 verse is rendred Of any private Interpretation in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendred thus All Prophecy of the Scripture is not made of their own Explication which is the same which the Apostle afterwards saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man. And for this sence of the Words if that will weigh any thing with them we have the Authority of their own Lyra upon
through laying on of the Apostles hands the Holy Ghost was given he offered them money Here we have a narrative of matter of Fact but nothing that looks like a Sacrament in it for here is neither any word of Institution nor any outward Element which are things agreed to be absolutely necessary to the making or constituting of a Sacrament Here is no mention of Chrism or Unction or of the blow on the Ear or of the Head-band which are look'd upon as things necessary and of the Essence of the pretended Popish Sacrament of Confirmation Besides the Imposition of hands by the Apostles in this place was not to celebrate a Sacrament to perfect or strengthen Baptism but to conferr miraculous and extraordinary gifts i. e. to give the Holy Ghost This Simon Magus saw and therefore offered money for that gift which he would never have done for Popish Confirmation To this I may add the testimony of their own Alexander de Hales Alex. Hales part 4. qu. 24. memb 1. who saith The Sacrament of Confirmation as it is a Sacrament was neither instituted by our Lord himself nor by his Apostles but was afterwards instituted in the Council of Melda So that though this may be an ancient Rite it can be but a new Sacrament i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Penance TO prove this he produceth John xx 22. Where it is said He breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost and v. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained Before I give a direct answer hereunto let me premise That the difference between us and the Church of Rome in this point is not Whether Penance be necessary to Salvation or whether men ought to confess their sins amend their lives and turn unto God by true Repentance but whether this Penance be a Sacrament wherein a contrite sinner ought punctually to confess his sins to a Priest and from him to receive judicial Absolution upon condition to make satisfaction unto God by Corporal or Pecuniary Penance which whosoever doth not accomplish in this life shall suffer for it in Purgatory The former of these we willingly assent to as being founded on the Word of God but the latter we reject as having no foundation either in this or any other Text of Scripture That our Saviour here doth commit to his Church the power of the Keyes i. e. of publick Discipline by virtue whereof she hath Authority to admit into or cast out of the Church such as she shall judge worthy of it we readily grant and do heartily bewail the want of it But that it is of such absolute necessity that the truly penitent sinner cannot receive Pardon of sins without it we cannot subscribe to Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in these words But the Vindicator in compliance with the Council of Trent Concil Trid. Sess 14. cap. 1. Can. 1. which teacheth That those who fall from Grace after Baptism have need of another Sacrament to restore them and therefore our Saviour instituted this of Penance and Anathematizeth all those who deny this Doctrine hath found out a Sacrament in these words But if our Saviour did by these words Institute a Sacrament I would fain know which is the Element or Visible Sign Instituted by Christ for this on both sides is acknowledged to be a necessary part of a Sacrament According to the Church of Rome this Sacrament consists of Four Parts viz. Contrition Confession Absolution and Satisfaction Contrition of the Heart can be no sensible nor visible Sign Nor can Confession pretend to it for 1. Confession is so far from being a Sign of the Grace of God that it is a declaration that we are unworthy of his Grace 2. It is designed not to signify the Grace of God but to ask it 3. The sacred Signs ought to be administred by the Priest but Confession is made by the Penitent Nor can Absolution lay any claim to it for 1. Absolution if it be good and available is the Grace of God and therefore cannot be a Sign of it 2. If it could be a Sign yet can it not be a Visible Sign for the words are not Visible Nor can Satisfaction pretend to it for that is accomplished by the Sinner and not administred by the Priest So that in all these we can find no outward Element or Visible Sign of Invisible Grace Instituted by Christ and without that it cannot be a Sacrament There is one thing yet which may make some colourable pretence to it and that is The Imposition of the Priest's Hands This we confess is a Visible Sign But 1. It is no Element but an Action as the distribution of the Bread in the Lord's Supper is not the Element but the Bread sanctified 2. This Imposition of Hands is not of Christ's Ordination or Institution and therefore cannot be a Sacramental Sign He did never command That the Priest should lay his Hands on any one to conferr Sacramental Absolution If he did let them produce the command But if we review these words we shall find that they were spoken to the Apostles after that Christ was risen again from the Dead And if so then Repentance preached before whether by the Prophets Matth. iij. Mark i. 15. Acts ij 38. Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 1. or by St. John Baptist or by Christ himself was no Sacrament nor that preached by St. Peter after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because the persons to whom he preached were not then Baptized For thus the Council of Trent hath determined the point Repentance was not a Sacrament before the coming of Christ nor after his coming is so to any one before Baptism And yet all good Christians in the Primitive and purest Times of the Church for many hundred Years after Christ never knew nor dream'd of any other Penance than what had been preached either by the Prophets or by St. John Baptist or by Christ himself or by his Apostles nor ever doubted of obtaining Pardon thereby The truth is Anno. 1215. till the Council of Lateran we do not find that ever Penance as it is now used in the Church of Rome was determin'd to be of necessary Observance Anno. 1546. Nor till the Council of Trent that it was required to be received as a Sacrament of divine Institution and absolutely necessary to Salvation All which considered notwithstanding this Gentleman's Vindication I think we may safely conclude That though Repentance be an old Duty yet it is but a new Sacrament and that Penance as it is now used in the Church of Rome is neither a Duty nor a Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Extream Unction TO prove this he produceth James v. 14 15. where it is said Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over
him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him This place of Scripture hath been often enough brought upon the stage by one or other of the Roman party and as often considered and the Arguments drawn from it baffled by some of our Men. And therefore when I met with it here I did expect that this Gentleman who is so brisk at a Vindication had found some new Matter in it and thereby cut us out some new Work but instead of that he only quotes the place transcribes the words and leaves them to shift for themselves What therefore is here to be done by us save only to consider the design of the Apostle in these Words Which is plainly this St. James directs the sick person to call for the Elders of the Church to assist him in that condition The means by which they were to assist him are Two 1. They were to pray over him And 2. To anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And that in order to Two ends 1. The Recovery of the Sick. 2. The Remission of Sins Of these Means and Ends the one is Perpetual viz. Prayer and Remission of Sins the other Temporary viz. The Anointing with Oil and the Recovery of bodily Health That the Apostles had the Gift of Healing we grant and that in order to the working of their miraculous Cures they did use the Ceremony of Anointing with Oil we deny not but the Gift of Healing being now ceased in the Church that Ceremony is become useless and unprofitable and for that reason laid aside for God loves no unprofitable Signs Whilst it was in use it was used only in Order to bodily health but now in the Church of Rome it is not to be used whilst there are any hopes of Recovery but only in Articulo mortis when Men are at the point of Death as a viaticum into the other World. That this was design'd and used only in order to bodily health is plain from the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred Years after Christ And Cardinal Cajetan freely confesseth Annot. in loc that this was the only use of it for saith he These words of St. James speak not of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction whether we consider the words or the Effects of them but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel to be used by his Disciples to the Sick. For the Text saith not Is any sick to Death but absolutely Is any sick Nor doth it assign any other use of anointing of the sick person but only the recovery of bodily health And the Ingenuous Cassander Cassand in Consult Art. 22. without any hesitation freely delivers his Opinion saying It is no Sacrament properly so called because it hath neither Word of Institution nor outward Element The eldest Evidence that we meet with for this pretended Popish Sacrament of Extream Vnction is the Council of Chalons Anno. 813. which was held above Eight hundred Years after Christ and was but at best a National Synod neither So that though we do not deny but that Anointing the Sick with Oil was a very Ancient Rite yet we cannot but look upon it as a very New Sacrament and one that was never advanc'd to that honour by any Appointmant of our blessed Saviour Of the pretended Sacrament of Orders TO evince this he produceth 2 Tim. i. 6. where St. Paul saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands St. Paul here admonisheth his Son Timothy to a vigorous exercise of that Power and Authority which by the Imposition of his Hands he had received to Preach the Gospel Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in this place But the Question between us is not Whether the Office of a Priest ought to be conferred upon him by the Imposition of Hands but whether such Ordination be a Sacrament of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ To this I answer That if by the word Sacrament they only mean any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion in which sence it is frequently used especially by the Latine Fathers we can very willingly and readily admit this Imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament But if they would advance it higher and have it called a Sacrament in the same sence as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are or as this Article requires That we should receive it as a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind we cannot in this consent with them and that for these Reasons I. Because Imposition of hands though it be a Sign yet is it not a sacred Sign of the Covenant of God in Jesus Christ II. Because it is not common to all the Faithful but confin'd to a certain order of Men only III. Because there is no express Institution of it to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and consequently no promise of Grace annexed to it IV. Because it is well known that many of the Roman Communion do not think Imposition of hands to be Essential to Holy Orders and if not then can it be no outward Sign of a Sacrament in them Nor can Ordination it self be a Sacrament seeing there is no outward visible Sign of it ordained by God. For these Reasons Though we acknowledge the Conferring of Orders by Imposition of hands to have been a very ancient usage in the Church and of Apostolical practice yet we think it to be a very new i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony AS an evidence of this he produceth Eph. v. 31 32. where St. Paul saith For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined to his Wife and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and his Church The Church of Rome calls the marriage of Priests Sacrilege and yet will have the Marriage of Lay-men to be a Sacrament which conferrs justifying Grace And to prove this the Vindicator alledgeth this Text of Scripture as many others before him have done and have received their answer but as if there had been no such thing this Gentleman with sufficient confidence barely cites it and so leaves it To which however I shall return this answer The Apostle in this place as is plain to every considerate Reader speaketh of the sacred Union between Jesus Christ and his Church which Union he illustrates by that of Marriage between the Husband and the Wife His intent was not to exalt the Mystery of Marriage but the Union of the Church with Jesus Christ This Mystery then whereof he speaketh is the
the Article which he is here defending is founded and consider one passage therein which perhaps he might before overlook And then I shall proceed to conder the latter part of this Article The Passage is this the Council doth there declare That Concupiscence doth still remain even in those that are baptized and doth further declare that St. Paul did sometimes call this Concupiscence Sin. But though the Apostle did so yet the Council tells us That the Catholick Church no doubt the Roman Catholick did never think it to be so And if any one think otherwise let him be Anathema In the beginning of this Decree the Council pretends to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost whether they had or no is not easie to be granted but it is confessed on all hands that St. Paul was inspired from above and if so then how comes the Council and he to be at odds in this matter Either the Apostle or the Council were in the wrong for both parts of a Contradiction cannot be true Now whether the Authority of St. Paul or that of the Council of Trent be the better one would think were no very hard Question St. Austin I am sure did not think it was for if he had he would not have been so positive as he was Aug ad Hieron Epist 19. when he said The Authority of St. Paul is to me instead of all the Fathers and above all the Fathers to him I flee and to him I appeal from all other Doctors whatsoever II. Concerning Justification he gives us an account of what the Council of Trent hath defin'd in Four particulars 1. That Men are justified by an intrinsecal Justice And this he founds upon Two places of Scripture viz. Tit. iij. 7. where it is said That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life Which Grace saith he is in Men. And for this he quotes 2 Tim. i. 6. where it is said I put thee in mind to stir up that Grace which is in thee So he renders it but it is more properly translated I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my Hands Which last words he leaves out To this I answer What St. Paul here means by being justified by his Grace he himself very well explains in another place where he saith Rom. iij. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where to be justified Freely and to be justified by Grace are Synonymous Expressions and imply no more but that God did freely and without any merit of ours send his Son to die for sinners and by his Death to make satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins and by that means to obtain such Grace and Favour with God that our Sins might be Pardoned and we Justified before him whence it is very plain That by the Grace of God we are not to understand any intrinsecal Righteousness of our own but the free Grace and Favour of God in accepting the Righteousness of Christ instead of ours and imputing the same to us through Faith for our Justification And therefore St. Paul after he had a little more Explain'd himself Vers 28. concludes saying Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. As for his other Scripture which he brings in as an Auxiliary Proof it is quite foreign to the matter in hand for the Apostle there doth not speak of Justifying Grace nor indeed of any Grace if we take the word strictly for the word there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the other but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not Grace but a Gift And the Gift which he there puts him in mind to stir up was the Gift of preaching As if he should have said Be sure couragiously to preach the Gospel and exercise that Ministerial Function which thou hast received by the Imposition of my Hands But I find this Gentleman is under a great mistake he takes Justification and Sanctification to be one and the same thing but I cannot much blame him for it because I know he is led into it by an Authority which he thinks to be Infallible and consequently Indisputable viz. the Council of Trent which teacheth him Sess 6. c. 7. That Justification consists not only in Remission of Sins but in Sanctification also and the renewing of the inward Man by a voluntary susception of Grace and Gifts by which of Vnrighteous a Man is made Righteous and of an Enemy a Friend that he may be an Heir according to the Hope of Eternal Life This is a far different Notion from that which the Church of England and the Holy Scriptures give us of Justification They teach us That by Justification we are to understand only Absolution or Remission of Sins but the Church of Rome confounds Justification with Sanctification and the Remission of Sins with the Renovation of our Minds And indeed in this Channel runs the main difference between us and them through the whole Controversie The Church of England delivers her Sentiments touching Justification thus Art. 11. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore that we are justifyed by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort And for a farther Explication thereof she refers to the Homily of Justification where she declares That by Justification 2 Hom. of Justificat part 1. she means the Forgivness of our Sins and Trespasses That this being received of God's Mercy and Christ's Merits embraced by Faith is taken and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification That nothing on the behalf of Man doth contribute to this Justification but only a true and lively Faith which Faith is also the Gift of God Yet doth not this Faith exclude Good-works nor the necessity of them in Justified Persons but only shuts them out from the Office of Justifying This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and for this she hath good Authority both in Scripture and Fathers but I must not now enter upon this Controversie lest I lose the Vindicator therein I shall therefore proceed to his next particular 2. He tells us That the Council of Trent hath defin'd That all Works of the Just are not Sins This saith he is evident in Scripture as Luke i. 6. where 't is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth They were both Righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless And 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sineth not Which likewise proves That the Commandments are not impossible to be kept as the same Council declares To this I answer If the Premisses be good the Inference therefrom I confess is natural For if Justified
they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he
of Sins Mark i. 4. And so likewise is Baptism and Repentance Acts ij 38. And yet I suppose the Vindicator will not say That either Baptism or Preaching or Repentance are propitiatory Sacrifices But perhaps he will say That all shedding of Blood made for Remission of Sins is a propitiatory Sacrifice I cannot consent to him in this neither for there is a shedding of Blood sacramental and not real which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross and that is no propitiatory Sacrifice But what if it be real Though it be yet will not the proposition be universally true for the Blood of our Lord was really shed and for Remissions of Sins too at his Circumcision and yet Circumcision was no Sacrifice In a true propitiatory Sacrifice three Things are required 1. There must be a real Effusion of Blood. 2. That real Effusion of Blood must be for the Remission of Sins 3. That Effusion of Blood must be by the Death of the thing offered None of which are to be found in this Action of our Blessed Saviour at his last Supper and therefore it could not be a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice But if we should grant which we cannot do that this were a Sacrifice and a propitiatory Sacrifice too will it by a necessary Consequence follow that every Mass-Priest at this day doth in the Mass offer a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Yes saith the Vindicator For though Christ was offered but once upon the Cross of which St. Paul speaketh Hebr. vij 27. yet in this manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper we believe that the Apostles and their Successors were commanded to repeat it in a perpetual memory and representation of his Death and Passion by Christ's own Institution when he said to them Do this in remembrance of me in which words he gave them power of doing the same that he had done To this I answer That in the same manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper he is offered still i. e. Sacramentally and that by the command of Christ we are obliged often to celebrate or repeat this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion upon the Cross And that by virtue of those Words Do this in remembrance of me Power was give to the Apostles and their Successors to do the same thing he did i. e. to celebrate this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion on the Cross All this we readily grant but what is all this to the Priest's Offering in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Those of the Roman Communion do indeed lay great stress upon these words Do this in remembrance of me pretending to find therein a power given to every Mass-Priest to offer up the Son of God as a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead But if they would but consult St. Paul he would better inform them what the importance of these words is For after he had recited the words of Institution and in the close thereof these very words Do this in Remembrance of me in the very next words he tells them what it was they were to do in remembrance of him saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 1 Cor. xi 26. 2. Having gone as far as he can with his Scripture proofs he calls in the assistance of Antiquity telling us with sufficient confidence That this i. e. the matter contained in this Article is the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Whether it be or no is the thing we are now to consider and for that purpose I shall examine his Quotations out of them His first Witness is St. Chrysost Hom. 7. I suppose he means 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. where it is said We still offer the same Sacrifice c. To this I answer What St. Chrysostom meant by those words I know no body can better inform us than St. Chrysostom himself who immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to speak more properly we make a commemoration of the same Sacrifice And in the same Homily had the Vindicator carefully perused it of been so honest as to have noted it he might have found such Expressions as these We offer indeed but it is in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice This which we now do is in commemoration of that which hath been done But that which the Vindicator seems to lay the great stress upon is That St. Chrysostom in this Homily and likewise l. 6. de Sacerd. calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice We grant it but if he will let him explain himself he will tell him upon what account he so calleth it in this Homily Because it representeth the Sacrifice of our Lord's Death and therein we commemorate the same till his coming again And in the other place Because we pray unto God that he would receive the Sacrifice of his Death as a satisfaction for our Sins His next Evidence is St. Ambrose sup Ps 38. Where he speaks of the Priest's offering Sacrifice for the People and of Christ's being offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered St. Ambrose in the same place explains himself saying The Shadow went before the Image followed the Truth shall be The Shadow in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in the Heavens O Man go up into Heaven and thou shalt see those things whereof here was an Image and a Shadow Where he plainly tells us that what is done here upon Earth is only an Image or Representation And in another place he saith In Luc. l. 5. c. 7. We have seen him and look'd upon him with our Eyes and we have thrust our Fingers into the print of his Nails For we seem to see him that we read of and to have beheld him hanging upon the Cross and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his Wounds Now as St. Ambrose here saith We see him hanging on the Cross c. In like manner doth he say He is offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered For as their own Gloss upon the Sentences of Prosper saith Christ is Sacrificed i. e. his Sacrifice is represented and a commemoration is made of his Passion His next Authority is Cyril Alex. Anath 11. We celebrate in our Churches an Holy Life-giving and Vnbloody Sacrifice What St. Cyril meant by this Unbloody Sacrifice he himself will best inform us if we consult him about it for in another place he saith Cyril contr Julian l. 10. We having left the gross Ministery of the Jews have a commandment to make a fine thin and spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smelling savour all manner of Vertues Faith Hope Charity And in the same sence that he calls these Sacrifices doth he call
what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and