[...]

Sacraments of the Lord. Augustine, Psalm xxxii. Epist. 48. and 164. &c. The peevish Schismaticks took advantage upon this their Concession to con­clude themselves to be the only Church, and to exclude all others. If it be so (say they) Communio nostra est Ecclesia Christi. Our Communion is the Church of Christ alone. Aug. de Bapt. de cont. Donat. lib. 1. cap. 10. And Petilianus dixit, Petilian saith, Come to the Church, O people, and fly from the Traditors, if you will not perish: that you may know they are guilty they judg rightly of our Faith, &c. Contra lit. Pelit. lib. 2. cap. 1.8. If this reasoning of Petilianus was good, then the Ro­man Church it self was excluded, if it was not, why does the Romanist use it against us? We must not do that to others we would not have others do to us.

For that Argument the Doctor frames out of our Concessions towards the end of that Chapter, 'Tis very fallacious.

The Church of God is but one.

The Church of Rome is the True Church.

The Church of England is opposite to that Church.

Therefore the Church of England is no True Church.

But not to trouble you with the vitiosity of his Logicks, I shall answer it as it lies.

When we say the Church of God is but one, we mean the Universal Church, we speak not Empha­tically [Page 10]or Exclusively, as if she were the whole or the only Church, but we mean she is a True parti­cular Church. When we say the Church of England is opposite to the Roman Church, we mean Secun­dum quid, in some things, not simpliciter, not simply in the Essentials of a Church, but in some Doctrins and Observations: In which respect some Church may be opposite to the Roman Church, and yet be a True Church still as long as she retains all the Fundamentals: As for example, one Doctor in the Roman Church may be opposite to another in some Opinions and Observations of Discipline, and yet be a True Catholick still, as well as the other.

A Second way whereby he pretends to end all Controversies and prove the Roman Church to be the one Holy Catholick Church where Remission of sins is only, &c. Is by reference to a third party as Umpire in the business, and so he saith Protestants are cast in their own Cause by the Arbitrement of St. Augustine, who being the Monarch of the Fa­thers, is Appealed to by both Parties as a competent Judg. Cap. 26.

'Tis well the Doctor will acknowledg any Um­pire in the cause, but the Pope or the Roman Church. Surely this is a work of Supererogation, which he now does in a Bravado to shew what abundant ways he hath of confuting the poor Church of Eng­land, but he was not the Authour of this device. Ieronymus Torrensis, a Jesuite, many years ago abbre­viated [Page 11]all St. Augustines Works, and Published them in honour of his Church, by the name of Augusti­nina Confessio, Augustines Confession. And Brerely a Priest contracted his Doctrine into a lesser Model after him, and call'd it St. Augustines Religion. How much the Doctor is beholden to his two fore­runners for their Collections, the world must not know, and 'tis no matter whether they do or no, if he can make it out by any means that St. Augustine hath prejudged us so many hundred years ago, it must needs be a fatal blow to the Church of Eng­land, and this he endeavours to do by giving us St. Augustines Judgment in all or most of the parti­culars Controverted, but how truly you shall see in the sequel.

St. Augustine (saith he) tells us plainly, that the Church was built upon Peter, in the first of his Retract. Cap. 21. Yet in this very first place, St. Augustine he knows retracts it, and saith plainly by the Rock may be meant the Person, whom he confessed, it was not said to him. Tues Petra, sed tues Petrus, Petra autem erat Christus, quem confessus Simon: Thou art the Rock, but thou art Peter, for the Rock was Christ whom Peter confessed, and though in the following words he leaves it to the choice of the Reader, to take which Interpretation he pleaseth, yet by retracting of the former it ap­pears he adhered to the latter. As is made more probable by another passage of the same Father in a [Page 12]Sermon de verb. Dom. Serm. 13. Non me super te, Pe­tre, sed te super me, I am not built upon thee Peter, but thou upon me, and therefore in this point Pighius condemns that Father as inconstant to him­self.

St. Augustine acknowledged the Popes Suprema­cy, but not that unlimited Supremacy that is now challenged, consisting in a Superiority over Coun­cils, jurisdiction over Kings, in being Judg of all Controversies, for St. Augustine himself denyed Ap­peals to Rome.

St. Augustine (saith he) taught the Assumption of our Blessed Lady, her freedom from Original sin, her vowed Chastity. But in that Book de Sancta Virginit. he refers us to, I find mention only of her vowed Chastity, which is no matter of Controver­sie, but nothing of her freedom from Original sin: and 'tis well known that Opinion of the Virgins freedom from Original sin is of a later birth, it be­ing unknown in St. Bernards time, nothing deter­mined of it till the Council of Basil. 1431.

St. Augustine saith that the Authority of the Ca­tholick Church is of more efficacy than the word it self; and we are of his Judgment too if he be rightly understood, that the Authority of the Church is of more efficacy to some, in some respect, to move Pagans and Infidels.

St. Augustine tells us 'tis an Heretical thing to in­sist only upon Scripture, and so say we, we know [Page 13]Reason must be used to convince Heathen, and Tradition to convince Hereticks.

St. Augustine saith that the Church cannot Err, so say we, if we understand by the Church, the Church Universal, with this limitation, in Fundamentals.

St. Augustine, The Church of Christ is Univer­sal, and so say we: St. Augustine tells us that the Church Catholick must be Visible, so say we.

St. Augustine teacheth that there are Seven Sacra­ment, that's false, St. Augustine no where speaks of that just number, neither was it ever determined till the Council of Florence, nor heard of before Peter Lombard.

St. Augustine (saith he) believed Transubstantia­tion in effect, but not in terms: how does he know St. Augustine believed it in effect, when he does not express so much in his terms?

St. Augustine teacheth us that the Sacrament is to be adored, but in all the places he refers us to I can find nothing to that purpose, but only upon Psalm xcvii. where he hath these words, Nemo carnem il­lam manducet nisi prius adoraverit, let no man Eat that Flesh, unless he first adores, which I hope no good Christian will refuse to do. Christ no Questi­on ought to be adored in our approaches to that Sacrament, and the Sacrament it self is venera­ble; with all due respects to be handled and recei­ved.

Not to trouble my self nor you with examining all the Points of Divinity he gives us St. Augustines judgment on: if St. Augustine taught the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice: Confession of sins to a Priest: That Orders ought not to be conferr'd but by a Bi­shop: That 'tis an Error to affirm a Bishop and a Priest to be a like in Dignity. If he maintained Freewill: Justification by Works: That men are made Righteous by Works: For that was St. Augustines Notion of Justification. If he taught that good Works do Merit in some kind: the diffe­rence betwixt Venial and Mortal sins: Prescribed days of Fasting. If he commends Monastical life: The Learned of the Church of England will give their suffrage to St. Augustine in all these parti­culars, and not betray their cause neither: So you see we have received no great damage by this re­ference yet.

But if we turn over St. Augustine again and en­quire out his judgment concerning the Innovati­ons and new Doctrines maintained in the Roman Church, we shall see that these Appellants them­selves are condemned by St. Augustines Sentence.

The present Church of Rome maintains Wor­shipping of Images, St. Augustine condemned it in his 119. Epist. ad Jan. saying, nulla imago ejus coli debet, &c. no Image of God ought to be Worship­ped, but that which is the same with himself; and in his Book de moribus Ecclesiae. Cap. 34. he hath these [Page 15]words, Do not follow the rout of ignorant people, which in the true Religion are Superstitious, I know many Worshippers of Sepulchres and Pictures. And upon Psalm cxii. he hath a long Discourse to shew how dangerous the use of such Images is.

The present Church of Rome maintains that the Scriptures are imperfect and obscure in matters of Faith and good Life, St. Augustine teacheth the con­trary in his Book de Doctr. Christiana, in those things which are plainly delivered in the Scripture are found all things which concern Faith and good Life.

The present Church denies the Scripture to be Judg of any Controversie, St. Collat. Carthag. 3. Cap. 187. Augustine summons the Donatists to the Judgment of Scripture alone in that Controversie, in one place he saith the Divine Testimonies alone are sufficient to demonstrate the Church: Let Di­vine Authority alone speak, let Scripture alone be produced, to which both of us owe submission. And in his Book de Unitate Ecclesiae, he saith, Non audiamus, haec dico, haec dicis, sed audiamus, haec dicit Dominus, &c. Let us not hear, this I say, and this thou sayest, but let us hear, this the Lord saith: There are the Lords Books, let us there seek for the Church, let us there discuss our cause, let those things be laid aside which we produce one against another not out of the Divine Canonical Books.

The present Roman Church forbids people Read­ing of the Scripture, St. Augustine exhorts his Audi­tors [Page 16]all to Read the Scriptures, upon Psalm xxxiii. Read the Scriptures (saith he) therefore God would have them written that we might be comforted.

The present Church of Rome hath taken away the Cup from the people in the Sacrament, St. Au­gustine saith all the people must receive it, if they will have life. Quaest. 57. in Levit.

The present Church of Rome maintains Tran­substantiation, St. Augustine denies it, in his Book against Adimantus, he hath these words, The Lord doubted not to say, this is my Body, when he gave a sign of his Body: And in a Sermon upon Psalm xcviii. he hath these words, Non hoc corpus, &c. You are not about to Eat that Body, which you see, nor Drink that Bloud which is poured out by my Crucifiers. I have commended unto you a Sacrament, which being Spiritually understood shall quicken you, and although it be necessary to celebrate it visibly, yet it ought to be understood invisibly: it were an easie matter for a man mean­ly versed in St. Augustine, to instance in many more particulars wherein that Father varies from the judgment of the present Roman Church. As concerning the number of the Sacraments, the Virgin Maries Immaculate Conception, Pray­ers in an unknown Tongue, Purgatory, Invo­cation of Saints, &c. But I am weary and troublesom, and so shall put a Period to this part, desiring you now to judg impartially whether we [Page 17]be cast in our cause by St. Augustines Sentence or no.

The third way he pretends to end all Contro­versies, is by the known and ever acknowledged Tribunal, and Seat of Judgment provided in that behalf: and so Protestants are cast in their own Cause again by Judiciary way of proceeding, by the highest Judicature in Causes Ecclesiastical: the Church of Rome.

Arguments are not so plentiful with the Doctor as he makes shew of, when he is forced to make use of this new Topick, viz. to prove the Roman Church to be the whole Catholick Church, by the judgment of the Roman Church. If I bear witness of my self (saith Christ) my witness is not true, John v. 31. Nemo qui de seipso fert testimonium fide dig­nus est, propter suspicionem de nimio sui ipsius amore. Euthym. No body that bears witness of himself, is worthy to be believed, because every man is sus­pected to love himself too well.

And therefore whatsoever others may, this Ar­gument is not like to sway much with rational men, 'tis a poor thing of so great a Clerk, who hath so good a Cause as he conceives, and all learning of his side, to use such pittiful begging of the Question: Whether the Church of Rome be the Judg of all Controversies is one thing in question. And to Appeal to his Church as Judg, before he hath proved her to be so, is a piece of Sophistry. [Page 18]But this he makes us believe he hath done before in part, Cap. 1. and now he will do it more fully by Scriptures, Fathers Greek and Latin, the practice of all Ages, Nations, Tongues and People, and the confession of her very Adversaries. If he can do as much as he promiseth, let him be Anathema Maranatha that shall not conform his judgment to the Roman Church, but if these be all Ostentations, Rhodomontadoes to amaze his Reader and charm his Proselytes into a Circle of ignorance. Hath not every wise man cause to suspect that Cause that needs such Arts to underprop it?

Two things there are I suppose the Doctor is obliged to do to make this undertaking good.

First, to prove that the Roman Church is provi­ded, and ordained by God the Judg of all Con­troversies, and so that she is lawfully possest of this Office.

Secondly, That, de facto, she was ever acknow­ledged so to be.

For the first he seems to do it by these Scriptures. God erected a standing Judicature for all Contro­versies among the Jews, Deut. xvii. 8, 9. He fore­tels that at Christs coming his House should be e­stablished on the top of the mountains, Isay ii. 2. and all Nations should flow unto it. Christ commands to hear the Church, Matth. xviii. and foretels that he will take the Kingdom of God from the Jews, and give it to another Nation, i. e. the [Page 19] Romans, Matth. xxi. 43. St. Paul tells us he hath given some Apostles, &c. Ephes. iv. 11. But these being all impertinent, and miserably wrested, I shall not wast time and paper in answering them, and truly unless the Doctor had had more pertinent Texts to have proved the Question, he should have done well to have waved this kind of proof, espe­cially seeing the Church of Rome hath not always claimed by this Title of Divine Right, when the contest was betwixt the Romans and Africans about Appeals: Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus the then Popes of Rome did not urge Divine Law for their claim of receiving Appeals out of Africa, but the Decrees of the Nicene Council, whereby it ap­pears, that then they thought not that this Jurisdi­ction belonged to them by Divine Right.

Yet this failing, if he can prove the matter of Fact it will be somthing, this is the Strength and Bulwark of the Cause, and this he seems to man­age with more dexterity: for very numerous he is in Quotation of Fathers, and very Rhetorical in persuading, but his Authorities, if you observe them, are most of them impertinent; he produceth the te­stimonies of the Fathers in great numbers to prove that the Pope of Rome was St. Peters Successor, had magnificent Titles given him, was call'd a Catho­lick Bishop, and Bishop of the Catholick Church. That the Roman Church was in Ancient times very highly accounted of, that the Roman Faith was cal­led the Catholick Faith.

Only in the fixth Division, Pag. 234. He seems to come home to the Question: for there he gives us a just Catalogue of oppressed Bishops that made complaints to the Pope of Rome, and of some Holy Fathers that made their addresses to him upon some other occasions, which seem to argue that he was then acknowledged the Judg of all Contro­versies.

This at first makes a great noise like the rat­ling of Hail upon a House top, but soon falls to the Ground.

The Pope of Rome may be considered in a three­fold capacity.

First, of a Bishop over a particular Diocess, and so there belonged to him, as to other Bishops, a Judgment of Jurisdiction over his own Clergy.

Secondly, of a Patriarch, in which respect there belong'd to him Authority to hear complaints of Bishops against their Metropolitans, and determine all differences amongst Metropolitans under his Patriarchate.

Thirdly, of the Prime Patriarch of the Ca­tholick Church, without whose concurrence the meaner Patriarchs could do nothing in the weighty and important affairs of the Church, to whom the Cognizance of some things belonged above other Patriarchs, by the Canons of the Council of Sardis, and to whom singular honour was done, and some extraordinary Priviledges granted, as Bishop of [Page 21]the Imperial City, as the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said: in all which respects Complaints and Appeals might be made to the Pope of Rome, and yet it does not follow that he was ever acknow­ledg'd the Judg of all Controversies. For 'tis evident notwithstanding all the Priviledges of the Pope of Rome, that yet there was reserved to every Bishop the Judgment of all differences amongst Presby­ters in his own Diocess: To Metropolitans the Judgment of differences amongst Bishops: To Patriarchs the Judgment of Metropolitans: And to General Councils the Judgment of Patriarchs.

And therefore for all this great flourish made by this Doctor in numbring so many Appellants, and Complainants to the Pope, I believe I am able to demonstrate out of the Records of Antiquity, that the Pope of Rome was not ever acknowledged the Judg of all Controversies.

Polycarpus was a blessed Martyr, and a Disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and he did not acknow­ledg the Pope, nor the Roman Church, to be the Judg of all Controversies, for be refused to con­form to the Judgment of the Roman Church in the observation of Easter.

Polycrates assembled with the Asian Bishops in a Synod did not acknowledg the Roman Church to be Judg of all Controversies: For they stood in defi­ance with Pope Victor, and his Excommunication, about that Observation. Eusab. lib. 5. cap. 23.24.

St. Cyprian was a Holy Martyr, and stand Cano­nized for a Saint in the Roman Church, and he did not acknowledg the Roman Church to be Judg of all Controversies: For he did abrogate Appeals to Rome in the Cause of Fortunatus and Faelicissimus, and with a Council of Eighty Bishops concluded contrary to the Roman Church in the business of Rebaptization, Epist. 55. Ad Cornel. as Bellar­mine himself acknowledgeth. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont.

St. Augustine was the Monarch of the Fathers, and so illustrious for Learning and Piety, that he is chosen by the Doctor to be Umpire in the dif­ference: yet he did not acknowledg the Roman Church to be Judg of all Controversies: For he in two Councils with the African Bishops, viz. The [...] and the first Council of Carthage denyed Appeals to Rome in some cases.

It is true indeed, St. Augustine, in his 162. Epistle, does give us an account of the Judgment given by Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, in the Controversie be­twixt Donatus and Caecilianus, and does very highly extol and magnifie the Sentence of Melchiades, as in­deed it deserved to be. But withal he tells us that Melchiades did not assume to himself alone Au­thority of Judging in that Case, but had many Bi­shops of Italy, and France joyned with him.

Insomuch when Donatus refusing to stand to the Judgment of Melchiades, and his Collegue Bishops endeavoured to asperse and defame Melchiades, [Page 23]St. Augustine excuseth him from all Arrogance and Usurpation three ways: First by declaring that they made him a Judg of that Controversie, who Appealed unto him, and by their Prayers Sollici­ted him to give Sentence in it, Judicem illi eum fece­runt, &c. they made him a Judg. Secondly, That the Emperour Constantine referred it to him, who be­ing petitioned sent other Bishops as Judges to sit with him, and to determine what they found just in the matter. Thirdly, They knew they might have Appealed to a General Council, where if these Judges had been convinced to have Judged amiss, their Sentence might have been reversed, and the Judges themselves Judged again.

This Testimony is full enough to evince, that neither St. Augustine nor the Age wherein he lived, acknowledged the Roman Church the Judg of all Controversies.

St. Jerom was a Mirror of Learning, and (as is pretended) a great assertor of the Popes Suprema­cy: yet he did not acknowledg the Church off Rome to be Judg of all Controversies: For in a great difference betwixt the Oriental Churches and the Roman Church in Point Doctrinal, he cast off the Judgment of the Roman Church, and followed the Oriental. In St. Jeroms time the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews was not received into the Canon of the Scripture by the Roman Church, but by the Eastern Churches it was: Now if the Roman Church [Page 24]had been acknowledged by him the Judg of all Controversies, he would not, he durst not have va­ried from her, But he saith expresly, Quod si La­tina Consuetudo, &c. Although the Latin Church doth not admit of the Epistle as Canonical, we notwith­standing (saith he) do receive it. What need I add any more? If the Fathers acknowledged the Roman Church the Judg of all Controversies, why did they take so much pains in confuting Heresies by Scripture, by Tradition, when they might have ended all, by Appealing all to the Judgment of the Roman Church?

In vain are so many means used for the compas­sing of that, which might be done by fewer? And does not this Doctor himself tell us in Cap. 8. at the very beginning, of many Heresies the Fathers sup­pressed by Tradition alone, without the interpositi­on of the Judgment of the Roman Church. By this (saith he) Eusebius acknowledgeth Tertullian to have repressed the Marcionites: Irenaeus the Valentini­ans: St. Cyprian the Novatians: Epiphanius the Apo­stolicks: St. Jerom the Helvidians: St. Augustine the Donatists: Athanasius the Arrians. How then in the mean time was the Roman Church the Judg of all Controversies, and why may not Heresies still be suppressed that way?

Now for the General Council, which this Au­thor names too, as favourers of this Jurisdiction in the Roman Chruch: 'Tis a very fond thing for any [Page 25]man to imagine that they should contribute any thing to this assertion, when by so doing they had nulled their own Authority and Power. It is well known that General Councils were the highest Tribunals in the Church, that they gave Sentence in the weightiest Controversies, that they suppres­sed Heresies, deposed Bishops, Patriarchs, yea e­ven Popes of Rome, and that the Popes of Rome themselves for many years at their Inauguration swore to observe the Canons of the General Coun­cils. Now thus I argue, if the Judgment of ma­ny Differences and Controversies did in a peculi­ar manner belong to General Councils: how is the Roman Church Judg of all Controversies? If there did not: why were they assembled, and by what Authority did they these things before spe­cified?

The fourth way of ending all Controversies is by both Parties agreeing upon the same mark, whereby the thing in Contestation may be found out. And so (saith he, Cap. 28.) the Church of Rome is proved to be a true Church by the very same mark, which both Catholick and Protestants agree upon to be the mark of Christs Church.

And if this be all the Doctor would have, who denies it? But I pray if that mark agreed upon on both sides be of force to prove the Church of Rome to be a true Church: Is it of none to prove the Church of England to be so too, if found there? [Page 26]How comes this common mark to signifie so fully, when applyed to Roman Church, and to be as a Mute, and non-significant, when applyed to the Church of England.

'Tis strange to see how in this Chapter he shuf­fles, plays fast and loose, now gives, now takes away again. He begins with a designation of that mark of the Church, which (he saith) all agree upon. And that is Holiness, which he takes in a new Notion for a Faithful Preaching of the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments, wherein all Scriptures Catholicks, Protestants agree; and yet in the very next place he undertakes to prove that faithful Preaching of Word, and Administrati­on of the Sacraments, whereof this Holiness con­sists, are no marks of the Church, and this he doth by two or three Arguments, Pag. 256. which if used against the fifteen marks of Bellarmines as­signing, would pare them all out of Roman Scutchi­ons. Now fearing he had done somthing he could not answer, he comes to salve all by a new distin­ction of Holiness.

Holiness (saith he) may be taken two ways. Pag. 267.

First, For an Universal purity of Doctrine, and true Preaching of the Word, as 'tis opposite to all errors in every Dogmatical and Essential Point.

Secondly, For a particular discerning Holiness, whereby the true Preaching of the Word is oppo­site [Page 27]to all palpable and gross absurdities, repugnant to the very Principles of Nature, Rules of Faith, and express Texts of Scripture.

What the meaning of this distinction is, I confess, I understand not, nor I believe he himself; if he were injoy'd to make it intelligible, and justifie it by the Rules of Art, I believe it would cost him more pains than the writing of his Book. After he hath told us of this miraculous distinction, which no man knows to what purpose, he advanceth to the great works, viz. To prove the Roman Church to be a True Church by those marks, which are no marks.

We will consider (saith he) on our side what Doctrine it is which the Roman Catholicks do Preach: and on the other side what Doctrine it is which the Protestants maintain: and comparing both together, observe whether of the two Preach more sincerely or faithfully.

For the Catholicks (saith he) they prescribe a strict way by Confessing of sins, doing Pennance, Restitution for wrong done, set-times of Fasting, &c. But the Protestants the clean contrary.

If the Protestants taught all things, he would make the world believe, they do, they were very monsters of men, not fit to live in the World. But we that know what we Preach as well as he, proclaim to the world, that we Preach Confession of sins, doing Pennance, Restitution for wrong done, Mor­tification, [Page 28]Set-times of Fasting, contempt of the World, Self-denyal, Chastity Virginal, Vidual, Marital, and all other things necessary to be belie­ved and done for Salvation. What if some Secta­rian Zelots amongst us teach the contrary? How does this concern the Church of England, who in Justice stands not bound to maintain, or answer for all the wild and mad opinions of them, that sepa­rate from her. And therefore 'tis not fair dealing in this Doctor, to make the world believe we hold all things contrary to sound Doctrine, much worse to father upon the Church of England all the loose, furious, spurious Principles of all that stand in op­position to Rome. What have we to do with the intemperate speeches of Luther, or the new Divi­nity of the Lemanical Dictator, who follow none but Christ and the Primitive Catholick Church?

But grant that the Church of England should not Preach the Doctrine of Christ so sincerely as the Roman Church does, how does it follow upon this, that the Church of Rome is the only True Church, and the Church of England none? 'Tis a Rule in Logick, that magis & minùs non variant spe­ciem: that more or less Intention or Remission does not vary, or diversifie the kind. If the Church of England do Preach Christs Doctrine so sincerely, as to Preach it sufficiently for mans Salvation, all things necessary for mans Salvation, though the Ro­man [Page 29]Church Preach it more excellently. The Church of England may be a True Church still: For there are degrees of the sincere Preaching, and profession of Christs Doctrine. One consisting in a freedom from all errours, and that is not neces­sarily required to the being of a Church. Another consisting in a freedom from all pertinacious error. And 'tis this last we make a note of the Church; a sincerity free from all pertinacious error, and in this degree of sincerity the Church of England does profess to Preach Christs Doctrine, and by so doing is a True Church.

The second Mark that Protestants make of the True Church, is the lawful Administration of the Sacraments, whereby he undertakes in Cap. 30. to prove the Church of England to be no True Church. At first he Scoptically mentions it, calling it an Ear-mark, although as wise and as learned a man as himself, Alexander Ales, made it so in good earnest. At last he himself makes use of it to prove the Church of England to be no True Church, viz. because the Church of England neither administers all the Sacraments, which are Seven, nor holds it necessary all should be administred: nor acknow­ledgeth all to be Sacraments, which is contrary to express Text of Scripture, and the Word of God.

A high degree of contumacy, and perversness, if True, and enough to stigmatize us to all Ages. But if the Church of England allow all to be Sacra­ments [Page 30]that are so, and the number of Seven Sacra­ments in that sence, the Ancient Church call'd them so, though amongst them two more chief, and ge­nerally necessary to Salvation: What degree of Heresie is this?

For the word Sacrament we know it is an Eccle­siastical word, and in the power of the Church to impose upon what holy Signs or Ceremonies she pleaseth. And if the Antient Church have thought it fitting to call those Holy Actions mention'd in the the Scripture, with that name, as Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, &c. we oppose it not, we commend the moderation of Melancthon, who thinks this no just matter of quarrel. But 'tis well known that the word Sacrament was used two ways by the Antients.

First largely, for any Holy secret, or sign of any Holy secret. So Tertullian calls Christianity it self a Sacrament, lib. 4. contra Marcion, and in his Fifth Book speaking of Abrahams Sons, he calls them Sa­cramenta figuram, the Sacraments of figures, and in his Book against the Jews; he calls the Hatchet of Eliah, Sacramentum ligni, the Sacrament of the wood.

Somtimes strictly, for a Holy secret, Symboli­cally signifying, and Sealing some Spiritual Grace, and Ordained by Christ for that purpose. And so they esteem'd Baptism, and the Eucharist, Sacra­ments in a more excellent manner.

But to go no further than the words of the Doctor, p. 287. where he defines a Sacrament to be a visible sign of an invisible Grace Divinely In­stituted for our Sanctification. How will the Do­ctor by this Definition prove all the Seven to be True Proper Sacraments, when Five of them want Divine Institution, or matter and form Essential to Sacraments.

To instance in Confirmation, they acknowledg themselves there is no command of Christ for it, but only the Example of the Apostles. The mat­ter, they say, of this Sacrament is Holy Chrism Confect, and made of Oyl Olive and Balm Con­secrated by a Bishop: the Form is the words of the Bishop, I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, now no­thing of these is determined by Christ. Alexander Ales saith it was Ordained in the Councel of Melden. Durandus denyes Matrimony to be a True and Pro­per Sacrament of the new Law, because it neither confers Grace to him that hath it not, nor augments it in him that hath it.

Cajetan upon the fifth Chapter of St. James, verse 14. saith that there is nothing at all spoken there for the Sacrament of Extream Unction. And see­ing some of these Sacraments according to their own Doctors want Divine Institution, some Di­vine Efficacy to Sanctifie, some matter and form Essential to Sacraments, 'tis clear they are not of that excellency and perfection that Baptism and [Page 32]the Eucharist are; and therefore what Heresie is it in the Church of England to receive them as more chiefly, and generally necessary to Salvation, so long as she acknowledgeth the other to be Sacra­ments in that sense the Antient Church call'd them so, vid. Lyran. in explic. visionis, &c.

The fifth and last way whereby he pretends to put an end to Controversies, is by Combat, by answering the Challenge, which some of the Lear­ned of the Church of England have made to them of the Roman Church, to be tryed by the Testimony of the Fathers that lived within the time of the first six hundred years of Christ. This Challenge was made (saith he) by Bishop Jewel in a Sermon at Pauls Cross, and by Dr. Whitaker in his Reasons a­gainst Campian.

Though we of the Church of England are no ways bound to defend what every private Doctor shall Preach in a Sermon, or let fall from his Pen in heat of Controversie, yet I believe verily, a man may become a Second to these Champions in this Duel, and yet come off without broken Bones: though for my part I confess my self altogether un­able for such an undertaking, yet out of my little Learning I am able to discover a great deal of foul play the Doctor useth at the first, which makes me think that he himself is not very able to hold up the Bucklers in this quarrel neither.

For in stating the quarrel betwixt the two Com­batants, he reckons up three and twenty points of Divinity as Controverted betwixt them, whereas eighteen of these are not Controverted by the Church of England.

For the first, we maintain no Free-Will.

2. We hold that Free-Will Cooperates with Grace.

3. That Good Works do in some kind Merit.

4. We maintain the Fast of Lent to be very An­tient, Good, and requisite to be observed.

5. Concerning Original sin we receive all that is determined by Antient Church against the Pelagi­ans.

6. We teach Good Works are required to Justi­fication.

7. That a man ought to be sure of his Predesti­nation is no Doctrine of the Church of England.

8. We teach that a man fall away after Baptism.

9. Concerning Christ the Mediatour, we hold as the Roman Church, that he was Mediatour in both his Natures, but suffered only in his human.

10. We believe Christ descended into Hell.

11. We teach that Christs Law and Precepts are possible to be kept.

12. Concerning Veneration of Reliques, if we had any which we were sure were genuine, we would not doubt to give some Veneration towards them.

13. We allow Prayer for the dead in respect of the Resurrection. In a word we deny not Church Traditions, that are genuine, nor the Efficacy of the Sacraments, nor the necessity of Baptism, nor Confession, and Absolution, nor the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist.

And for those other five points, wherein we profess to recede from the Roman Church, we de­clare unto the World, if they were received in the Roman Church only in that degree of credibility they were taught by the Antients, we should not look upon them as such Terriculaments as we do, when the Antients taught them only as probable Opinions, and the Roman Church hath now made them Articles of Faith: Can. 7. we think 'tis time for us to remember that Canon of the great Coun­cil of Ephesus which pronounceth Anathe­ma against all those that shall compose any other Creed besides the Nicene. Which of the Antients in the first six hundred years did receive or teach Purgatory, or Invocation of Saints as Articles of their Creed?

Another piece of foul play I observe in this Dis­puter, is this, that in stating of the quarrel betwixt the Roman Church and the Church of England, he does not only shuffle in many things which were never in question, but does also leave out all those things which make up the Wall of Separation be­twixt us. As first the unlimited Supremacy of the [Page 35]Pope. 2. The Infallibility of the Roman Church. 3. The Worship of Images. 4. The Sacrament in one kind. 5. Prayer in an unknown Tongue, &c. These are the Gravamina we complain of, these are the Rocks of Offence we stumble at, which unless he can prove by the Testimony of the Antients, as well at the other, he doth but fight with his own shadow, and as they say fingere stolidum ad­versarium, and then sugillare, make to himself a foolish Adversary, and then beat him. I shall end with that Counsel St. Augustine gives the Donatist: Auferte perditam simulationem, si de moribus non vultis, saltem de literis vestris, take away the wicked dissi­mulation, if ye will not from your manners, do it at least from your writings.