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
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
the Scriptures when we do that which has seem'd good to the whole Church And who denies it We have too great a Veneration for the Doctrine and Practice of the Vniversal Church to suspect that there can be any ill in them let but any thing be made appear to have been universally received or universally practised by the Church in all Ages and we will readily admit and embrace it we will acquiesce in it and seek no farther Thus far do we perfectly agree with this holy Father nor do we dissent from him in the rest Which Church says he is commended to us by the Authority of the Scriptures Well then by his Rule we must understand the Scriptures before we can know the Church Now the Scriptures they themselves confess do not consist in the Letters and Words but in the Sence and meaning And if so then we must understand the sence and meaning of Scriptures antecedent to the Churches Interpretation of them But he goes on To the end says he that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates And here I cannot but remarque I. That according to St. Austin Holy Writ is the only infallible rule to judge by for it cannot deceive II. That by this rule we are to find out the true Church for without any ambiguity or leaving room to doubt it plainly demonstrates it to us III. That having by this means found out the true Church we ought in all questions which are too hard and difficult for us to consult her about them All which we readily agree to Now let the Vindicator once more put on his spectacles and seriously review this place of St. Austin and I dare appeal to himself or any man of sence whether it do not directly conclude against this Article which he undertakes to prove by it But perhaps he may have better luck with his next Authority let us therefore consider that too which he cites out of the same Father de Vnitat Eccles c. 19. whence he quotes these words If we had any wise man whose Authority was recommended to us by Christ himself we could no ways doubt of following his judgment having consulted him upon this point lest in refusing we should not so much seem obstinately to withstand him as Jesus Christ our Lord by whose testimony he was recommended to us Who doubts of all this If it had pleased our Blessed Saviour to have given such testimony to the Church of Rome or any other Church we should never have doubted to follow the judgment of that Church and when they can make it appear that he hath done so we shall without any the least scruple submit to it But St. Austin goes on Christ hath given testimony of his Church True but where is it not in the holy Scriptures and if so then we must understand them before we can be satisfied concerning this Testimony and as this Church directs you ought with all readiness obey Right but first we must know which is this Church and that according to St. Austin we cannot do but by the Scriptures And if you will not 't is not to me you are disobedient or any man but most perversly to the prejudice of your own Soul you withstand Christ himself because you refuse to follow the Church which is recommended by his Authority whom you judge it a wickedness to resist All this we can readily subscribe to for when by the Holy Scripture we have once found out which is the true Church we ought with all readiness to yield obedience thereunto because it is recommended to us by the Authority of Jesus Christ whom to resist in any thing we account a great wickedness But where shall we meet with this Authoritative Recommendation except in the holy Scriptures So that still we must understand the Scriptures before we can know which is that Church that is recommended to us by Christ And now pray'e what is all this to the proof of this Article That it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture and that we are not to admit Scripture to be Scripture but according to that sence which she gives of it And yet all this while we cannot according to St. Austin know the Church but by the Scripture I do also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for the salvation of Mankind though all be not necessary for every one to wit Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony that they conferr Grace and that three of them Baptism Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege HERE the Vindicator tells us That the holy Scripture no where assigns the number of the Sacraments either of their being two or seven Neither doth it give us the definition of a Sacrament and the word is not so much as named in the English Translation and only once in the Vulgar viz. Ephes v. 32. speaking of Matrimony All that we believe therefore in this point we receive from the Church as it hath been delivered founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture To this I answer That it is not more plain that in Scripture there is no mention of Sacraments than that in the Fathers there is no mention of seven The determination of the number is of so late a date Cassand Consult Art. 13. de numero Sacram. An. 1439. that their ingenuous Cassander freely confesses That it is not easie to find any man before Peter Lombard who lived in the twelfth Century which hath set down any certain and definite number of Sacraments The Council of Florence indeed insinuates this number of seven Sacraments as Suarez contends But it was never determined till the late Council of Trent in the last Age and therefore must needs be a great Novelty An. 1546. But to vindicate the Doctrine of seven Sacraments as it is now taught in the Church of Rome and summ'd up in this Article from the imputation of Novelty This Gentleman undertakes to prove that it is founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the sence of the Scripture wherein how well he acquits himself we shall now consider But because he tells us that the Holy Scripture gives us no definition of a Sacrament It will be necessary to state the notion of the thing and to agree what it is before we dispute how many of them there be To the constitution of a Sacrament properly so called we say that these three things must of necessity concurr viz. the word of Institution a visible Sign or outward Element Aug. in Joan. Tract 80. and a promise of invisible Grace annexed thereunto Which is the same that St. Austin saith Accedat verbum ad
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
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
the place Now if this be as undoubtedly it is the sence of the Apostle here let us see what consequence the Vindicator can draw from hence to favour his undertaking The Apostle here assures those to whom he wrote That all Prophecy of Scripture is not made of their own Explication i. e. as he explains himself Prophecy of old came not by the Will of Man. Therefore saith the Vindicator it belongs to the Church i. e. the Church of Rome and her only to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture for all Christians If you can swallow this consequence I do not see what you need to stick at One would have thought the more natural consequence had been this Therefore trust not every thing that pretends to come from a Prophetical and infallible Spirit but try whether it do so or no. Thus you see what a firm foundation this Gentleman hath laid which thus failing him his Superstructure thereupon must needs be in a very tottering condition His next Scripture is Acts xx 28. Where St. Paul charges the Elders of Ephesus To take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers to feed the Church of God which he had purchased with his own blood To these St. Paul saith he had declared all the Counsel of God v. 27. and then bids them to take heed to the flock c. i. e. to instruct those committed to their charge in that Doctrine which they had learned of him That by a parity of reason all Pastors and Teachers are to feed the flock committed to their care we willingly grant but how he will hence infer That all Christian People are to receive the true sence and Interpretation of Scripture from the Church of Rome I cannot imagine His next is 1 Tim. III. 15. Where St. Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth There is an excellent Treatise lately printed at London intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth to which if this Gentleman be permitted to read it I would referr him for his better understanding of this Text. His next is Matth. xxviij 20. Where our Saviour having given his Apostles his last and largest Commission promiseth to be with them alway even unto the end of the World. This promise was made to the Apostles and not only to them but to the whole Church of God in all Ages but how the Church of Rome comes to claim a Title to this promise more than any other I know not or if she had it I do not see what service it would do her in this case For that Christ will be alway with his Church so to preserve it as it shall never cease to be a Church we do not doubt but to preserve it from all error as he never promised it so we have no reason to expect it His next is John xvi 13. Where our Saviour tells his Disciples When he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth This promise was not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles whose case was so peculiar and extraordinary that the Church now hath no ground upon which to hope for the same Assistance which they then had and which indeed was then necessary for them to have That Christ will assist his Church in all Ages by his Grace we do not deny but that that Assistance implies Infallibility we cannot grant for then every private Christian who is assisted by Divine Grace would be infallible But if it did why the Church of Rome should put in a peculiar claim to this privilege more than the Church of England or any other particular Church I see no reason But it seems the Vindicator found great reason for it for thus he argues Christ promised his Apostles when he the Spirit of truth came he should guide them into all truth Therefore it belongs to the Church of Rome to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture Just as if one should argue Christ promised that these signs should follow them that believe In his name they should cast out Devils They should speak with new Tongues They should take up Serpents and if they drank any deadly thing it should not hurt them They should lay hands on the sick and they should recover Mark c. xvi v. 17 18. Therefore all that believe in Christ at this day shall do the same things His last Scripture proof is Matth. xviij 17. Where our Saviour saith If he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican To this I answer I. That our Saviour in this place doth not speak of Controversies in Religion or points of Faith but of quarrels between neighbours as is plain from v. 15. where our Saviour saith If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone c. II. By Church here we cannot understand either the Catholick or that which they call the Roman Catholick Church Not the former for that would make the thing not only impracticable but altogether impossible for when a quarrel happens to arise between two Neighbours if they must stay for the Decision of it till the Vniversal Church is assembled for that purpose their quarrel may last long enough Nor the latter for that would be as impracticable as the former for if two Christians have a quarrel in Syria or in Aethiopia must they go to the Roman Church to end their difference III. By the word Church therefore in this place we must understand any particular Church or Society of Christians of which the the two quarrelling Neighbours are Members Now it is confessed on all hands that any such Society in giving Admonitions and using of Censures may err being subject to be mislead either by passion or prejudice or ignorance 'T is plain therefore that this Scripture is not at all to his purpose or if it were it would do him no service Thus have I considered his Scripture proofs and now let us see what the Fathers will say for him He produceth two passages both out of one and the same Father viz. St. Aug. His first Authority is taken out of his first Book contra Crescon Gram. c. 33. Then says he we follow the truth of the Scriptures when we do that which hath seemed good to the whole Church which Church is commended to us by the Authority of the Scripture To the end that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates I cannot imagine what was in this Gentlemans mind when he pickt up this passage of St. Aug. for a proof of this Article St. Austin indeed says Then we follow the truth of
Elementum fit Sacramentum And now let us see Catech. ad Parochos pars 2. Tit. de Sacram. n. 5. p. 113. Aug. l. 10. de civ Dei. c. 5. And Epist 2. how far they agree with us in this notion of a Sacrament The Trent Catechism which always speaks the sence of that Council gives us this definition of a Sacrament It is a visible Sign of invisible Grace instituted for our Justification which it grounds upon the Authority of St. Austin and the compliance of all the School Doctors with him therein The Doway Catechism saith * P. 49. A Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible Grace instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification And their †P. 4 5. Summ of Christian Doctrine c. printed at London 1686. saith A Sacrament is a visible Sign instituted by Jesus Christ to convey his Grace into our Souls and to apply unto us the merits of his death So then it is agreed between us that these three things viz. The word of Institution a visible Sign and a promise of invisible Grace are absolutely necessary to make and constitute a Sacrament And it is acknowledged on all hands that these three are to be found in the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper The dispute therefore between us is concerning the Five additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome Of which we say That they want either the Word or the Element or both Matrimony Order and Penance have the word of God but they have no outward Element Extream Vnction and Confirmation have neither Word nor Element But this Gentleman contends That these Five as well as the other Two are founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture And here I confess the Vindicator hath taken a great deal of pains but to little purpose he hath sweat and toil'd and at last found out a great many Fathers who have called them Sacraments which is a thing that no body would have deny'd him upon his own bare word For That many things which indeed and by special property are no Sacraments may nevertheless pass under the general name of a Sacrament he must be a very great stranger to the Writings of the Fathers who will not acknowledge it We very well know that it was usual with the Fathers to call any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion or any holy significant Rite by the name of a Sacrament And in this Sence he might reckon not only seven but seventy or more if he pleased for he may furnish himself with great variety Tertullian calls the Stick which Elisha cut down cast into the water Tertul. advers Judaeos and made the Iron swim Sacramentum Ligni the Sacrament of Wood. And the same Father calls the whole State of the Christian Faith Contr. Marcion l. 4. Aug. in Sermone de Sanctis 19. Leo de Resurrect Domini Serm. 2. Hieron ad Oceanum Inter Decreta Leonis c. 14. Aug. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of the Christian Religion And St. Austin speaks of the Sacrament of the Cross And Leo calls the Cross of Christ both a Sacrament and an Example And St. Jerome calls the Water and Blood which issued out of the side of the blessed Jesus the Sacraments of Baptism and Martyrdom And Leo calls the vow of Virginity a Sacrament And St. Austin calls the Bread that was given unto the Novices or Beginners in the Faith called Catechumens before they were baptized a Sacrament And if he will but consult St. Hilary he may find in him these expressions Hilar. in Matth. Canon 11 12 23. The Sacrament of Prayer the Sacrament of Hunger the Sacrament of the Scriptures The Sacrament of Weeping and the Sacrament of Thirst Bern. in Sermone de Coena Domini And St. Bernard calls our Saviour's washing of the Disciples Feet the Sacrament of daily sins I suppose he will not call all these Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and if not then must he aknowledge that there are Sacraments to be found in the Fathers besides those that are properly so called The truth is the Fathers sometimes spake Metaphorically and sometimes properly sometimes they spake more loosely and sometimes more closely sometimes they spake of things as they were in themselves and by specially property such and sometime by way of allusion and as in a general sence they might be called such And if we be not careful to difference these several ways and manners of speech in the reading of them we may unawares fall into great errors and mistakes This is plain in the matter now before us All are not Sacraments properly so called which they call so we are therefore to distinguish between their expressions when they speak of a thing obitèr and by the bye and when they treat of it designedly and on set purpose And if we consider their Writings when in the latter way they treat of this subject we shall find that they mention no more Sacraments but only two St. Cyprian saith Then may they be throughly sanctified Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. ad Steph. Aug. de Doctrina Christiana l. 3. c. 9. and become the Children of God if they be new-born by both the Sacraments And St. Austin saith Our Lord and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments instead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in observation most reverend as is the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Lord. And again the same holy Father speaking of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord saith Aug. de Symbolo ad Catechumenos Paschasius de Coena Domini Bessarion de Sacrament Eucharistiae These be the two Sacraments of the Church And Paschasius saith These be the Sacraments of Christ in the Catholick Church Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Cardinal Bessarion saith We read that these only two Sacraments were delivered us plainly in the Gospel Here you have Both the Sacraments and the Two Sacraments and the Only Two Sacraments of the Church Whence it is plain that though the Fathers sometimes either in heat of this discourse or for a Rhetorical flourish might call those Sacraments which properly speaking were not so yet when they did designedly and on set purpose speak of them they mentioned only Two which I think may be a sufficient answer to his Authorities But he has yet another Reserve to bring up and that is That all these are founded upon the sence of the Scripture Let us see how whether this will any more avail him than the Authority of the Fathers hath done Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation TO establish this he produceth Acts viij 17 18. where it is said Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw that
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 Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice i. e. A Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving His last Reserve is St. August who l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaks of his Mother Monica desiring to be remembred at the Altar after her death because she knew that thence was dispens'd the Holy Victim by which was cancelled the Hand-writing which was contrary unto us And Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost where he speaks of a propitiatory Sacrifice and Alms offered for Souls departed and of commemorating the Dead at the Sacrifice and of a Sacrifice being offered for them That Christians did usually meet to celebrate the memorial of Holy Martyrs and others departed in the Faith of Christ and that some kind of prayers were in St. Austin's time used for the dead we deny not But these are not the things in question but whether in the Mass there be offer'd a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead To prove this he produceth these passages of St. Austin wherein he seems to call the Eucharist the holy Victim and the Sacrifice Now what St. Austin meant by these words he himself shall tell you In his Book of Faith he calls it A Sacrifice of Bread and Wine offered in Faith and Charity August ad Petr. Diac. c. 19. and A Commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the Blood which he shed for us Id. de Civ Dei l. 17. c. 17. And in another place To eat the Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians And again This Flesh and Blood of Christ was promised before his coming Id. contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. by the resemblance of Sacrifices in the Passion of Christ it was truly exhibited After the Ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration Id. Epist ad Bonifac 23. And again Was not Christ once sacrificed in his Body and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign every day Id. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. And again That which we call a Sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true Sacrifice Thus doth St. Austin explain himself and if thus explain'd the Vindicator can any way avail either himself or his cause by his testimony he hath free liberty so to do I believe and profess That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is a change or conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood which Conversion or Change the Holy Church calls Transubstantiation THIS Doctrine he saith is founded in the express words of Christ who said This is my Body This is my Blood. To this I answer These and the other words of Institution having been considered already and no new matter here offered I shall not need to trouble my self nor the Reader with the Repetition of what hath been already said And this being the only Scripture proof he here alledgeth I shall only referr you to what I have said of it in the foregoing Article and so wait upon the Vindicator to his Authorities The Authorities which he here produceth if they be any thing to his purpose must be acknowledged to be ancient and the Authors of good Credit Whether therefore they will serve the end which he aims at we shall now enquire His first Evidence is St. Ignatius Martyr in Ep. ad Smyrn where speaking of some Hereticks of his time he saith They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and which the Father in his mercy raised again from the dead These words are indeed thus cited by Theodoret Dial. 111. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not receive the Eucharists and Oblations But in the Copy of this Epistle which is to be seen in the Florentine Library and is generally thought to be the most genuine we find this passage thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They recede or abstain from Eucharists and Prayer But this only by the bye the stress of his Argument lies not in this but in the reason of their recession and refusal which was Because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and was raised again These words at first sight to an unthinking Man may seem to conclude the point but if we consider who they were that refused the Eucharist for this reason it will much abate the force of them That they were Hereticks the Vindicator owns and what their Heresie was Ignatius will tell us They denied Christ to be a perfect Man they held that he had not a true humane but only a fantastical Body That he did not really but in appearance only suffer upon the Cross and rise again from the Dead Against these the holy Martyr in the beginning of this Epistle bends his whole discourse his whole business being to make it appear That Christ was truly born of the Virgin Mary truly baptized of John in Jordan truly suffered under Pontius Pilate and was truly raised again from the Dead Now what wonder is it that those who did believe that he never had any real Body should refuse and reject with scorn his Sacramental Body when offered to them For what Sacrament what Sign what Remembrance what Representation can there possibly be of that which in truth never had any Being The whole importance therefore of these words is only this These Hereticks would not believe the Eucharist to be the Sacramental Body of Christ because they did not believe that ever he had any real Body St. Chrysostome speaking of some such in his time who would not believe that Christ really suffered Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. tells us in what manner they used to convince them When they say How may we know that Christ was offered bringing forth these Mysteries we stop their mouths For if Christ died not whose Sign and Token is this Sacrifice Where he calls the Eucharist a Mystery a Sign and a Token i. e. A Representation of the Death of Christ and in this sence are we to understand the Holy Martyr Ignatius in this place His next witness is St. Hilary l. 8. de Trinit where he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed There 's no place left for doubting of the Reality of his Flesh and Blood for now both by the Profession of Christ himself and by our Faith 't is truly Flesh and truly Blood. Is not this Truth It may indeed not be true to them who deny Christ to be God. To this I answer That the words which St. Hilary here quoteth are in John vi 55. In which whole Chapter our Saviour speaketh not
one kind after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And in his Book of Sacraments he hath these expressions In eating and drinking we signifie that Flesh and Blood which were offered for us Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4 5. And l. 6. 1. Thou receivest the Sacrament in a similitude It is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. And again Bread and Wine remain still the same thing they were before and yet are changed into another thing i. e. They are the same things really and in substance but another thing Sacramentally and in signification As to his last Authority taken from St. Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Coloss Though there be some Rhetorical aggravations the like whereunto may be found in other of the Fathers some of which I have given you an account of yet do I not see that any thing more is design'd by St. Cyril in this place than only to assure us of Christ's real but Spiritual presence in this Sacrament For that he never dreamt of any real and substantial change of the Elements therein is plain from his own words in another place where he saith * Cyril in Johan l. 4. c. 24. Christ gave to his believing Disciples pieces of Bread not pieces of his Body And again †Id. Ad Object Theodor. Our Sacrament doth not assert the eating of a Man i. e. Flesh and Blood that were to draw the minds of the Believers in an irreligious manner to gross cogitations I confess also That under one kind alone is received Christ whole and entire that being a true Sacrament THIS he tells us is a consequence of what is declared above and if so then must they stand and fall together If the foundation be defective the Superstructure is in danger If the Antecedent be false the Consequence can scarce be true Having therefore throughly sifted and examined the preceeding Article and found no Foundation upon which to build our Faith that there is any such real and substantial change wrought in the Elements of the sacred Eucharist after Consecration as is there pretended nor any reason to receive their monstrous and new invented Article of Transubstantiation into the Articles of our Creed we may justly reject this which he calls a consequence thereof But to shew that we have other reasons besides the inconsequence thereof to reject this Article as a Sacrilegious robbing of the People of one half of the sacred Eucharist let us consider the Institution of it and the constant practice of the Church thereupon If we consider the Institution we shall there find that our blessed Saviour in words as plain as possible did institute his Holy Supper under both kinds we may also find that as he did institute it so likewise he did administer it under both kinds we may also observe that He who said to his Disciples Take eat did also say unto them Drink ye all of this and in the close of all he leaves this word of command with them This do in remembrance of me as if he should have said what you have seen me do the same do ye And it is evident by the Apostles practice hereupon that they understood this to be the meaning of their Master And that this was not to remain a duty only during their time but in all after Ages of the Church St. Paul is very plain saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup 1 Cor. xi 26. ye shew forth the Lords death till he come And as for the practice of the Church thereupon it is very evident that for above a thousand years after Christ the Eucharist was always administred in both kinds So that if we have any regard either to the Institution or Example or Command of Christ or to the Practice of the Apostles or of the Church of Christ for so many Ages we have great reason to reject this Article as a great Novelty And indeed so it is for the first Foundation of it as a thing necessary to be believed and practised is laid in a Decree of the Council of Constance in the year of our Lord 1416. But the Vindicator will tell us that we are mistaken here for he pretends to find some footsteps of it in the Scriptures and for this alledgeth certain passages out of the sixth Chapter of St. John where our Saviour speaks sometimes both of Eating and Drinking and sometimes of Eating only To this I answer That our Blessed Saviour in that place doth not speak any thing of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but only of a Spiritual feeding upon him by Faith. For when he held that conference with the Capernaitan Jews this Sacrament was not then instituted nor of two years after and therefore no conclusive Argument can be built thereupon But he urgeth us with the Authority of St. Basil in his Epistle ad Caesar Patr. where he saith he finds these words It hath the same efficacy whether a person receives from the Priest one part or more Whether these be the words of St. Basil or how truly they are transcrib'd I have not the opportunity now to examine but admitting for the present that they are what is all this to the denying of the Cup to the Laity and forbidding the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds under so severe a penalty But I find St. Basil cited by Johannes Gerhardus for a quite different purpose Johan Gerhard de Sacra Coena c 9. §. 43. Basil l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. for he brings him in speaking on this wise If he who by eating offends his Brother be void of Charity what shall be said of him who dares idly and unprofitably both eat the Body and drink the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And again What is the duty of a Christian Id. in Moralib sub finem Let him cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and so let him eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ But at last he urgeth us with the opinion of Luther Melancthon and Spalatensis That in this point Christ hath left no necessary precept but that it may profitably and lawfully be received under one or both kinds To this I answer 1. That our Faith is not founded upon Luther's or any other Man's assertion but upon the Institution of Jesus Christ 2. That Luther wrote his Epistle to the Bohemians before he was fully grounded in the truth and that afterwards he did retract according to the example of St. Austin many things that he had written To this end you may find him begging and beseeching his Reader to read his former writings with pity and commiseration In praefat Tom. 1. Before all things I pray and beseech the godly Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake that he would read these my writings with judgment yea and with great pity remembring
and comprehensive that there is no room left for Evasion For 1. It forbids all external acts of Adoration as bowing down to them or before them 2. It doth not only forbid the Worship of Images as Gods but as Images and Representative Objects 3. It doth not only forbid the Worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Jehovah But all this notwithstanding the Vindicator thinks he hath found out both Scripture and Antiquity wherewith to defend both these Articles For the Invocation of Saints he alledgeth Gen. xlviij v. 16. where Jacob blessing Joseph's two Sons saith The Angel that delivered me from all evil bless the Lads To this I answer That by Angel here is generally understood the Angel of the Covenant viz. Christ the Son of God. But if we should grant him that it is to be understood of an Ordinary Angel yet can he not thereupon avail himself any thing in this case for God being pleased often to make use of the Ministry of Angels in sending succor and relief to good Men Jacob prayed not unto the Angel but to God as may be seen in the 15 Verse that he would appoint the same Blessed Angel that administred unto him in all his streights to be the Instrument of his good providence to those two Sons of Joseph whom he had now made his own and caused them to be called after his name He alledgeth also Rev. i. 4. Rev. v. 8. and Rev. viij 9. The first of these Texts is nothing to his purpose for the most that can be made of it is only this John prays that God would send his Grace to the seven Churches by the Ministry of the seven Spirits there mentioned and what is all this to the matter in hand or how will this warrant our praying to Saints departed Nor will his next Scripture do him any more service for it is generally understood to be either a Representation of the Church below offering up prayers by her Pastors who are the mouths of the Congregation to God or else a Representation of the whole Church of Christ both in Heaven and Earth joining together in their Doxologies and Praises to God for the Victories of the Lamb and the Redemption of the World by his Blood. And this latter seems to be warranted by the very next words where it is said And they sung a new song saying Thou art worthy to take the Book and to open the seals thereof for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation v. 9. Nor will his other Text any more avail him the 9th verse which he quotes is nothing to the purpose but I suppose he meant v. 4. where it is said That the smoak of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand That by Angel here we are to understand Christ the Angel of the Covenant they themselves dare not deny For the Angel that offered up the Prayers of the Saints in v. 3. is called another Angel different both in Nature and Office from those other seven Angels mentioned v. 2. But if Scripture will not do his business Antiquity he thinks will for that he says is very express in all the Doctrine of this Article And as witnesses of what he says he names St. Cyril Alex. St. Ambrose St. Augustin St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Jerome but without any direction where to find their evidence recorded Only in the Margin he tells us That these Quotations may be seen cited at large in Nubes Testium To all which I shall only return him this Answer That all these Quotations may be seen answered at large in The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion c. First and Second Parts and in another Treatise intituled Veteres Vindicati and in the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium For the Worship of Images All that he offers to prove is no more than this 1. That the making and having of Images in Churches or private Houses is not unlawful 2. That some respect and veneration is due to them both which we readily grant But whether the Veneration and Honour that is due to them ought to be called a Religious Honour This he tells us is a Dispute among Divines but no matter of his Faith. But if this be no matter of his Faith yet it is the only matter of Debate between us and them in this point and that it is the intention of his Church from which he tells us we are to take our measures as to the manner and external profession of this Honour hath been plainly made appear from the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which this Article is gathered If therefore he doth not prove this as indeed he doth not pretend to do he is so far from vindicating the Doctrine of this Article that he proves nothing at all Not finding therefore any thing in his proofs that tends this way I see no reason either to give my self or the Reader a needless trouble by a tedious examination of them But if there be any thing wherein this Gentleman desires a further satisfaction I would recommend to his perusal if he be permitted to read them two or three small Treatises which have lately been published upon this Subject viz. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship c. An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery c. A Discourse of the Worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints c. In which if he doth not find full satisfaction in this matter I must dispair of giving him any I believe that the power of Indulgences has been given and left by Christ to his Church and that the use of them is very beneficial to the Faithful THE Council of Trent hath indeed asserted the Doctrine of Indulgences Contin Sess 25. Decret de â—â—â—ulg but not explain'd it It damns all those with an Anathema who either affirm them to be unprofitable or deny that the Church hath power to grant them And all this without once letting us know what it means by Indulgences The Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition c. would perswade us that all that is intended by Indulgences is only a Relaxation of Canonical Penance and in complyance with him the Vindicator here seems to be of the same opinion for that is all that he advanceth for the Vindication of this Article That such a power as this was given and left by Christ to his Church and that the due administration of it is very beneficial to the Faithful we willingly grant And that this godly Discipline was anciently used by the Church of Christ we deny not For it is most certain that it was the practise of the Church to enjoin penance to her offending Members and if they did humbly and patiently submit thereunto and prove penitent under them she
learning Polycarpus being converted and taught by the Apostles instructed the Church of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia follow it Yet none of all these Churches ever allowed or received your strange Doctrine Yea the very wild Barbarous Nations that have received the Faith of Christ at the Apostles hands only by hearing without any Book or Letter if they should hear of these Heresies they would stop their Ears Here he appeals to the Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and all the Churches of Asia But then he adds It would be too tedious to reckon up the Sucession of all Churches and for that reason being himself a Western Bishop he appeals to that Church which was of Apostolical plantation in the West viz. the Church of Rome Which he calls the greatest most ancient and known to all Men. Not the most Ancient of all other Churches as the Vindicator renders it for it is well known that Jerusalem Antioch and several others were more ancient but it was then the most famous Church in the West To this Church therefore he appeals and thinks it necessary that in such cases all other Churches i. e. all other Churches in the West should do the same and that for two Reasons 1. Because of the more powerful principality 2. Because in this Church the Tradition of the Apostles hath ever been kept The latter of these which is the principal the Vindicator leaves out and he had reason for it for with that he could not serve the end he aim'd at At that time the Tradition i. e. the Doctrine of the Apostles was look'd upon to be the best Trial and Rule of Faith. Which Doctrine in those early days was exactly observed in Rome without corruption and for that reason was that Church had in Reverence and Estimation above others And if the Church of Rome at this day did as faithfully keep the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles as she did then we would never scruple to yield her that same Honour that Irenaeus gives to the ancient Church of Rome But he makes sure not to forget the other reason viz. The more powerful principality And yet he will be as little able to avail himself of this as of the other for the Principality which Irenaeus here means is the Civil Dominion and Temporal State of the City of Rome which was then the Imperial City For if we consider that this was in the Reign of Commodus the Emperor who was an Heathen and a Persecutor we cannot imagine that the Church was then possessed of any powerful Principality But as in every Province there was a Metropolis or chief City so it was usual with the Fathers to call the Church planted there the chief or principal Church And it is well known Concil Constant 6. that upon that very account the Patriarch of Constantinople was by a general Council declared to have equal Privileges and Authority with the Patriarch of Rome And that this was all the principality that Irenaeus dream'd of will appear plainly if we consider that when Victor Bishop of Rome was angry with the Churches of Asia for not celebrating the Feast of Easter at the same time Euseb Histor Eccles l. 5. c. 23. and in the same manner as they did at Rome and would have Excommunicated them for it Irenaeus opposed his design and sharply reproved him as a disturber of the Church's peace Which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Church of Rome had been the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience to her Bishop was necessary for every Christian in order to his Salvation His next witness is Optatus Milevitanus lib. 2. adv Parm. Where he speaks of St. Peter's Chair being erected at Rome to the end that Unity might be preserved and that they are Schimaticks and Sinners and Sacrilegious who set up themselves in defiance against the Chair of Peter To this I answer That Optatus there writes against Parmenianus the Donatist Now the Donatists were a certain Sect of Christians broken off from the Unity of the Catholick Church confining it to a corner of Africa where they themselves dwelt as our Neighbours of the Roman Communion do now to Rome To convince these People of their folly and madness and to reduce them if possible into the bosom of the Church Optatus doth as Irenaeus before him had done appeal to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles and particularly to the Church of Rome blaming them for departing from that Faith and Doctrine which was there kept and taught and telling them that they could not belong to the Church of Christ so long as they continued in a state of separation from that Church He doth not therefore require their Union and Communion with the Roman Church as with the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches but as with the keeper of the Apostolick Faith. Nor doth he require them to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the universal Head and Monarch of all Churches for there is not one word to be found in all Optatus tending that way His next Evidence is St. Cyprian Epist 40. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the Word of God. The design of St. Cyprian in this Epistle is to give an account to those to whom he wrote of the Schismatical Sedition raised by Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters in the Church of Carthage and against him their Bishop and by warning them against it to preserve them in Peace and Unity To that end he lays down these words There is one God c. And immediately adds Another Altar cannot be set up nor a new Priesthood made besides that one Altar and one Priesthood Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth It is Adulterous it is Wicked it is Sacrilegious to make way for humane Inventions by the violation of a divine Constitution Whence it is plain That by the one Church here he meant the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and by the One Chair the Episcopal Chair Obedience whereunto preserves Unity and Disobedience begets Schism and Sedition in the Church But the force of his Argument lies here That this One is founded upon Peter and that not by any humane but by divine Authority Voce Domini by the Word of the Lord i. e. as the Margin of St. Cyprian directs us those Words of our Saviour Matth. xvi 18. where our Saviour saith Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To this I answer 1. That there are some who read these words of St. Cyprian not super Petrum but super petram not upon Peter but upon the Rock not upon Peter's person but upon his profession or as others upon Christ who is the spiritual Rock upon which St. Peter himself was builded But 2. Suppose we should grant that St. Cyprian speaks of St. Peter's person
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
heartily desire that he may do it Greg. Naz. in Epist ad Caesareenses Chrysost ad pop Antiochenum Hom. 3. and do it diligently And that this Holy Father meant no more than this may plainly appear from what he saith of the Church of Caesarea It is saith he in a manner the Mother of all Churches and the whole Christian Common-wealth so embraceth and beholdeth it as the Circle embraceth and beholdeth the Center Thus Jerusalem is frequently stiled the Mother of all Churches and St. Chrysostome calls Antioch the Head of the World. Now as these Churches are called Mother Churches because the Cities in which they were planted were the Mother Cities of those Provinces so for the same reason the Church of Rome is oftentimes called the Chief the Principal and the Mother Church because that City was the Metropolis or Head-City of the West And as the Bishops of those Churches may be and oftentimes are called the Chief Rulers and Governours of the Church so likewise and no otherwise the Bishop of Rome is sometimes stiled the Head i. e. the chief Governour of the Church And that by the whole Church here we are to understand no more but only the whole Church of that Province Polydor. Virgil explaining those words of St. Cyprian The Chair of Peter Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor rerum l 4. the principal Church from which the Vnity of the Priesthood first began thus writeth Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other wise be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from the Bishop of Rome unless we understand it only within Italy For it is clear and out of question that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before Peter ever came to Rome To this I might add That every Bishop may be called the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is his duty to take care not only of his own Flock but of the whole Church of God. As also that this Title Head of the Church hath been given to several godly Bishops who were never Bishops of Rome nor ever dreamt that any Supremacy of power over all other Churches was thereby conferred either upon him or them But I am not willing to enter farther into the Controversie than the Vindicator leads me And to this Evidence of his I think enough hath been said to show that it will not much avail him His next witness is St. Chrysostome l. 2. de Sacerd. c. 1. For what reason did Christ shed his Blood Certainly to purchase those sheep the care of which he committed to Peter and his Successors The whole force of his Argument if he can frame any out of these words must be That the Bishop of Rome is the true Successor to St. Peter Which if we should grant him I do not see how it would thence follow that the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor Head and Governor of the Catholick Church For if St. Peter himself was not so he cannot have it by Succession from him De Unitate Eccles Edit Oxon p. 107. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 38. Now St. Cyprian saith The Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined in the same fellowship of Honour and Power And their own Pope Gregory saith Peter the Apostle is not the Head but the chief Member of the holy universal Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but the Heads of several Nations Yet notwithstanding under one Head viz. Christ they are all members of the Church And to speak in short The Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints in the time of Grace all accomplishing the Lord's Body are placed among the Members of the Church And there was never any one yet that would have himself called the Universal Bishop So that as Paul Andrew and John were Heads of the Church in like manner and no otherwise was St. Peter Head of the Church If therefore St. Peter was then they were all so too for they were all equal and what a confusion that would be let the Vindicator judge To this may be added That if St. Peter was really the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Church constituted by Christ St. Paul certainly was very much to blame Gal. ii 2. to withstand him to the face as he did And it must be a very great Arrogance and presumption in him to say That in nothing he was behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. xij 11. Gal. ij 7. Or to share Jurisdiction with him saying That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter But St. Chrysostome Chrysost in Epist ad Galat. c. ii whose Authority he so much depends upon will tell him That Paul had no need of Peter 's help nor did he want his voice but was equal unto him in Honour Besides all this One may be said to succeed another either because he possesseth the same place that he did or because he teacheth the same Doctrine and with the same diligence that he did Now the former of these will not be enough to make any one the true Successor of St. Peter Alphons contra Haeres l. 1. c. 9. for as their own Alphonsus de Castro saith Though it be matter of Faith to believe the true Successor of St. Peter is the Supream Pastor of the whole Church yet are we not bound by the same Faith to believe that Leo or Clement though Bishops of Rome are the true Successors of St. Peter And yet this is the Succession they so much boast of and if this be it Dist 40. Multi the same St. Chrysostom will inform him That it is not the Chair that makes the Bishop but it is the Bishop that makes the Chair Neither is it the place that Halloweth the Man but it is the Man that Halloweth the place Dist 40. Non est facile And St. Jerome will tell him They are not always the Children of Holy Men that sit in the rooms of Holy Men. Nor did these Holy Fathers speak without Book for the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's Chair Matth. xxiij 2. And the Abomination of Desolation shall stand in the holy Place Matth. xxiv 15. And the Man of Sin as God shall sit in the Temple of God 2 Thes ij 3 4. As the first of these did Succeed Moses in place but not in Doctrine so the two other shall succeed Christ and his Apostles And thus Pope Liberius though an Arian Heretick and Pope Coelestinus though a Nestorian and Pope Honorius though a Monothelite may be said to succeed St. Peter in place though not in Doctrine But will the Vindicator say or can he imagine that St. Chrysostom meant That Christ shed his Blood to purchase a Church and when he had done committed the care of it to such Successors of St. Peter as these were His next is St. Jerome Epist 57 and 58.
his Creed are neither agreeable to Scripture nor the Sence of the Primitive Fathers And for that reason we cannot subscribe to this last Article THE CLOSE TO close up his Vindication he undertakes to answer some Objections of ours against these New Articles which how well he hath done I shall now examine The Apostles knew best what was to be believed Object since therefore none of these Articles are in their Creed they ought not to be imposed on us as Matters of Faith. To this he answers Answ That the Apostles Creed is a Summary of the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion but doth not contain all that is of Faith. To this I reply That a thing may be said to be of Faith two ways Reply either absolutely or occasionally 1. Absolutely i. e. in and for its self when by its own nature and God's primary intention it is an essential part of the Gospel such an one as Teachers in the Church cannot without mortal Sin omit to teach the Learners such an one as is intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man and not only plainly revealed by God and so a certain Truth but also commanded to be preached to all Men and to be distinctly believed by all and so a necessary Truth Of this kind there are two sorts viz. Such as are necessary to be believed or such as are necessary to be done and of the former of these it is that we speak when we say That the Apostles Creed contains all necessary Matters of Faith. 2. A thing may be said to be of Faith only occasionally i. e. when it is not so in and for its self but because it is joined with others which are necessary to be believed and for the sake of that Authority by which it is delivered Of this sort there are multitudes of Verities contained in the Holy Scriptures as for Instance That Zacharias was a Priest of the Course of Abia that Elizabeth was of the Daughters of Aaron that Cyrenius was Governor of Syria that Pontius Pilate was the Roman Deputy that Paul left his Cloak at Troas These are all Truths and Objects of Faith because they are found in the divine Revelation but they are not such Truths as the Pastors of the Church are bound to teach their Flock or their Flock bound to know and remember For it would be no crime to be ignorant of these or to believe the contrary if I did not know that they were delivered in Holy Scripture When therefore we speak of Matters of Faith contained in the Creed we mean all necessary points of meer Belief and of such we say it is a perfect Summary No saith the Vindicator for it doth not contain all that is in the Scripture and yet all that is there is of Divine Inspiration and of Faith. We grant it but all things that are there are not equally of Faith many of them are not absolute and necessary but only occasional and accidental Objects of Faith as I have already shown As for Baptism and the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them to be great Mysteries of our Religion but they are not points of meer Faith and therefore not within the question That the Scripture is the word of God and that such and such Books are Canonical depends upon another Evidence by which we must be convinc'd that they are so before we can give a rational assent to the Articles of the Creed because they are all taken out of these Books and our belief of them built upon that Authority The Belief therefore of this being necessarily antecedent to the belief of the other it would have been a very absurd and preposterous thing to have made that an Article of our Creed As for the 39 Articles of the Church of England they are propounded only as Articles of Communion not as Articles of Faith and therefore the Objection doth not reach them And as for the Nicene and Athanasian Creed they are only explications of the Apostles Creed and contain the same and no other Faith but what is contained in that This I think may suffice to show That he hath not yet answered that Objection But if the Vindicator desire yet further satisfaction in this point I would recommend to him if he be allowed to read such Books the fourth Chapter of Mr. Chillingworth's Book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation and another little Treatise printed at London the last year intituled The Pillar and Ground of Truth All the particulars in this profession were not undoubtedly believed by all Object before the Decrees were made at Trent To this he answers Suppose they were not Answ Neither was the Canon of Scripture which the Church of England receives undoubtedly believed by all in the primitive times This may be allow'd to be a good answer to that Objection Reply but that Objection is his own it is none of ours Our Objection is this That not one of all these twelve new Articles in Pope Pius 's Creed was ever received as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Church And to this he answers nothing There 's no Authority upon Earth can make a new Article of Faith. Object Answ To this he answers That there is an Authority which can declare a thing to be of Faith which was not before expresly so believed by all This we willingly grant but this doth not answer the Objection Reply for we do not question the Church's power to declare a thing to be of Faith which before was dubious or not expresly believed by all But we say That there is no such Authority in the Church as to make that to be of Faith which really was not so before i. e. to make a new Article of Faith. And to this he returns not one word of Answer This Authority can declare only such points Object as may be warranted by Holy Scripture and such as these are the subject of the XXXIX Articles but as for Pope Pius's Creed it is but the Invention of Men. For Answer hereunto he referrs us to what he hath said in his Book Answ wherein he saith he hath shewed That all the Articles of this Creed are founded upon Scripture and the Authority of the most eminent Men in the Primitive Church And farther faith That the XXXIX Articles are not so express in Scripture as these of Pope Pius Whether there be any Truth in the first part of his Answer Reply as he referrs us to his Book so I shall referr you to the Answer given to it in these Papers And to the latter part of his Answer it may be a sufficient Reply to remind him of what he hath been often told That the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England are not propounded as Articles of Faith but as Articles of Communion nor is the Belief of them required of all upon pain of Damnation as these of Pope Pius are and therefore there is not so much danger in our complyance or non-complyance with the one as with the other Whether these Articles of Pope Pius be founded upon Scripture hath been one part of the question between us and therefore for satisfaction in this point I shall refers you to what hath been said upon that Subject on both sides Thus have I considered the Vindicator's Answers to some Objections which he thought fit to encounter with and how well he hath acquitted himself therein I shall now leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge between us The End.
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