successors For they must succeed him in the cause if they will succeed him in the effects Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible But the Papists say the Catholike Church is infallible therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own all the doubt is of the consequence which I prove thus either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholike Church But both these are against the Popes infallibility Therefore 1. For the real no man can possibly know all their minds nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a minde therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to as its usual in all such Bodies or Assemblies Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth is and hath been against the Popes infallibility That it is so now is well known seeing all the Greeks Abassin Armenian Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papists 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. mihi 201. Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer non a Graecis solum sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Romanâ— Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur Atque habebant pro se illi quidem Imperatorum arma Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent That is Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world and the greater number of Churches besides the Arms of Emperors were against the Romane priviledges as they call them the Popes power So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men that not onely call themselves the whole Church as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels but also would make the simple people believe that before Luthers time there were scarce any that denyed their pretended power we may see from themselves then where our Chruch was before Luther so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations are our Church even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession And therefore this may stop their mouthes that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world 2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council And I have shewed before that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope deposed and condemned him This Bellarmine Canus and the rest of them do confess and therefore I need not say more to prove it Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre is proved fully both by the errors that they have committed and by their contradicting one another It s too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodoxe have had Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils then can be answered by the contrary minded Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed decree for adoration of Images And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary against the said Council of Nice though the Popes Legates contradicted them So did the Council of Paris anno 825. who examined judged and reprehended the Council of Nice and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it and therefore Bellarmine saith They judged the judge of the whole world Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It s commonly known how Nazianzene complained that He never yet saw a Council have a good end but things were made worse by it and not better And Hierom in Epist ad Galat. saith That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many The Council of Neocesarea confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice as saith the Council of Florence sess 7. condemned second marriages contrary to Scripture 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuseth them by plaine forcing their words The fourth Council at Carthage forbad Bishops to read the Gentiles Books which yet the Apostle makes use of and the Church hath ever since allowed The Council of Toletane 1. Ordain that he whâ— instead of a wife hath a Concubine shall not be kept from the Communion which Bellarmine also falsly excuseth The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors which Bellarmine confesseth and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Popes authority Whereas Pope Adrian approved them and the seventh Council judged them genuine Adrian saith Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere he receiveth the sixt Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus and decreed the contrary The Council of Trent is notoriously erroneous and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag 3. about the Canon of Scripture The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them See Doctor Sutline li. 2. de Concil cap. 1. What Gregor Nazianz. And â—ierome say of them I toucht before Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra Augustine saith li. 3 cont Maximni c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense taâ—quam praejudicaturus profere concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detinenis He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis Concilia plenaria priora a posterioribus emendari That is Former Councils that were full have been mended by later Bellarmines deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies are not worth the repeating Isidore saith Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors stâ—tentia invenitur illius
headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions called by them their Church and their Religion because it is so new and we dare not venture our souls upon new wayes nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection one sort before the Popes universal headship and the other since nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurpe I desire no better issue then this of our difference Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the tryal of antiquity and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion carry the cause If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours as since Christs Resurrection then we are contented to be of their Church and way Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismaticks upon earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the maine body of the visible Church then Popery is not a safe way to salvation But the Papists are the greatest Schismaticks on earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body thereof Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves It is only the Minor therefore that is to be proved which is too easily done being a matter of fact First The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christs Church on earth condemning all others to everlasting fire 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schisme in making a new center of the unity of the Church of these two in order 1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago much more numerous then now they be The Grecians the Syrians called Melchites the Moscovites and Russians the Georgians all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turkes dominions also the Abassins Egyptians Armenians Jacobites who are neer of a mind and differ from the Papists and submit not to their authority Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany Sweden Denmark Hungary Transylvania Brittain Ireland France Belgia Helvetia and other parts with those in the Indies I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them or not neer so many as they But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago when the Turkes had not yet subdued the Eastern parts and when the Abassian Empire was much more large and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universall headship and jurisdiction of the Pope or submit themselves to him besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him I know that the Papists say that these are all either Hereticks or Schismaticks and so no part of the Catholike Church But the accusation of Schisme is the meer voice of Schisme and for Heresie its true that all men and Churches have their errors which yet deserve not the name of Heresie The Jacobites and the rest that are neer them are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians but yet they are not plaine Eutichites and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures two persons and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct yet they say that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person and so deny two Persons onely in sence and two Natures only in name and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures onely in sence and two Persons in words onely Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said de Conciliis This I must needs say that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites and other Christians that are not of their Communion I should be forced to censure the former much deeper then the latter and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Hereticks or Schismaticks I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians and also that they are free from many of their mistakes yet withall they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from And for the Protestants they are Hereticks only on this supposition that the Pope be Judge By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from But yet this is not all nay the smaller part For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred yea five or six hundred years you will find that the Papists do differ from them all even from the whole Church For then the Popes universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world as is said before All these doth the Romane party now separate themseves from All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians but Hereticks and Schismaticks All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell They have now concluded that onely those are of the true Church that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope and the Mistrisship of the particular Romane Church which none of all those forementioned did They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this new-framed Church of theirs Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive whether there be any more notorious Schismaticks on earth then these men that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christs Church on earth at
its flourishing in the Apostles dayes Universality comparatively that is the greater part the Arrians had at least of the Bishops The doctrine of the Mâ—llenaries with many such like may plead more antiquity than Popery can And as for succession there is no doubt but a Bishop or Church in the line of succession may turn Heretical and have successors in their Heresie Have none of the Greek Churches nor Alexandria Antioch c. had a succession till it fell into the hands of a Heretick and it would have beeen no good plea for the first Heretical Bishop or Church to plead such succession If there be not a succession in Apostolical doctrine the succession of persons will be no proof of the truth or soundness of the Church 3. And for the Minor of your Argument I answer 1. The Ethiopian Alexandrian and other Churches can as truely boast of these qualifications as Rome 2. The Papists lay a higher claim to them then they can make good As 1. I have shewed already how far they are from unity who are not only of so many Religions or wayes of Discipline and of so great distance in many doctrinals as the controversies among themselves do manifest but also are so disagreed about the very center of their union their infallible soveraign Power whether it be in the Pope or a General Council or both Besides their unity is but of their own party the Romanists And so all other parties are at some unity among themselves or many at least If John of Constantinople had prevented the Pope and got the Title of universal Bishop or Pope as he did by composition of universal Patriarch and had pretended that this would have united the Churches I think it would not have justified his cause 2. How can the Papists for shame pretend to universality either as to the present or former ages Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian Greek and Reformed Churches are not of their party besides many a thousand more Or will they arrogantly condemne all the rest of the Christian world as heretical and then say that they are the whole Church Did they not learn this of the Donatists But what is become of their modesty who pretend to an universality for the time past when all the Christian world was against their present belief and there was not such a thing as a Papist known and revealed to us in the world of six hundred years after the birth of Christ 3. And for their succession we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago and that there were no true Bishops at Rome of a long time Though men have sat there that were chosen by Cardinals and call themselves Bishops or Popes yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils they were matter utterly uncapable of that form then its plain that they were but Statues and had but the name without the thing i. e. the office or authority and therefore are unworthy also of the name it self Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witness of this And first their great parasite Cardinal Baronius saith ad an 912. § 8. What then was the face of the holy Romane Church how exceeding filthy when the most potent and yet most sordid Whores did Rule at Rome by whose pleasure Sees were changed Bishops were given and which is a thing horrid to be heard and not to be spoken their sweet hearts or mates were thrust into Peters chair being false Popes who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Romane Popes but onely for the marking out of such times And after he well addes to shew that the interruption was not like to be onely in the succession of true Bishops And what kind of Cardinal Priests and Deacons think you we must imagine that these monsters did choose when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like See more in Baron ibid. Platina speaking of the evil of those times de Benedict 4. saith that By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather seized on then possessed Genebrard in Chronolog l. 4. secul 10. speaking of the great unhappiness of that age saith that In this one thing it was unhappy that for neer one hundred and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their ancestors being Apotactici Apostaticive potius quam Apostolici Disorderly and Apostatical rather then Apostolical What shall we think of all those that murdered their predecessors to obtain the place were they capable of being true Bishops What shall we say of Pope Silvester the second who was a conjurer and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by suddain death Doth the Devil make true Bishops of conjurers I know the deceiving Papists would make the simple people believe that all these things that we say of their Popes are lies of our own forging but men that have eyes in their heads may see who are the lyars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the same that we affirm A Cardinal of their own Benno in vita Hildebrandi affirmeth this of Pope Silvester and he lived in the times next him and therefore might know Platina another of their own affirms in vita Silvest that Gesbertus impelled by ambition and devillish desire of rule did first by bribery or Simony get the Archbishoprike of Rhemes then of Ravenna and at last of Rome the Devil giving him more of his help but on this condition that after his death he should be wholly his by whose deceits he had obtained such dignity The like hath Lyra in Gloss ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hystorians unanimously confirm it Yea Aeneas Sylvius who was a Pope himself de gest is Concil Basil l. 1. saith We are not ignorant that Pope Marcellinus did at Cesars command offer incense to Idols and that another which is a greater and more horrible thing did come to be Pope of Rome by the fraud of the Devil In a word if Murderers Adulterers Conjurers that come in by the Devil and Hereticks may be true Bishops of Rome and yet a man that believeth not the Popes Univerversal Vicarship can be no true Catholike Christian then it seems it is a greater sin not to Believe in the Pope then not to Believe in Christ or then it is to bargain with the Devil or be a Murderer or Adulterer Certainly these men were as uncapable of being true Bishops when these things were once publikely known of them at least as a Mahometane would be And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their succession And many a schism there hath been wherein two or three Popes have raigned at once and he that had the greatest strength hath carryed it when his Right was not the greatest QUERY Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Romane Pope or his Clergy must be the
keep him from This is to make Gods Commissions to be impious and his Grace to the Pope onely to hinder the execution of them in an impious way Who dare say openly that God hath given authority to the Pope to judge decisively and obligatorily that there is no God Christ or Scripture though he will graciously hinder him from so doing If the Papists say that they do not say so I would know then what their judicial power in these matters is Is it onely this that the Pope hath Power to judge that there is a God a Christ a word of God c. Why so have others as well he If they shall dare to say that matters of faith are not such to us that is we be not obliged to believe them till the Pope have determined them I answer What! is no Heathen or Infidel bound to Believe that there is a God a Christ a Scripture till the Pope tell him so Shall all Infidels be excused in judgement that had the Gospel preached to them by any other Christians except the Pope or others in his name Is no man on earth bound to believe in Christ that knows not the Popes mind in the matter And must men believe in the Pope before they believe in Christ And must they believe in Christ onely because the Pope bids them or because they first believe in the Pope I do not think that either the eares of Good Christians or rational Infidels will relish such doctrine And what is this Believing in the Pope that must go first Is it not to take him to be Saint Peters successor and that Saint Peter was Christs Disciple who had a promise of infallibility which is now devolved to the Pope And must this be believed before men believe in Christ We must believe what he promised and who were his servants before we believe in himself This is a ground too like the Popish superstructure But perhaps they may in time grow moderate and tell us that it is not in all points of faith but some onely that the Pope is made Judge He may not judge about Christ himself whether he be the Messiah but about his Doctrines Answ 1. By what warrant will they distinguish and claim power in one which they have not in the other 2. Is it all or some of Christs Doctrines that the Pope is Judge of If all then it seems he must judge whether he that Believeth shall be saved or not Whether we should love God or hate him Whether we should seek first Gods Kingdom or worldly vanities And whether a man should commit Murder Adultery Theft c. or not May he decide these on either part or on one only as others may do May he judge that there is no Judgement Resurrection or life Everlasting I know they dare not say it If it be but some of Christs Doctrines that the Pope is made Judge of then let them tell us which it is and give us their proofs and they shall hear more from us Let it be the smallest point they will imagine Hath God given power to the Pope to contradict him and give him the Lye If God saith It is so May the Pope say It is not so What if the Pope say that the Gospel of Mathew or Luke or John is no part of Gods word Must we believe him What if he tell as that the world was made in five days and not in six Must we believe him 2. If they yet flye to his infallibility I shall speak more to that anon though the former answer may well suffice them But to another Arg. 3. The Scripture is Gods Law The Pope is not the Judge of Gods Law therefore he is not the Judge of Scripture The Major I hope no Christian will deny The Minor is evident from the nature and use of Laws and Judgements The Law is Norma judicis in judicando the Judges Rule He is not to Judge the Law but the cause of particular persons by that Law Indeed as to the right guidance of his own act of Decisive Judging the cause of the person he hath a Judgement of discretion concerning the sence of the Law but as if he Judge upon a false exposition of the Law the party may appeal from him so which concerneth our present case he hath no power to Judge the Law it self As he cannot make a plaine text to bear a false sence or oblige the subject to believe a false sence so in a doubtful case it belongeth to the Law-givers onely to interpret their own Laws Onely a sentence of a lawful Judge grounded upon a false exposition may sometime be executed among men where justice cannot be had but no man is bound to Believe that it is true and just James tells men what it is to pretend to be a Judge of the Law in stead of doing it and leaving that to the one Law-giver Jam. 4 11 12. And if the Pope be made Judge of every controverted difficulty in Scripture then why is he so unfaithful that he hath not hitherto written us an infallible Commentary on it and why doth he not determine all the controversies about it that among his own followers remain yet undetermined of which more anon Arg. 4. If the Pope be made the Deciding Judge of Faith and Scripture then either of the plain points or onely of the controverted difficulties or of both But not of the plain points For 1. That which is evident and not under controversie needs no Judge To the ignorant there may be need of an interpreter and teacher but not of a Judge 2. Such texts of Scripture do oblige us whether the Pope Judge of them or not Therefore there is no need of his judgement that they may oblige us Who dare think that a man is not bound by the word of God to love God above all to believe the Resurrection of Christ and of us to love Christs disciples c. unless he know the judgement of the Pope Do not all Laws of the Land oblige the subject upon the bare legislation and promulgation before the Judge meddle with them If they did not first oblige us to duty there were no place for the Judge to sentence us to punishment for disobedience It is the Legislator that obligeâ—h to duty by his Law proclaimed or any way published in his name But judgement interveneth to oblige men to punishment and bring it to execution and to help them to that which by the Law is their right If therefore it be evident in the very nature of Laws and judgement that we are obliged by Gods Laws to Believe and obey them in the several particulars before any judgement of the Popes it is then but dotage to talk of a Judicial Decisive power in the Pope to oblige men to Believe those same doctrines and obey those same precepts of the word And for the dark and controverted texts 1. Those are not of that moment as that mens salvation
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
spirit But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Romane cause For he immediately addeth that Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi audierunt ejus doctrinam ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut doâ—uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta dicta Christi approbaretur That is This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is onely meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Ghost and also saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his doctrine and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ might be approved This he proveth from Scripture and concludeth that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected because there is not the like cause and that Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretick of what state or condition soever he be Not excepting the Pope himself Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable then the Church of Rome is not infallible for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility Their Saint Maud saith that the Romane Church shall ere long Apostatize from the faith totally and openly which did obscurely Apostatize of a long time before Their Saint Elizabeth saith That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead that the Apostolike seat is possessed with pride and the flocks go astray The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication the Latin Church or the Ship of Peter whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin with which both Adam the Pope and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory But I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case already I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony with the words of Chrysostom or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math. and his own certain expressions elsewhere In the Imperfect Comment Edit Commel an 1617. in Math. 20. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901 it is said as followeth Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem primatus terrestris fructum posuit confusionem caelestem Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem sequatur humilitatem terrestrem quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terra inveniet confusionem in caelo ut jam inter servos Christi â—on sit de primatu certamen That is He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility and the fruit of earthly Primacy he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth shall find confusion in heaven That so a mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy And afterward he addeth Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere neque ratio est neque causa quia neque justum est neque utile Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti labori dolori quod majus est periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei nec times uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter convertat eum in secularem That is But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy there is neither reason nor cause because it is neither just nor profitable For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude labor grief and which is more to such a danger as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God nor feareth it that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy he may turn it into a secular One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostomes works but some hereticks I answer When they have use for it they can magnifie it Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book especially what he saith of some ancient Copies which have the errors onely in the Margin written by some Arrian hand and withall that it is very observable that the errors are so intermixed that yet you may take them out and not maim any of the sence but leave the rest entire yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes But whos 's so ever it is it is ancient and commonly much commended But let that go which way it will as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. he saith They that seek Primacy are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest state The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18. I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial by this smal taste of the judgement of former tmes whether the Romane infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon or resolve it into And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations even when it was at the highest he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes that will give him further information or in Bishop Vsher de Success stat Eccles he may find enough in narrower room The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause but I can find so little in any of their writings that 's worthy to be taken notice of more then what is answered before that I shall not need to stand long upon this They tell us that if our Church be not infallible then people