Qu. 1. WHen Nectarius with his Church of Constantinople discharged for ever the Office of Penitentiaries because of a scandalous Deacon can it rationally be presumed that this Office was ever reputed by them a Sacrament but rather at the best an Expedient to prepare men for it for we are bound in Charity to think that neither the Bishop nor that Church would have ever consented to the Abolition of a Sacrament for the sake of such a Scandal as happened in the mis-management of it or if they had done so much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it Moreover since the ancient Church had no Form of Absolution but only the admitting Penitents to the Communion where then shall the Form of that pretended Sacrament be found among the Ancients 2. If the Absolution of a Roman Priest hath the power to convert Attrition that is such a consternation of mind as fell upon Iudas when he went and hanged himself into the Grace of Contrition as divers Popish Casuists aver had it not been an unspeakable happiness to that Betrayer of the best Master that ever was to have rencountred in the way of striving such a Priest when he was seeking after some Instrument to become Felo de se. SECT XV. Of the Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies restraint therefrom Qu. 1. IF Marriage be a Sacrament and confer Grace as Baptism and the Eucharist wherefore do they restrain their Consecrated Persons from that supernatural Quality since it s only an Ecclesiastical Restraint they pretend unto 2. Since God hath sufficiently declared his Approbation of the Marriage of the Clergy in that the whole World hath been twice by his Appointment Peopled by Two married Priests viz. Adam and Noah and that he tyed the Priesthood under the Law to a Race of married People and that the Scripture hath told us Marriage is honourable in all and placeth it among the Qualifications of a Bishop That he be the Husband of one Wife having faithful Children not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Gangra nor of the Discourse of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice nor of Spiridion S. Hilary Eucherius Lugdunensis and many other Primitive Bishops who were married beside the Apostle S. Peter may it not be pertinently enquired if the Church of Rome borrowed their Doctrine of the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Priests from the Manichees who allowed Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Laicks but forbad it to their Elect as that Church doth to her Priests 3. Had not Aeneas Sylvius afterwards P. Pius the 2d good reason to write that in consideration of the vile Abuses of the Celibacy of the Clergy whatever reasons the Clergy had at first to restrain them from Marriage now for much better Reasons they ought to be restored to that which God hath made the Privilege of all men who cannot contain SECT XVI Of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Quest. SUppose the Administration of Extreme Unction to dying persons as a Sacrament had been the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church in all Ages though for a Thousand years after Christ we find no such thing how can the Practice of the Roman Church be reconciled to the Doctrine of S. Iames or S. Mark for these are their Scripture-pretences who manifestly shew us that the design of that Anointing was the recovery of the Patient the gift of miraculous Healing not being ceased in the days of S. Iames whereas the Romanists do not practise that Ceremony till all hope of Recovery is past SECT XVII Of Tradition Qu. 1. OF those who magnifie the Tradition of the Church so highly as to imagin that the very Credit of the Scripture depends thereon or that it gives the Scripture its Authority which is as much as to say that Man gives Authority to Gods Word it may be demanded What if the Church should have concealed or taught otherwise of those Writings than as of the undoubted Oracles of God would she not have erred damnably in her Tradition 2. Since Tradition in the Roman Church is taken in to supply the Imaginary defect of Scripture and the Authority thereof to supply the defect of Tradition doth it not hence follow that neither Scripture nor Tradition signifie any thing without the Churches Authority And consequently it must needs be the Rule of their Faith that is They believe themselves 3. Since the Doctrine of the Millenaries was unanimously received as an Apostolick Tradition in the 2d and 3d Centuries of the Church meerly upon the Authority and Antiquity of Papias who lived presently after the Apostles and yet by St. Hierom and many of this present Age looked upon as an Imposture and if both Irenaeus for his asserting that our Saviour suffered about the Fiftieth year of his Age and Clem. Alexandrinus that he died for the Sins of the World about the Thirtieth year of his Age are judged exceedingly mistaken and not without good ground notwithstanding they both pretended an Apostolick Tradition as having conversed with Apostolick Men Irenaeus having written An. 180. and Clemens 190. And in fine since in that famous contention about Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the days of P. Victor Bishop of Rome by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western one pretending Oral Tradition from S. Iohn and S. Philip and the other from S. Peter and S. Paul may it not be pertinently demanded What stress can be laid upon a pretence of Apostolick Tradition sixteen hundred years after Christ suppose it were now become Universal but especially when it is but the particluar Tradition of a particular Church 4. What greater certainty can be given of the uncertainty of Oral Tradition as it is contradistinguished from the Scripture than this consideration that of all Christ said and no doubt he spoke much in point of Morality which is not expressed in the Gospels nothing is found in any Authentick Record save the Scriptures except that one expression preserved by S. Hierom Be thou never merry unless thou see thy Brother living in Charity for which notable expression we have the sole Authority of S. Hierom 5. Since its evident from the penult of S. Iohn's Gospel at the end as also the close of the last Chapter That our Saviour did many great things which are not recorded in Holy Scripture is it not a great Evidence of the great incertainty of Oral Tradition that none of all those Miracles not found in Scripture are conveyed to us by any warrantable Record the Legends which contain some of those pretended Miracles being rejected as Fabulous by the best Criticks of the Roman Church SECT XVIII Of that Thred-bare question Where was your Church before Luther Qu. 1. OF those who are still harping on that Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther May it not as pertinently be demanded Should a Revolt happen from the
Supremacy therefore he who believes the Council of Trent doth not believe the eight first general Councils and therefore is guilty of Heresie And how can any Pope evade the Brand of Schism the foulest that ever the Church groaned under aggravated with the horrid Crime of Perjury since the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the first General Councils yet openly claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all thus quatenus Pope he stands guilty of Separation from the ancient Church and as Head of a new and strange Society draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the ancient Church and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain the Doctrine and Practice thereof SECT XXI Of the Pope's Deposing Power Qu. 1. SInce the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent the Third promised a Plenary Pardon of all their Sins and a greater Degree of Glory hereafter to those who did extirpate Hereticks if it may not be presumed that this most bountiful Proffer doth animate Traitors to murther their own Princes whom Rome hath declared Heretical 2. What greater reason is there of expounding these words spoken to Ieremy I have set thee over Kings to root out to pluck up and destroy of the Pope's Supremacy and Deposing Power as both Innocent the Third and the Canon-Law do than had the Donatists of applying those words in the Canticles Tell me O thou whom my Soul loveth where thou feedest where thou makest thy Flock to rest at Noon to the Flock of their Party in the Southern Country of Africa 3. If any be so quick-sighted as to find the Popes Universal Monarchy and Deposing Power in these Words Feed my Sheep Heretical Princes being those Wolves which are to be driven away as hurtful to the Flock may not such a Lyncean Eye by a like kind of Interpretation find this other Mystery in the Words that all Christians are Fools because Sheep are silly Creatures 4. Since the Doctrine of Deposing Power in Popes by which I mean not only their excommunicating absolute Monarchs but also the exposing their Dominions as a just Prey to the first Invader is so scandalous to the Christian Religion in the Eyes of all sober Romanists and hath been found so mischievous to many Sovereign Princes wherefore was not that destructive Doctrine condemned by some General Council they having had many which they account such since the Fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third where it was certainly defined let them call it an Article of Faith a Point of Discipline or what they will. 5. Since it is evident from Baronius Binius Platina Onuphrius and many others that Gregory the 7th nick-named Hildebrand did excommunicate Henry the 4th Emperor of Germany P. Paschal the 2d Henry the 5th Alexander the 3d Frederick the 1st Innocent the 4th Frederick the 2. Boniface the 8th Philip the Fair of France Iulius the 2d Lewis the 12th with him who was King of Navarre at that time on which putrid Title Ferdinand the Catholick seized on his Kingdom and that Alexander the 3d did also excommunicate Henry the 2d of England And Innocent the 3d King Iohn Six years before the Resignation of his Crown into the Hands of that Popes Legat may it not be justly doubted if they who can confidently aver that never any Pope presumed to excommunicate an absolute Prince did ever read those Histories if so be they have put in Print what they did think 6. Whether that place 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is quoted by P. Innocent the 3d. in his arrogant Epistle to the Emperour of Constantinople doth prove that the Pope is as much greater than the Emperor as the Sun is greater than the Moon which strange Comparison is inserted by Gregory the 9th into the Body of the Canon-Law and ever since continued in all the Editions of that Law. 7. If Gregory the Great imagined himself superiour to the Emperor Mauritius and not rather much his Inferiour when he wrote to that Emperor that in Obedience to his Commands he had published one of his Laws which himself judged scarce agreeable to the Law of God 8. If according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it can properly be called Rebellion to resist and dethrone a deposed Prince or if it can be termed true Loyalty to defend him Since the deposing Doctrine doth import that when a Prince is deposed by the Authority of their Church they absolve their Subjects from their Fealty and then it is no Rebellion to take up Arms. 9. Since the deposing Doctrine hath been decreed and practised by their Popes and General Councils and that no Pope or Council since Gregory the 7th hath ever condemned it and that the Jesuits do still maintain it their greatest Champions Bellarmin Suarez Becan Gretzer Mariana Sanctarellus and many others having expresly declared for it yea tho the present Pope who is not the worst of the Pack did lately censure some other Jesuitical Doctrines as great Immoralities yet he thought fit to let the deposing Doctrine escape without Censure may we not justly admire how some of this Age have the Effrontory to out-face all Mankind who have Eyes in their Heads and Skill enough to read the Decrees of their Popes and Councils by saying that the deposing Doctrine is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but of a nameless Party 10. As for those who Found their Loyalty upon this Supposition that the deposing Doctrine is not the Doctrine of the Roman Church doth not this Hypothesis afford a shrewd Suspicion that if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome or ever should be so or they should ever be convinced that it is so then they would be for the deposing of Princes no less than those who at this Day believe it to be the Doctrine thereof 11. May it not be justly doubted whatever some little inferiour People in Communion with the Church of Rome think of these Matters while the Governing part of the Church believes otherwise as they certainly do at this day if the Pope and his Adherents are the Governing Part Princes have no security that Popes will not challenge and exercise this Authority but their want of Power to do it which is wholly owing to the Reformation for till Princes had Subjects who valued not the Popes Authority they themselves were the Popes Vassals and must necessarily be so again could they extinguish this pestilent Northern Heresie as they phrase it the great Fault of which is that it hath given Strength and Security to Princes by weakning the Popes Pretensions 12. Since the Council of Constance owns the 4th Council of Lateran for a General Council Sess. 39. where the deposing Power is as expresly declared as any thing can be unless Men will quibble upon Words and make Nonsense of them
spilling of the Blood of Christ may it not pertinently be demanded Wherefore may not Laicks in this Age have as steddy hands as the Ages foregoing that Council Or if Priests are the best Supporters of a Chalice Why may they not hold the Cup to Peoples Heads as well as put the Bread into their Mouths Not to speak of that Infallible Prescience Christ behoved to have of that imaginary Inconvenience if we believe him to be God as well as Man. 3. Since it is also one of the Reasons assigned by Gerson wherefore the Council of Constance prohibited the Cup to the People lest the Consecrated Wine long kept should be converted into Vineger How can that Fear consist with Transubstantiation for it is not Blood but Wine which turns into Vineger 4. With what Effrontory can any Romanist pretend that the words of St. Iohn chap. 6. are to be understood of the Eucharist since the Mutilation of that Sacrament is thereby expresly condemned for a Man cannot be said to drink when he eats 5. Since the Eucharist is an Emblem of the Effusion of Christ's Blood How can they be said to drink of that Cup which is the New Testament of Christ's Blood shed for us who do not drink at all Suppose there was Truth in Transubstantiation and in that of Concomitancy first divised by Th. Aquinas 6. Since the natural Abstemiousness of some Men is likewise assigned as a Reason of that Sacrilegious Mutilation may it not pertinently he demanded Why is not the Bread taken away also because some Persons have been found who could never tast of any kind of Bread 7. It it may be farther enquired if it were a civil Apology at an ordinary Feast when there are very many invited that the Host should say He had provided neither Bread nor Wine in regard one of the Guests cannot taste of the former and another cannot drink of the later 8. Since it 's impossible to produce one Instance from any Authentick Record for a Thousand Years after Christ and more of the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Face of any particular Church without giving the Consecrated Cup to all the Communicants doth it not evidently follow that the Catholick Church behoved to have been in an Error so long or that the present Roman Church hath degenerated from the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages SECT III. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks Quest. 1. SInce there is no Christian Church unless it be a Society of Blasphemers under the Notion of a Church that pretends to more Infallibility than Christ and his Apostles Upon what account should the Roman Church require more implicit Faith from its Members than Christ and his Apostles did from their Hearers For notwithstanding these were unquestionably endued with an infallible Spirit and the Gift of Miracles yet they still remitted their Hearers to the search of the Old Testament that they might find by their own Reason and Industry the Doctrine of the Gospel consonant to the Prophetick Oracles and Mysterious Types of our Saviour's Incarnation and Passion and were commended for doing so 2. If the Scriptures are so unintelligible that an honest man cannot find out the meaning of them without the Infallible Interpretation of the Church even in those things which are indispensably necessary to our Salvation for we are still ready to say with one of the Ancient Fathers That as they have Flats wherein a Lamb may wade so they have Depths wherein an Elephant may swim I would desire to know whether Christ and his Apostles preached intelligibly to their Hearers If not to what purpose did they preach at all By what means were Men converted to the Faith If they did How came these Sermons to be so unintelligible now they are written which were so intelligible when they were spoken For the Gospels contain a plain History of what Christ did and said and the Apostles wrote the same things to the Churches when they were absent which they preached to them when they were present and we reasonably suppose that they designed that the Churches should as much understand what they wrote as what they preached and therefore that they generally used the same Form of Words in their Writings and in their Preachings and this makes it a great Riddle How one should be very plain and easie to be understood and the other signifie nothing without an Infallible Interpreter 3. Where the Turkish Alcoran is permitted in English viz. at Rome Vid. Indic Libr. prohibit Alexandr 7. and the Bible in English ordained to be burnt vid. ibid. Whether do they fancy the Gospel or Alcoran better 4. Why may not an implicit Faith in the Scripture save a Soul as well as in the Church and why may not the one free from Heresie as well as the other 5. Since our Saviour recommended the reading of the Scriptures to Laicks and the Apostle St. Paul commended them for doing so and that the Primitive Fathers pressed it as a Duty on all Ranks of Persons Must not the Reasons of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Laicks to read the Word of God or to have the Bible translated into their Mother Tongue be exceedingly weighty if they can preponderate all these Authorities 6. Since it is well known from Ecclesiastical and Secular History that the greatest Heresies and Schisms in the Christian Church and which gave it the greatest and most lasting Trouble had their Rise from Men in Holy Orders who were accounted great Clerks in their time such as Marcion Paulus Samosatenus Arius Eunomius Apollinaris Macedonius Photinus Nestorius Eutiches Pelagius and many others Novatius also and Donatius who rent the Catholick Church by long lasting Schisms were Men in Holy Orders not to speak of Lucifer and Meletius Is it therefore a solid Reason to with-hold the Scripture from the ignorant Laicks for fear of their broaching Herefies or Schisms seeing the sad Experience of the World doth rather teach that the learned Clergy should be restrained therefrom SECT IV. The Adoration of Images Qu. 1. DOth not the Roman Church in picturing of God not only act directly contrary to Sacred Scripture where it is so frequently forbidden but also to the very Nature of God who is an infinite Spirit and can no more be represented by a bodily Shape than a Thought can And how can their Practice be re reconciled to that Canon of their Second Council of Nice which determined it not only unlawful but also absurd and impossible to make an Image of that Being which is spiritual invisible and incomprehensible 2. If any Man can reconcile the Worship of Images to the Second Commandment may it not also be imagined that he can make Adultery Perjury Murther Theft and False-witnessing to become Vertues 3. How can any Man that hath the use of Reason imagine that the Antients were clear for the Worship of Images since it is most apparent from the Writings of the most
Primitive Fathers that they all condemned the making of any kind of Image as unlawful much more the placing of them in Churches and most of all the adoring of them 4. Since in the Ierusalem Talmud there is no mention of the Idolatry of Christians tho frequently of that of the Heathen because it was written about Two Hundred Years after Christ But in the Babylonish Talmud which was compiled about Five Hundred Years after Christ's Nativity there is scarce a Page therein wherein they do not inveigh against the Idolatry of Christians and terms their Churches Beth-havora-zada the Houses of Idolatry May we not in consideration of the infinite Malice of the Iews against the Christian Religion most rationally conclude tho it be from a Negative Argument that the placing of Images in Churches began not any where during the Two First Centuries and if we believe both Secular and Ecclesiastical History not till about the End of the Fifth Century tho they were worshiped no where by publick Authority till after the Days of Gregory the Great not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Elliberis and that Epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Hierom which positively holds forth that in the Fourth Century it was judged simply unlawful to have any Image in a Church whether painted or graven 5. May not Garlick and Onyons the Egyptian Deities be justly accounted Gods right worshipful when compared with the Nails the Thorns the Chips and Shreds and many other Objects of the Roman Adoration 6. Since the Governing Part of the Roman Church teacheth and enjoyneth the People to worship Images with an inferiour kind of Adoration as the Council of Trent phraseth it is it not in some sense charitably done by them not to let them know the Second Commandment by expunging it out of their Chatechisms that the People may not become guilty of sinning against so plain a Law 7. Since the Romish School-men have devised many Distinctions of Religious Worship no where to be found in Sacred Scripture to obviate the Imputation of Idolatry to the Adorers of Images Saints and Angels c. such as Latria Dulia Hyperdulia a Relative and Terminative Worship a Mediate and Immediate a Direct and Indirect a Supreme and Subordinate a Sovereign and Subaltern a Transitive and Final a Proper and Analogical c. May it not justly be demanded if any sober Person can rationally imagine that ignorant Laicks are sufficiently warned by these Beacons to shun the Rocks of Idolatry when their greatest Clerks controvert among themselves about the proper import of those Terms and the due Application of them as is most evident from the contrary Sentiments of Aquinas and Bellarmine Vasquez and Perron concerning them 8. Since Miracles are especially necessary to convince Unbelievers and that many Miracles were Recorded before the Reformation but few or none after it Is it not an Argument sufficient to make a wary Man believe that there were few real Miracles at any time since the settlement of Christianity And that only the Superstitious Credulity of former Ages was apt to be abused with such Pretences well-meaning Ignorance being easily wheedled thereby into a Golden Dream of great Advantages redounding from the Adoration of Images c. in regard that there is far more need of them since the Reformation when so many dis-believe the Roman Religion than was before when all the Nations of the West appeared to be at the Devotion thereof SECT V. The Invocation of Saints and Angels Qu. 1. WHen Romanists pray to Saints departed to pray for them it may be pertinently inquired that these Saints do either hear their Prayers and become acquainted with their Desires or they do not If they do hear all those Prayers that are put up to them at the same time by innumerable persons through all the World what 's this but to ascribe to them that Omnipresence and Omniscience which is peculiar to God alone especially if it be considered that their Devotions are not only Verbal but also Mental Voce vel mente supplicare being decreed by the Council of Trent yea it is necessarily implyed in every Prayer that is made to them that they not only hear it but also know the disposition of the heart from whence it proceeds otherwise the Hypocritical Supplicant must be supposed as likely to obtain their favours as the sincerest Votary if they do not hear their Prayers then it s very absurd and ridiculous and a great abuse of that reason God hath given Men for other ends than to trifle with to pray to them As for that imaginary Glass of the Trinity it may be further demanded if the glorified see all things therein or but some if all then they must share in God's incommunicable Property which is to be the searcher of the Heart if but some what assurance have we that they see those things whereof we stand most in need so that we cannot pray in Faith. 2. Since the learned Men of the Roman Church such as Bellarmin Valentia Horstius and many others conclude their Books with Praise to God the blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ may it not be pertinently demanded if they give her not only an equal part with God in their Praises but by placing her before Christ seem to give somewhat of preheminence above him 3. Since it s acknowledged by the most part of the Popish Schoolmen that the Invocation of Saints and Angels was not enjoyned in the Old Testament because of the Limbo wherein these Fathers were before Christ's Resurrection so that not being admitted to the Beatifical Vision they could not hear those Prayers upon Earth It may be pertinently demanded 1. What should have restrained the Worship of the Angels at that time who since their Creation enjoyed that blessed Vision they being represented in the Old Testament as the constant Attendants and Retinue of God and the great Ministers of his Providence and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now and it may be a little more for the Law it self was given by the Ministry of Angels and their Appearances were more frequent and familiar and the World seemed to be more under the government of Angels then than it is now since Christ is made the Head of the Church and exalted above all Principalities and Powers 2. What Evasion can they find who are of Opinion that the glorified Saints at all times did know the Petitions put up to them from Earth not by the Beatifical Vision but by special Divine Revelation 3. Since the generality of the Fathers of the three first Centuries were of Opinion that the glorified Saints shall not enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment it may be pertinently enquired if these Fathers practised or believed the necessity or expediency of Saint-Invocation no fewer than Eighteen of the Fathers being of this Opinion by the Romanists own confession 4. What is more in
Reformed Church of England to Romanism again which God forbid where was your Religion before 86 or before such a time Would they not answer at Rome and in England also only kept under and obscured by Hereticks And Christianity though not so visible yet was purer when its Professors dwelt in Mountains and Dens places of Obscurity and Privacy in the Reigns of Nero Decius and Dioclesian than when some Kings were called its Nursing Fathers and took possession of the seven Halls as when it groaned under Arianism in the days of Constantius and Valens 2. When some peremptorily require from us the Aera of all the Popish Errors may it not be as pertinently demanded when the Acephali began which was such a ridiculous Linsy-Wolsey Heresie as to be a Compound of these Contraries Nestorianism and Eutychianism and yet gave great trouble to the Church for many years for Baronius and Bellarmin ingenuously acknowledge that they know neither the Heresiarch or the Epocha of the Heresie nor when Filioque was inserted by the Latin Church into the Creed and if they know not the Aera of their Truths how can it be rationally expected that we should design the precise times when all their Errors began since it s in the Night Season that the Adversary Sows his Tares in the Field of the Church 3. It may be demanded what more pertinency amongst Disputers is in that old Thred-bare Question Where was your Church or Religion before Luther than in this amongst Husbandmen Where was the Corn before it was Weeded For if our Forefathers under the Papacy embraced the true Faith we have it still the Faith not being removed but the Corruption 4. Since the Church of England obligeth none to believe any thing as necessary to Salvation but what is plainly proved from holy Scripture and intirely holds the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and obeys more Canons of the first general Councils than those of Rome do and approves that Exposition of Scripture which hath the consent of the Fathers of the four first Centuries Yea holds all that the Church of Rome held necessary for Salvation for five or six hundred years together so that a Romanist may turn Protestant without adding any Article to his Faith but a Protestant cannot turn Romanist without the addition of many new ones or novel Inventions which have neither Foundation in Scripture nor genuin Antiquity May it not then be most rationally concluded that the Protestant way is the surest and safest because both sides agree therein and that their Church was long before Papacy appeared in the World 5. Since its impossible to produce any genuin Work of any of the Fathers who lived within Four Hundred Years after Christ that positively asserts the practice or the lawfulness of Prayer in an unknown Tongue of taking away the Cup from the People or with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks or Adoring Images or having them in Churches the Pope's Infallibility or Supremacy Indulgences in the Sense of Pope Leo the Tenth the Doctrine of Merit in the Sense of the Council of Trent that there are neither more nor less than Seven Sacraments the necessity of the right Intention of the Priest for the Validity of a Sacrament Transubstantiation the Limbo of unbaptized Infants Private Masses the Popes deposing Power c. may it not more pertinently be demanded of the Romanists Where was Popery before Boniface the Third than they can enquire of the Protestants Where was your Church before Luther 6. Since its impossible to find any of the Primitive Fathers or any Christian Writer a thousand years after Christ and more who believed all the Twelve new Articles of Faith which P. Pius the Fourth hath added to the Apostolick Creed may it not be pertinently demanded of the Romanists Where was your Faith to be found intirely before the Council of Trent And is not the Modern Papacy younger by many years than Martin Luther himself 7. Since not one of the Twelve new Articles of the Creed of P. Pius the Fourth is to be found in any ancient Creed or Confession of Faith generally allowed in the Christian Church whence it is evident that they are Innovations destitute of Primitive Authority may we not more pertinently demand of them Where was Papacy when those Confessions were framed than they can enquire of us Where was your Church before Luther 8. Since every true Reformation necessarily pre-supposeth Corruptions and Errors to have been before it what Advantage can the Romanists have in charging our Reformation with Novelty For if a real Reformation be made the thing justifies it self and a Reformation must begin sometime and when ever it begins it is certainly new Besides it ought to be considered that this Objection of Novelty lyes against all Reformation whatsoever tho never so necessary and tho things be never so much amiss So that tho our Reformation was as late as Luther our Religion is as antient as Christianity it self for when the Additions which the Church of Rome hath made to the antient Christian Faith and their Innovations in Practise are par'd off that which remains of their Religion is ours and this they cannot deny to be every tittle of it the antient Christianity And what other Answer I pray could the Iews have given to the like Question if it had been put to them by the Antient Idolaters of the World Where was your Religion before Abraham or Moses Or what other Answer could the Primitive Christians have given to those Pagans who pretended Venerable Antiquity and Universality for their Polytheisme but the very same in substance which we now give to the Church of Rome And if any be so fond as to brand the Protestant Religion with Novelty because of some negative Articles in opposition to the Corruptions of the Roman Church which by accident are become a part of our Faith occasioned by their Errors they may as well tax the Primitive Church with Novelty because the renouncing of the Doctrines of Arianism at the Council of Nice of Macedonianism at the Council of Constantinople of Nestorianism at Ephesus and of Eutychianism at Calcedon came a part of the Catholick Religion after the rise of those Heresies 9. But to shut up this Point if to Pray without Understanding to obey without Reason and to believe against Sense be the surest Evidences of the Antiquity of a Church then I pray where is that Protestant to be found who is so contentious for Priority as not to yield upon these accounts the Precedency to the Church of Rome above all Christian Societies in the World SECT XIX Of the Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils Qu. 1. IF the Pope or Church of Rome be infallible wherefore are they so uncharitable to the World at least to their own Incorporation as not to give an infallible Comment on Scripture but suffers her Doctors to write as fallible Comments and in many things as contrary to each other as any
Protestant Divines do And I cannot imagine what good Infallibility does if an infallible Church has no better means of understanding Scripture than the Comments of fallible Men that is no better means then every fallible Church hath 2. When the Doctors of the Roman Church vye Reasons and Arguments with us Hereticks and dispute from Scripture and Antiquity especially in order to the establishing that beloved Palladium of their Churches Authority and Infallibility which those cross-grain'd Hereticks deny do they not appeal from the Infallibility of the present Church to every Man 's private Reason and Judgment as much as every Protestant does For it s against the very Principles of Philosophy to imagin that the Churches Authority can be a sufficient Topick to prove it self 3. If a visible uninterrupted Succession be the Mark of such a true Church as is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture as some Romanists aver wherefore is not the Greek Church an infallible Interpreter of Scripture since she hath as visible and uninterrupted Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this Day as the Church of Rome has yea if we consult the Catalogues of their Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch we shall not find so many Chasma's occasioned in those Lists by Schisms as in the See of Rome 4. Since P. Zachary deposed Virgilius Bishop of Saltzburge as an Heretick because he truly maintained tho in a very ignorant Age the Doctrine of Antipodes may it not be pertinently demanded may not he who can mistake Truth for Heresie also mistake Heresie for Truth as no doubt P. Liberius Vigilius and Honorius did 5. Since it s confessed by Bellarmine and divers other eminent Champions for that Church that the Popes Canonizations are doubtful and subject to Error may it not be pertinently demanded if his Infallibility should chance at any time to mistake as I am pretty sure he hath done more than once in what a pitiful case are the Members of that Church who are obliged to invocate such mistaken Saints Would not that be Idolatry 6. Since in the first and last Ages of the Church there were many Schisms and Heresies which if we believe Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century were as wild and extravagant as any of later date now if the Fathers who lived in these Primitive Ages believed the Infallibility of the Roman Church at that time may it not be pertinently demanded Was there no Prudence amongst them all in going so far about by their endeavours to bring those Hereticks and Schismaticks to the Touch-stone of the Scripture and next to that to the most Orthodox and Catholick Tradition whereas how short and easie a Decision to all Debates might have been fetched hence had they had the same Apprehension of the Authority and Efficacy thereof by referring all Controversies depending to the determination of the Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all and that infallible Conduct setled therein But not one word of that which makes it more than probable that such holy and wise men knew no such thing only when they make their Appeals to her after the express word of God it s in common with many other Churches especially those of Apostolical Foundation as is evident from Irenaeus Tertullian and St. Augustin when they had to deal with such Persons 7. How can any rational man imagin that the Popes or Roman Councils which they account General are infallible even when they are confirmed by Popes unless Errors become Truths and Contradictions be reconciled when determined by a Pope and Council Since P. Vigilius not only confirmed the Fifth General Council which formerly he had condemned but General Councils confirmed by Popes have made Definitions and Decrees plainly contradictory one to another Thus the Sixth General Council confirmed by Pope Adrian the First defined that Marriage was dissolved by Heresie And the Council of Trent confirmed by P. Pius the Fourth that it could not be so The Council of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the Fifth decreed that a General Council was superiour to the Pope The last Lateran Council under P. Leo the Tenth condemned this Decree so did it the Decree of P. Nicholas the Fifth who ratified the Council of Basil as a true General Council 8. How can any doubt that General Councils confirmed by Popes may err since it is so manifest they have actually erred by making Decrees so apparently contradictory to the Plain Words and Sense of Holy Scripture that no impartial Person can any more question it than he can whether Theft be forbidden by the Eighth Commandment So did the Council of Constance confirmed by P. Martin the Fifth and Trent by P. Pius the Fourth the former in the Decree for Laicks Communicating in one kind only notwithstanding as themselves acknowledge that Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds and delivered it in both to his Disciples The later in decreeing that Divine Service should not be in the Vulgar Tongue in plain Contradiction to what St. Paul prescribes in 1 Cor. 14. not to speak that the Pope's Confirmation of Doctrinal Definitions is but a meer Ceremony it being impossible for any man to make that become true which is false or that which is false to become true 9. Since from the fitness of an infallible visible Judge for the Militant Church the Romanists are apt to pretend that God hath actually appointed such an one without which God say they had not made sufficient Provisions for the Assurance of Man's Faith and for the Peace and Unity of his Church or as it is with a strange kind of Civility expressed in their Canon Law Aliter Dominus non videretur fuisse discretus otherwise our Lord had not seem'd to be discreet may it not be very pertinently urged from this Topick of Humane Appearance that it had been yet more useful for the Church that not only the first Patriarch but all of them had been infallible yea and all the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church and if all men had been infallible certainly the Church of God should never have been troubled with any Error whatsoever but the experience of the World demonstrates that it is not so 10. If it be a fit Argument always to conclude that God hath done such a thing because the generality of Men judge it expedient to be done may it not be pertinently demanded where is that man who consulting with Flesh and Blood I mean Humane Reason who would not have thought it very fit that our Saviour after his Resurrection should have publickly taught the People of Hierusalem in the Temple as he used to do that all the Inhabitants of that great City yea all the Males throughout the Land being obliged to be there also at the Feast of the Passover might by an ocular Demonstration be convinced that our Saviour was not an Impostor when he said he would rise again the third day yet the infinite Wisdom thought it not fit For his ways are not as
our ways nor his thoughts as our thoughts Isa. 55. 8 9. 11. Since it is no less behoofful for the Purity of the Militant Church to be secured from Vice than from Error by some infallible means and whereas the former is not pretended to by any is it not very reasonable to put the Romanists to it to shew from Scripture who this Infallible Visible Judge is who is invested with that Power or Commission especially when it is considered that our Judge of Controversies in the Church is now become our greatest Controversie Besides that it would puzzle any man to give a good reason why God should take more care to secure men against Errors in Belief than against Sin and Wickedness in their Lives 12. If an infallible visible Judge be such an adequate means to determin all Controversies in matters of Religion which happen in the Militant Church as the Romanists pretend how came it to pass that there were so many Schisms and Heresies too in the Apostles times when those who govern'd the Church were certainly guided by an Infallible Spirit 13. Can the fiercest Bigot of Popery prove from Holy Scripture that the Pope is infallible in the Popish Sense of the World I know that some fly the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible it is so as its representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other particular Church And how shall that which is common to all give power to one over all And what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch 14. Since the Council of Trent hath determined that Infants should not be Communicated because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lord's Body who can doubt but that Popes with their Councils and Roman Church have erred in their Belief and Practice of the Communion of Infants long ago it being past all doubt that for some Hundreds of Years it was so in the Roman Church 15. Was not the Apostle to blame to say there must be Heresies and Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be also an infallible Judge among you to obviate such pertinacious Errors and Schisms if so be that God had appointed any such infallible visible Judge to be for ever in his Church 16. If the many Dissentions in the Protestant Churches as is pretended make this infallible visible Judge always necessary how is it that this sole Remedy is found so ineffectual against the Divisions in the Roman Church and that there are so many Differences there about Infallibility it self the manner and subject of it so that many Romanists not of the dullest brains being ashamed of it have betaken themselves to Tradition instead thereof SECT XX. Of the Pope's Supremacy Qu. 1. SInce the Reason assigned by the Council of Calcedon giving equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with him of Rome is because old Bizantium was become Nova Roma that is the Emperours had fixed their Habitations there might not Milan and Ravenna have claimed the same Priviledge seeing some Emperours did honour those Cities with their Presence many years 2. Had not the African Churches as good reason to decline the pretended Authority of the Bishops of Rome as the Churches of Cyprus to reject the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch from which liberated at last by the Third General Council since they had still a Primat of their own and were no more within the Roman Patriarchat than Cyprus was within that of Antioch 3. Since all sober Persons hinc inde acknowledg a Primacy of Order in St. Peter either for his Age or his being first called to be an Apostle or for his Zeal or some other reason best known to his Lord and Master it being impossible that any Society should remain long without Confusion far less that it should continue well ordered which hath not one appointed to be the Mouth thereof it may therefore be pertinently demanded if any Romanist can produce any place of Scripture which imports a formal Jurisdiction in St. Peter which was not at some other time vouchsafed on the Catholick Church at least on the rest of the Apostles 4. Dato sed non concesso that St. Peter had a Primacy of Jurisdiction over all the General Members of the Catholick Church wherefore might not this have been a personal Priviledge and intransmissible to any Successor no less than the Gradus Mosaicus was to any other Prophet 5. Upon what Grounds do Bellarmin and others call Christ's Ingemination of these Words Feed my Sheep the peculiar Priviledge of St. Peter above all the rest of the Apostles since St. Augustin and St. Cyril of Alexandria call it the peculiar Penance of St. Peter for denying his Lord and Master which none of the rest had done 6. Since the Primitive Fathers by Rock in the 16th of St. Matthew generally understand either Christ himself or that excellent Confession of St. Peter where then doth his peculiar Prerogative lye in these Words 7. Suppose our Saviour did mean by St. Peter when he said On this Rock will I build my Church alluding to his Name by way of Emphasis not Exclusion I pray where is yet the peculiarity of St. Peter's Priviledge since if we believe either St. Paul or St. Iohn in his Revelation the rest of the Apostles were Foundations as well as he for I hope none will call him the Chief Corner-stone 8. Since the generality of the ancient Fathers look upon Peter both in his Excellent Confession and Promise made to him as personating the Catholick Church and that what our Saviour there promised was after his Resurrection fulfilled as we may read Iohn 20. 21 22 23. Where I pray you is St. Peter's special Priviledge above the rest of the Apostles since our Saviour said to them all alike As my Father sent me so send I you and I suppose S. Peter could not have a Sublimer Mission than our Saviour and breathed upon them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. 9. But what ever Sense these Words of St. Iohn may have or these of St. Matthew doth it not evidently appear that what our Saviour promised to St. Peter Matth. 16. was given to the Catholick Church at least to the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter in Matth. 18. 18. in the same words of Mat. 16. our Saviour himself having expounded the Power of the Keys by that of Binding and loosing 10. Since after that Promise made to St. Peter Mat. 18. we find the Apostles more than once controverting for Superiority may it not very rationally be presumed that H. Jesus the Wisdom of the Father and Prince of Peace having taken notice of that Ambitious Debate would once have undeceived them by telling them that tho the Despotical Power of the Gentile Kings or Governours should be
far removed from them yet their minds should be at rest because he had already invested St. Peter with a Paternal Authority or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them when he promised to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but since in our Saviour's reproof we find no such Insinuation may it not be pertinently doubted if ever he meant any such matter 11. I would demand how the ensuing particulars can be reconciled to a formal Jurisdiction of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles 1. The Care of all the Churches being committed to every one of them in solidum 2. St. Peter was sent by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to Samaria he that gave the Commission having rather the Authority than the Person commissionated 3. His being called to an account for conversing with Cornelius the Centurion in Caesaria and other Gentiles by those at Hierusalem velut vehementur infensi as S. Chrysostom phraseth it 4. If St. Peter was then Supreme Governour wherefore did not the controverting Christians at Antioch address first to him in order to the indicting of a Council 5. Wherefore did St. Iames preside therein and by his Verdict determine the Controversie if we believe Eusebius and Epiphanius and not St. Peter on which account and because he was the first Bishop of Hierusalem and of the Christian World Epiphanius positively asserts that St. Iames was invested by our Saviour with a Superiority over all the Apostles 6. Wherefore was not that Decree issued forth in the Name of Peter if he was the Monarch of the Church 7. Why was St. Paul so immethodical to reckon Iames before Cephas or Peter and so arrogant as to say that he was in nothing inferiour to the chiefest Apostles for if St. Peter was his Superiour he came short of him in something which is very material and that is Authority 8. Was not St. Paul a very unmannerly Vassal to rebuke his Lord and Master for Judaizing and so solemnly that both Jews and Gentiles were witness to the Reproof 9. How could St. Cyprian say that the rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Finally How could Eusebius aver in his Old Editions before they suffered the Index Expurgatorius that Peter Iames and Iohn were appointed Princes of the Apostles and that these three were equal 12. Since P. Leo the Tenth with the consent and approbation of the Lateran Council which they account General declares that our Blessed Saviour did institute St. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of the Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that whosoever would not was punished with Death thus Binius Concil Tom. 9. it may be pertinently demanded if they have Five Books of the Kings for in the Vulgar Version which have four of that Name there is not any Syllable which insinuates any such matter 13. If the Bishop of Rome was invested Iure Divino with an universal Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church or if the Roman Church either in its Head or Members severally or in all conjunctly be indued with an infallible Spirit how comes it to pass that all the antient Apologists were guilty of such a Supine Negligence from Iustin Martyr the first of them who lived Anno 150. to Theodoret inclusively who dyed about the middle of the Fifth Century as never to mention that most admirable Prerogative of the Roman Church above all the Societies in the World since some of them descend to many minute Particulars which are long ago obsolete and out of date in all the Churches of Christ 14. If it be a sufficient Answer for the Silence of the Apologists to say that they are so succinct that they had no room for such a matter For though it is easily granted that of Asianus Melito Quadratus and Aristides we have but Shreds in Eusebius and that Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus Antiochenus Minutius Foelix Cyprian ad Demetrianum I. Firmicus Maternus are very brief not to speak of many Orations written by the Fathers against Iulian the Apostate the Jews and Gentiles in general which are also reckoned among the Apologists and are yet briefer yet the two Apologies of Iustin Martyr with his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew all the Works of Clem. Alexandrinus save his Paedagogus the larger Apologetick of Tertullian with his lesser ad Scapulam and some Books against the Jews and Gentiles the eight Books of Origen against Celsus the seven Books of Arnobius contra Gentes and so many of Lactantius his Institutions Eusebius de demonstratione praeparatione Evangelica S. Augustin his 22 Books de Civitate Dei Theodoret his 12 Books de curandis Graecorum affectibus all these are pretty Voluminous yet ne gru quidem not the least word or insinuation of any such prodigious privilegeof the Roman Church either in its Head or Members 15. What greater Elogy could have been given by any of the Fathers to S. Peter than that which S. Chrysostom applies to S. Paul that he was the Light of all the Churches the Foundation of the Faith the Pillar and Ground of Truth 16. Might not the Bishop of Antioch have claimed by virtue of Succession a Superiority over all the Organical Members of the Catholick Church as well as the Bishop of Rome since it is certain S. Peter resided seven years at Antioch and it cannot be proved from any Authentick Record that he was one year at Rome 17. May not the Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of us all with better reason claim an universal Monarchy over the Church by virtue of Succession since the unquestionable Head of the Church dyed there And S. Iames the Lord's Brother was unquestionably the first Bishop of the Christian World whence Epiphanius concludes that the Principality over the Church was due to him and not to St. Peter 18. Since it s granted by Bellarmin and others that St. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome was but accidental there being no Scripture Promise or Catholick Tradition for it can the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his See pretend to S. Peter's Spirit and Power upon better grounds than Vibius Rufus did to the Genius of the Great Caesar because he bought his Chair 19. Could any of the Fathers have Complemented the Bishop of Rome with an higher Hyperbole than Synesius the Bishop of Cyrene did his Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria none of the best of men for he was a great Persecutor of S. Chrysostom by calling his Advice a Divine Response and an Heavenly Oracle 20. Can any Instance be given of any Bishop of Rome who before the famous Council of Nice presumed to exercise any proper Act of Jurisdiction without the proper Bounds of his own Patriarchat called the Suburbicarian Churches except P. Victor who for attempting to Censure others without his own Precinct was severely reprehended by Irenaeus and P. Stephen who was justly censured by
S. Cyprian 21. Since to be the ultimate Object of Appeals or dernier besort as the French phrase it is the Essential Privilege of all Monarchs is it accountable that the Council of Nice believed the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the Catholick Church when it determined that all Appeals during the Intervals of general Councils should be determined in the Provincial Synods or by the respective Patriarchs and that there should be no Appeal from the one to the other 22. If the Churches of Africa believed the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino how could 217 Bishops in the 6th Council of Carthage whereof S. Austin was one have opposed Three Popes successively in the matter of Appeals to Rome and condemned all those as Schismaticks who did thus Appeal and made a formal Separation of their Churches from the Roman upon the account of its Illegal and Uncharitable Incroachments 23. If that Separation was unjust how comes S. Augustin to be reputed over all the Christian World and at Rome too an eminent Saint since he died as the Romanists think in actual and unrepented Schism since S. Augustin denied the Popes Supremacy in matter of Appeals to Rome no less than Henry the Eighth of England might not P. Coelestin as justly have Excommunicated S. Augustin as P. Paul the Third did Henry the Eighth of England 24. Since by many of the Epistles of Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauricius and Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople its apparent that he declares all those Prelates who usurp the Titles of Oecumenical Patriarch Universal Bishop and Head of the Catholick Church to be the Forerunners or Harbangers of Antichrist may it not be pertinently demanded if all those Popes who from Boniface the Third inclusively have affected those Titles do not stand condemned by the Judgment of their Predecessour as Antichristian 25. If it be the Popes Prerogative as the Romanists pretend to assemble all the general Councils how did it chance that during a Thousand years after Christ and more there was not an Oecumenical Synod in Italy no not in all the West unless that of Frankford be accounted one which was indicted by Charlemain against the Conventicle at Nice and that they were very desirous to have one in Italy is most evident from the Letters of P. Leo the First none of the meanest spirited Popes to Theodosius the Younger his Sister Pulcheria the Emperour Marcianus Valentinian the Third with Eudoxia the Empress whom he did Supplicate on his Knees with many Tears thus he phraseth it for a Council to be holden in Italy against the Eutychians but could never obtain his desire as to that Circumstance 26. If the Emperours were nothing else but the Popes Mandatarij in the indicting of Councils as some term them what could be the reason that P. Vigilius being personally in Constantinople would not Countenance the 5th general Council assembled there by Iustinian the Great till he was haled thereto by the Authority of the Emperour and forced to obey the Mandat of his pretended Mandatarius in condemning the tria Capitula which by a former Constitution he had approved 27. If the Confirmation of a general Council by the Pope be so necessary that all its acts are invalid without it as some Romanists pretend how could the Patriarchs of Constantinople be so irregular as to possess the place in all succeeding Councils where they were present which the 2d and 4th general Councils had allotted to them notwithstanding of all the Protestations of P. Leo the First and his Successors against those Council Acts 28. Since the Bishops of the Primitive Church were promiscuously termed Popes from the old Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Father their Episcopal Sees Thrones and Empires and themselves how small soever their Diocess were were also called Princes if we believe S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary of Poictiers all were termed the Successors of the Apostles and equal as to the intrinsi Power of Bishops whether it were the little Bishoprick of Eugubium compared with that of Rome Rhegium with that of Constantinople Tanis with Alexandria if we give Faith to S. Hierom therefore it may pertinently be demanded What solid Grounds had Hildebrand to Monopolize those Titles to the Bishop of Rome 29. If the Romanists can produce any Authentick Author for the Decretal Epistles of all the Popes from Clemens to P. Sirvius that is to the middle at the least of the 4th Century though they have made up a considerable part of the Canon Law before Riculfus Archbishop of Mentz who lived 500 years after those Popes were dead 30. Since the Belief of an Infallible Headship in the Bishop of Rome is with many Romanists the reason why they receive their Articles of Faith must it not then be the fundamental Article of all others And ought it not to be the best attested by some plain places of Scripture and not leave by its silence this sole visible Vicegerent of Christ to the Suspicion of bearing witness to himself 31. Since the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Apostolick Canons as they are termed with the Canons of the Eight first general Councils and notwithstanding it is evident from the 35 and 36 Canons of the Apostles or the 33 and 34 Canons as Binius hath them that these are directly against the Popes Supremacy as also the 6 and 7 Canons of the First general Council the 9 17 and 28 Canons of the Fourth general Council the Fifth in condemning the Sentence of P. Vigilius in favour of the tria Capitula tho he was very vehement in the cause the Sixth and Seventh in Condemning P. Honorius of Heresie the Eighth and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging Obedience thereunto viz. its Condemning a Custom of the Sabbath Fast in Lent may we not very rationally hence conclude that the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by Divine Right or any Right at all seeing they opposed it And that they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome that they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility that it is in vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either and that the Canons of these eight general Councils being the sense both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority must needs stand Condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in Profession with the ancient And in fine how can the Church of Rome escape the charge of Heresie for he who believes the Popes Supremacy denies in effect the eight first general Councils at least in that point and that 's Heresie and he who believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Popes