hasten to my fourth and last Assertion which was this That there is scarcely any point in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists especially of them before-mentioned made by Pope Pius and the late Tridentine Council Articles of Faith but we are able to produce many eminent Writers and some of their own Church who condemn them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned were not the generally received and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman much less Catholick Church but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it The Numbâ—r of Sacraments I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments The Canonists as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist 5. de Poenitentia V. Rhe … num 〈◊〉 in Tertul. de Poenitent Loc. Commun lib. â— c. 4. 5. In qu. Gent. Diâ—t 26. qu. 3. say That Penance was not ordained as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are a Sacrament by Christ but is an Institution of the Church onely Canus affirmeth it 's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds 4. Dist 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called conferring Grace Hugo de S. Victore denieth that extreme Unction is a Sacrament Holcot quoted by Cassander Consult art 13. saith Confirmation is no Sacrament De Sacrum Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Alexander Halensis is of opinion that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel See Dr. Field of the Church In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper as Protestants do Transubstantiation Secondly As for their new Article of Transubstantiation Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth Dist 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5 De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest 3. Lib. 4. Dist 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration which was Luther's Opinion is possible neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture Nay saith he it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth that the substance doth leave the accidents and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches i. e. his Roman Churches determination Scotus quoted by Bellarmine saith that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure P. Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen believed it not For he saith if it be demanded what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud is made by Consecration whether formal or substantial De Verit. Corp. Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Maries days declares that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantiation it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence which we grant and no more Yea he used to say That if he had been at Pope Innocent's Elbow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith he could he thought have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it In Can. Missae Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent and the Infallibility of the Church you must suppose Roman which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us To which Durand agreeth 4 Dist 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness saith he to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament unless the bread be converted into it He adds that the Opinion of Transubstantiation held by Lutherans is liable to fewer difficulties but it must not be holden since the Church of Rome hath determined the contrary which is presumed not to err in such matters Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibility V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantiation not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture which he saith cannot be found In like manner Cameracensis professeth he saw not how Transubstantiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church making it a matter of Opinion not Faith and inclining rather as Alliaco to Consubstantiation Aquinas himself acknowledgeth that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally but sacramentally only which overthroweth Transubstantiation Ferus is very moderate in this point Seeing saith he it 's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or not Tom. 3. Disp 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself quoted by Suarez confesseth that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point This is my Body Supra in Part. 3. summ qu. 75. art 14. secluding the Authority of the Church are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation Of the same Opinion was Scotus The same Cajetan noteth that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth So if I be not much mistaken doth Cardinal Bellarmine who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body maintains onely a Translocation adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it which as easie to discern is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body properly so called Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation proving out of the Scriptures and antient Fathers that the Bread and Wine are not properly but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud This Book is still extant and no wonder condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies wherein he affirms that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter corporally but spiritually spiritualiter With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury appointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion still extant in Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Oxford and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity Panis ille est corpus Christi figurate
may in time want snuffing and so may the most Apostolical Church in after-Ages need Reformation The second place is Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church if he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican Now saith the Letter It were very hard to be condemn'd for a Heathen or a Publican for not hearing a Church that hath so closely lain hid that none could hear see feel or understand it for 900. years First I answer That these words prove not the Church visible or palpable to all men Heathens and Infidels enquiring after the true Church but at most to Christians only who live under the Church's government and submit to her Censures Secondly The words relate to a particular Christian Church of which a person is a member for it were absurd to imagine our Saviour should oblige any Christian if his Brother should offend him to tell the whole Catholick Church throughout the World his offence per literas Encyclicas Yea it 's plain and undeniable the place respects not the whole diffused number of Christians no not in any particular Church but the Governours only Now our Adversaries will not I hope say that any particular Church except their own much less its Rulers or Representatives shall be eminently visible and conspicuous to all Christians at all times Certainly our Saviour in this place does not promise any special privilege to the Church of Rome more than Antioch Ephesus or any other Apostolical Church to whom that Precept of telling the Church doth equally belong some of whom are long since utterly extinguished by the overflowing of Mahometanism How can they then from this place infer that any particular Church shall be perpetually visible and conspicuous to the World exercising Church-Government over its members Nay farther How could the Christians belonging to their Roman Church when under the persecution of Dioclesian or Constantius at which time the Shepherds being smitten the sheep were all scatter'd the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted tell the Church or make complaint to the Governours of it when they scarcely knew where they were to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint Our Saviour's Precept then supposes the free exercise of Church-government which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercis'd or supposed I might add Acosta de Temp. noviss lib. 2. cap. 15. Telesphorus de Magnit tribulat pag. 32. Aquipontanus de Antichrist pag. 23. That their own Writers Acosta Telesphorus the Hermite and others confess that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and publick service of God shall be buried the Church-doors destroy'd the Altars forsaken the Church empty c. Now I appeal to the conscience of any man whether at that time it would be possible in case of Scandal to tell the Church when the Church shall be forc'd to hide it self and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppress'd and dissolv'd by the violence of Persecution Lastly Whereas 't is objected that the Protestant Church hath so closely lain hid for 900. years that no man could see or understand it this is very falsly affirm'd as I shall shew afterward unless such as profess'd the Religion of the Scriptures Ancient Fathers and Councils protesting against some new Roman additional Articles impos'd of late by Pope Pius and the Tridentine Council were no true visible Church of God. The last place viz. 2 Cor. 4.5 If our Gospel be hid c. is least of all to the purpose for there Saint Paul plainly speaketh not of the Church but of the Gospel or Christian Faith Hieronym in Nahum c 2. Chrysost Hom. 49. in Matth. Nunc nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nimirum ex quo obtinuit haeresis Ecclesias nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Irenaeus cont Haeres lib. 2. Quae praeconiaverunt pestea per Dei voluntatem scripserunt c Costerus Enchirid. cap. 1. Alphonsus de Castro cont Haeres grant this which is clearly deliver'd by the Scripture to which as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge we ought especially in times of Heresie and Persecution to have recourse for our establishment in the truth and if the Gospel first preached and afterwards written by the Apostles for what they first preached they afterwards by the will of God as Irenaeus saith wrote be hid to any it 's hid to them that perish whose minds the Devil hath blinded Doth not this place expresly confute our Adversaries who affirm that the Gospel as reveal'd by the Scripture is dark obscure and invisible to the Laity that so they may hang their faith by a blind and implicite obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority of their Church or Popes who may be as some of them have been notorious and manifest Hereticks So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service The Fathers alledg'd for the Roman visibility consider'd I come now to the Fathers quoted in your Letter and first for Chrysostom's saying * Hom. 30. in Matth. It is easier for the Sun to be extinguish'd than the Church to be darkned I wonder any sober men should require us to believe that on Chrysostom's Authority which they do not believe themselves For the Romanists Valentia and others as we have seen confess that the Church even their Roman Church may be obscur'd or darkned as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperours in times of prevailing Heresie and Persecution So that Chrysostom must even by them be understood of a total not partial Eclipse or darkness for in that place he treateth of times of persecution wherein all grant the Church may be darkned and saith the Tyrants are gone and perish'd but the Church remaineth unconquer'd As to the places quoted out of Saint Austin Tract in Joan. de Unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 7. I answer That he speaketh of the state of the Christian Church as it was in his days in its external lustre and glory retaining the Primitive Faith without addition or detraction It was indeed strange blindness in the Donatists he writeth against not to see the true Church which as a Mountain or light on a Hill was then plainly visible before them all over Africa yea the whole World but to dare to restrain it to pars Donati the faction of Donatus as now the Jesuits restrain it to the Popish party was plain impudence Nevertheless St. Austin doth not say that the Church should always and in all after-Ages remain in that visible prosperous and illustrious state yea contrarily he confesseth that it is sometimes obscur'd thro the multitude of scandals Aliquando obscuratur Epist ad Vincentium 47. Ecclesia non apparâ—bit impiis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus Epist 80. ad Hesychium Vide de Baptist contra Donatistas lib. 6 cap. 4. Enarrat in Psalmum 10. that it is like the Moon that may be hid that it shall not appear by reason of the
they shall not be admitted to the Vision beatifical till after the Resurrection Occam Scotus lib. 4. dist 45. qu. 4. Valentia with others deny that the Saints departed or Angels see all things in Speculo Trinitatis in God who seeth all things but onely such as are essential to their happiness Videt omnia qui videt videntem omnia Greg. M. In 2. Tom. 3. digres 17. p. 118. In August de Civil Dei l. 8. c. 27. and which he is pleased to represent to them Claudius Espencaeus testifieth that some old Folk trusted in the Saints and ascribed no less to them than to God himself and thought it easier to intreat or prevail with one of them for obtaining their requests and desires than him Ludovicus Vives professeth he could discern no difference betwixt the worship of Saints practised in his time and the heathenish Parentalia Wickliffe apud Walden Tom. 3 Tit. 12. the Albigenses and Waldenses rejected long before Luther Invocation of Saints I shall close this Particular with the words of Cassander a learned and ingenuous Papist Cons p. 154. This false and pernicious Opinion is too well known to have prevailed among the Vulgar while wicked men persevering in their naughtiness are persuaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints whom they have chosen to be their Patrons and worship with cold and prophane Ceremonies they have Pardon and Grace prepared them with God which pernicious Opinion hath been confirmed in them with lying Miracles And there is another Errour that men not evil of themselves Compare Sir Edwin Sandys's Europae Speculum pag. 56. Biel in Can. Missae Lect. 30. saith as much Solus Deus simpliciter orandus est Sancti magis se tenent ex parte orantium quam illius qui oratur Halens qu. 92. Mem. 10. Art. 4. have chosen certain Saints to be their Patrons and keepers and put confidence in their Merits and Intercession more than in the Merits of Christ so far that the onely Office of Christs Intercession being obscured they substituted into his place the Saints and specially the Virgin his Mother c. Are not these things highly injurious to the honour of our blessed Saviour and Redeemer Did they not call aloud for an effectual Reformation I might add several other Points of Doctrine which if they be not already by the Tridentine Decrees may become Articles of Faith whensoever the Pope pleaseth The Popes Infallibility To deny it is sententia Haeresi proxima non proprie haeretica De Infallib Papae l. 4. c. 1. V. Caranzam Sess 12.38.35 V. Alphons de Castro adv Haeres l. 1. c. 2. vid. cap. 4. Ibid. Stapleton Contr. 3. qu. 4. saith it 's no Point of Faith but of Opinion only Cusan Concord l. 1. c. 14. Canus loc Com. l. 6. c. ult Cajetan de Authorit Papae c. 26. Lib. 1. c. 4. Valent. Lib. 8. Analys fidei cap. 1. Pope Hadrian in 4. de Sacram. Confirmat sub finem Canus Loc. l. 6. c. ult p. 331. Valentia Analys fidei lib. 8. c. 3. 4. V. Bellar. de Pontif. M. Waldensis Doctrin sidei l. 2. c. 19. Add Alph. de Castro lib. 1. cap. 4. the Ground Rock and foundation of all their Faith and Religion is ferè almost saith Bellarmin an Article of Faith and but almost which all prudent and considering men may well wonder at Yet it is not only denied by the Council of Basil who decree that it is de fide a Point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council in regard he may be as Liberius Zepherinus Honorius Anastasius and some other Popes were a notorious Heretick and Schismatick but strongly confuted by Occam qu. 1. de potestate Pontif. c. 9. Almain Quaest in Vesp de Autoritate Eccl. c. 10. Ovandus 4. Dist 18. prop. 25. Coroll 2. Nicolas Clemangis de corrupto Eccles statu Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. Contarenus Gerson c. Lyra in Matth. 16. Turrecremata Summ. Eccl. l. 4. part 2. c. 16.20 with many more grant the Pope may be a Heretick in his private person or judgment yea as Alphons de Castro Bozius Tom. 2. de sign Eccles l. 18. c. ult Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. acknowledge that he may be not onely a Heretick himself but impose by his Pontifical Authority in his Decrees Heresie on the whole Church The truth is there is need of an infallible Judge to determine where or in whom the Roman Infallibility resides Some of them say in the Pope alone whether he maturely considers what he decrees or no. Whether the Premisses on which he builds his conclusion be pertinent or not true or false Some in the Pope assisted with a General or Provincial Council Some in a General Council without yea decreeing against the Pope Some in the Universal Tradition of the Church They have little reason then to upbraid Protestants with their difference of Opinion in lesser matters seeing they differ amongst themselves in the fundamental Article and ground of all their Religion 2. The Immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary This is almost an Article of Faith amongst them insomuch that no Divine can commence Doctor as Salmeron reports in the University of Paris Orig. Hom. 17. in Lucam Chrysost Hom. 45. 46. in Matthaeum August Quaest vet novi Test qu. 73. Theophylact. in 2. Lucae Matth. 12. unless he swear to maintain it Nevertheless it is not onely contradicted by the Antient Fathers generally but by the Elder School men as Bannes Part 1. in Tho. qu. art 8. dub 5. and Turrecremata de Consecrat dist 4. num 11. acknowledge Lumbard lib. 3. Sent. dist 3. Aquinas summ 3. part qu. 27. art 2. Cajeran opusc Tom. 2. Tract 1. de conceptione Virg. Bonaventure Dist 3. in Sent. 3. qu. 1. Art. 1. Capreolus l. 3. dist 3. to whom many more may be added assirm the same 3. That the Apocryphal Books are to be received as of equal Authority with the Canonical is decreed and so made a point of Faith by the Council of Trent yet it is evidently contradicted not onely by the Laodicean Council Ruffinus Augustin cont Gaudentium l. 2 c. 23. See Field's Appendix to his third Book of the Church Loc. lib. 2. c. 9. Biblioth lib. 1. c. 19. Origen Hierom P. Gregory the Great and others but by multitudes of their own modern Writers as Cajetan Lyra Hugo Sigonius Occam the ordinary Gloss Waldensis Antoninus Tostatus Carthusianus Faber Clichtoveus Driedo Ferus with many more Canus even since the Council of Trents Decree saith It 's no Heresie to reject the Book of Baruc and Sixtus Senensis since that Council denies the additions to the Book of Hester to be Canonical 4. That we are justified by our own good Works or inherent Righteousness and not by Faith onely is decreed by the Trent Council as an Article of Catholick Faith yet it is plainly contradicted not onely by the
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
under the subtle Usurpation and tyranny of Popery The answer given by the Proctors of the Romish Court to this Canon as that of Chalcedon Hunc Canonem Ecclesia Romana non recipit Coriolanus p. 285. Ad An. 381. l. 38. or any other that opposeth their Dominion is The most holy Church of Rome approveth or receiveth not that Council or Canon for all Councils saith their great Cardinal Baronius have more or less Authority as they are approved or not allowed by the Roman Church or Pope An Answer which scarcely deserves a reply and sheweth what esteem our Romanists have of even General Councils if they cross their ambitious designs I cannot omit that famous Synodical Epistle sent by the Bishops of Africa of whom St. Austin was one to the Bishop of Rome Pope Celestine which is an invincible Bulwark or Sea-wall against the inundation of Papal Supremacy It would be tedious to transcribe the whole Letter which is still extant and written directly against this new Article of Codic Canon Ecclesiae Africanae in fine not Catholick but Roman Faith. They first desire the Pope not easily to give Audience to such as appealed from them to him Ab aliis excommunicati ab aliis ad commumonem ne recipiantur sine synodo provinciali Concil Nicaen Can. 5. or to receive into his Communion such as they had as Apiarius a most scandalous Presbyter amongst others deservedly excommunicated Which was say they contrary to the Nicene Canons which respect Bishops as well as inferiour Clericks They tell him that the Canons of the Church had prudently provided that all Controversies should be determined in the places where they arose where the Grace of the Holy Ghost would not be wanting to direct unless any one can believe that God will inspire any one man the Pope with Justice i. e. just or right judgment and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council The African Bishops thought no Christian man could believe this but there are Roman Catholicks who have made it an unquestionable truth that though all Councils may err yet the Pope being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot The Afriâ—â—n Fathers go on How can a transmarine Sentence at Rome be firm and good V. Cyprian Epist 55. to which the necessary presence of Witnesses either in regard of Sex or infirmity of Age and many other impediments cannot be had That any should be sent from your side as Legates suppose à Latere we do not find in any Council of Fathers nor in the authentick Canons of the Nicene Do not send upon any ones request your Clericks as inforcers to wit of your Sentence upon Appeals lest we seem to bring the smoaky Pride of the World into the Church So these holy Bishops I had almost said Prophets without fear or flattery wrote of old to Christ's Universal Vicar at Rome As for the condemning Appeals to the Pope therein they trod in their steps and use almost the very words of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and his Colleagues to Cornelius Bishop of Rome â— Epist 55. vel â—ab 10. Epist 3. ad â—ornelium to whom he wrote in this manner Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis c. Whereas it is decreed by all of us in some National Council of Africa and is both just and fit that every cause Ecclesiastical should be there heard where the fault was committed and to all Pastors a part portio gregis of the flock of Christ not all the flock to one is entrusted which every one ought to rule as he that must give an account to God not the Bishop of Rome Cornelius it becometh not those whom we are over to run about to other Churches aiming particularly at the Roman and by their subtle and fallacious rashness to divide the Concord of Bishops and dissolve the Unity of the Church but there to plead their cause where Witnesses and Accusers may be produced against them Epist 68. The same St. Cyprian in another Epistle adviseth and encourageth the People of Spain not to receive Basilides again as their Bishop although he had been at Rome with Pope Stephen by whom he was he saith unjustly and as he supposed in a surreptitious manner restored for he had been deposed to his Bishoprick Can any one now believe that Saint Cyprian held the supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops and Churches to be his lawful right or which is more incredible an Article of the antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith as Pope Pius hath declared it Surely he must then be a Person of very Catholick i. e. Universal Faith to believe any thing Hen. 1. Hen. 2. apud Matth. Parisien And what did Henry VIII as other Kings of England before him worse than Saint Austin and the whole African Church in forbidding Appeals and forbidding his Legates in their own Kingdom Why might not England do this as well as Africa Well however our Adversaries will relish it Can. 22. the Council of Milevis another African Council forbad all Appeals to transmarine Churches aiming no doubt especially at Rome under pain of Excommunication out of all the Churches of Africa and another at Carthage Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. decreed that no Bishop whosoever no not the Roman should be called the Prince of Bishops but onely the Bishop of the first Seat or See. Gratian the Roman Canonist according to his excellent faculty of translating giveth us the meaning of the Canon thus That no Bishop is to be called the Prince of Bishops but the Bishop of the first Seat i. e. the Pope Glossa quae corrumpit textum I will onely add the Testimonies of two Bishops of Rome The former is Pelagius the 2d Gregor lib. 4. Epist 36. 38. who writing to his Rival for the Supremacy the Bishop of Constantinople saith Nullus Patriarcharum c. none of the Patriarchs and so neither the Roman may use or assume the Title of Universal Bishop for hereby the name of Patriarch is indeed taken from all the rest which saith he far be it from the thought of any faithful Christian This is upon Record in the Popes Canon Law. But his Successor Pope Gregory the Great Dist 99. Cap. Nullus Patriarcharum Lib. 4. Epist 34. speaketh out more plainly who writing to the Empress against John Bishop of Constantinople his Rival saith In this his Pride in affecting the Title of Universal Bishop appeareth the approach of Antichrist Wherefore I beseech you by the Almighty God give not any consent to this perverse Title In like manner Epist 32. to the Emperor Peter himself is not called the Universal Apostle Feed my sheep it seems proveth it not None of the Roman Bishops ever assumed though offer'd to them Lib. 4. Epist 38. ad Joann Constantin In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere Greg. M. ad Sabinian lib. 4. Indict