It is false that the Roman Church falsly by H. T. called Catholick was in most quiet possession of her Tenets when Luther began his Separation in Germany Tyndal in England It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught in many if not all the points in which Protestants do now oppose it 7. It is false that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception about the Popes Supremacy above a Council and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed as the event shewed no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day but each when occasion is offered contending for their way 8. It is false that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great or that Protestants do confess it It is most certain to the contrary that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy the Worship of Images Transubstantiation half-Communion in the Eucharist and many other points were brought into the Roman Church as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley 's Apology to King James hath proved 9 It is also most false that their Doctrine and Government were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles The contrary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans by Bishop Robert Abbot against Dâ—ctor Bishop and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fathers 10. It is false which H. T. saith It is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as may be seen in the Councils The contrary is most manifest that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage in which Augustine was present opposed the Popes Supremacy as schismatical that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical besides many other as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth SECT III. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks BUt H. T. saith Fathers for this Point though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Protestants being guilty of Schism or Heresie or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages or that in no case there may be dividing from it or teaching contrary to it without Heresie or Schism yea it is certain that Irenaeus Cyprian and Austin thought the clean contrary Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him Cyprian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization Augustine opposing Popes Boniface Zozimus and Celestine about the Appeal of Apiarius But let 's view their Sayings The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church ambitious men who have not the honour of God before their eys but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so important as the evil of Schism is prejudicious lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put prejudicious for pernicious or his Authour whence he had it for it is in Irenaeus Quanta est Schismatis pernicies But it appears 1. That he hath either not read the place or not considered it because he puts in God will judge whereas it is manifest out of the words following But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth that is without the Church but he himself is judged of no man and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God and the Apostolical Doctrine chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters the love of God into the honour of God before their eys 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes which was most true of Victor then Bishop of Rome in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eusebius hist 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants who neither make nor continue Schisms and that Separation which they make they do it for very great causes And he saith No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes as is the mischief of the Schism they make but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation or correption which is Irenaeus his word is so necessary that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent I add the words of Irenaeus the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors and Churches as Schismaticks and Hereticks who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints humane Satisfactions inherent Justice justifying Merit of Condignity have departed from the Apostolical Faith and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture The words of Cyprian de unit Eccles in the third Age against the Novatians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism that it could not be purged by suffering for Christ nor they be Martyrs though they died for the Confession of his Name is too heavy a censure yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants who are not guilty of that Schism The words of Chrysostom hom 11. in Ephes shew how grievous an evil Schism is but prove not that they are all Schismaticks that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof or the Romanists free The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controversie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be
all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine I reply neither the Church nor her Ministers can sufficiently propose to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture by which we may have infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten And to say that the whole Church in general and not each man in particular is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde is to speak contradictions Yet once more saith H. T. Object You dance in a vicious Circle proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apostolical tradition and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility Answ No we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition but that is evident of it self and admits no other proof When we bring Scripture for either we use it onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem I reply if this be so then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstration of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration as being evident of it self and admits no other proof which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved it follows that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach but what Popes and their Councils define into which their Faith is ultimately resolved No marvel then they decline Scripture or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity not because they think it is to be rested on and if so sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith we should take it as a thing confessed that Popery is not Scripture doctrine but onely unwritten Tradition and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination and so to be imbraced upon his credit which sure can beget no other than a humane faith and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith which is all one as to make him their Christ and that is to make him an Antichrist Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle and herein they go divers ways Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith chap. 9. rejects the common way and sticks to that of universal Tradition which by natural reason is evident and firm But when he hath urged this as far as he can this must be the evidence that what all say and was so manifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true But the being of Christ the Mossiah and his Doctrine from God as the holy Scriptures declare is avouched by all the Church and manifestly known by Miracles therefore it must be true which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition confirming the truth of the Scriptures and deriving our Faith from thence which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions whether they be with Scripture or without they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope not Christians that is Disciples of Christ I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture but in men whether Popes or Councils or the universal Church or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition which is his Rule as being evident of it self and admits no other proof though I have shewed it to be uncertain yea not so much as probable I go on to the next Article ARTIC IX Schism and Heresie are ill charged on Protestants Protestants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church as now it is in their Worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by rejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this Subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks SECT I H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie and begins thus Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie we shall here briefly shew what they are and who are justly chargeable therewith Our Tenet is that not onely Heresie which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but also Schism which is a separation from her government is damnable and sacrilegious and that most Sectaries are guilty of both Answ I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour 's own sense as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church and owning the Pope or being the Pope himself is an Arian as Pope Liberius or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius And for his definition of Heresie it is in mine apprehension too obscure and imperfect For it neither shews what is the Catholick Church the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie nor what separation in heart or profession or other act nor when it is wilfull when not nor how it may be known to be wilfull Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets who acquit many from Heresie who wilfully separate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as they define it to wit that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope As for instance The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour but taken as granted though it may be justly questioned And for the use of the terms Heresie and Hereticks in the Ancients it is certain that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philastrius Epiphanius Augustin and also by other Writers elder and later and those opinions termed Heresies which were not so The like faults are in the definition of Schism in not setting down which is the Catholick Church what is her government what separation of heart or outward
of the Roman Church or Popes or oecumenical Councils Infallibility 88 4. None of these Texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14 26. John 16. 13. Acts 15. 28. do prove the Infallibility in Points of Faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general Council approved by him 90 5. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our Salvation without supposing the Churches Infallibility 93 6. Neither can the Church oblige men under Pain of Damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith nor is there any such Judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her nor do any of the Fathers words cited by H. T. say it is the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. August contr Epist Fundam cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it 97 7. The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the Infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers 106 8. The Objections of Protestants against the Churches Infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 124 ARTICLE VI. THe Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her sanctity and Miracles 131 Sect. 1. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent ibid. 2. The sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church 132 3. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman church 134 4. The Roman church is not proved to be the true church by the holiness of its Doctrine but the contrary is true 136 5. The Devotion of the Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman church it being for the most part will-worship and Pharisaical hypocrisie 139 6. The power of working Miracles is no certain mark of the true church 143 7. The Popish pretended Miracles prove not the truth of their church nor the Miracles related by some of the Fathers 144 8. The Objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman church from the Power of Miracles are not solved by H. T. 147 ARTICLE VII THe Pope's or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole church is not proved by H. T. 151 Sect. 1. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour ibid. 2. From being the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 16 17. neither Peter's nor the Pope's Supremacy is proved 152 3. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles but a Promise of special success in his Preaching 156 4. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole church 159 5. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren Luke 22. 31. and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy 161 6. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter 164 7. The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy 165 8. The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Pope's Supremacy 169 9. Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Pope's Supremacy 176 10. Of the Emperours calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping faith with Hereticks 18◠ARTICLE VIII THe unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith 187 Sect. 1. The Argument for Apostolical tradition as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered ibid. 2. Unwritten traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles 190 3. The obligation of the church not to deliver any thing as a Point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Tradition a Rule of Faith 191 4. Counterfeits even in Points of Faith might and did come into the church under the name of Apostolick tradition without such a force as H. T. imagines necessary thereto 195 5. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity 198 6. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith 202 7. Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 205 8. H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions 212 ARTICLE IX PRotestants in not holding communion with the Roman church as now it is in their worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by ejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks 220 Sect. 1. H. T. his Definitions of Schism and Heresie are not right ibid. 2. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation 221 3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks 224 4. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquitting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists 226 FINIS Ecclesia Christi est quae luscipit à Christo doctrinam seu cujus fides sundatur authoritate Christi Thomas Whitsonus Bucci Tract 1. Sect. 7. Watson quodlib p. 252 260 343.
and the souls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull nor that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto nor their Relicks to be worshipped nor that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God always a Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them honour and veneration is to be given nor that the power of Indulgences such as the Pope grants was left by Christ in the Church nor that the use thereof is most wholesome to Christ's people nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church nor the Mother and Mistress of all Churches nor that true obedience is to be vowed and sworn to the Bishop of Rome nor that he is the Successor of Peter nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the first five hundred years for they held not these points Papists pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years is very idle because were it true as it is most false that those Fathers were Papists yet could not that suffice to prove them a continued Succession of sixteen hundred years Secondly because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed then our modern Papists can now do and they have not protested on their salvation that it was the very same with the now popish Doctrine nor that they received it from them by word of mouth and so from age to age and finally because if our Tenets in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years then it is wholly impossible they should be for Papists and against us But our Doctrines in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years Therefore it is impossible that the Fathers of the first five hundred years should be for Papists and against us The Major is manifest of it self The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of those Fathers as also by what shall be cited out of them in the following dispute 2. By the ingenuous confessions of our Adversaries Cardinal Cusanus in his second Book of Catholick Concord cap. 13. saith The Pope is not the universal Bishop but the first above or among others Cardinal Bessarion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist We reade that these two onely Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel Cardinal Cajetan tract de Indulg cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the beginning of Indulgences there is no authority of the Scripture or ancient Fathers Greek or Latin that brings it to our knowledge Durand in lib. 4. sent dist 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be said of certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Rochester Assert Luth. confes art 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was very little mention or none at all among the ancient as the Greeks to this day believe it not which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine lib. 5. de Just cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteousness and for avoiding of vain-glory it is most sure and safe to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part 2. Th. qu. 80. art 12. qu 3. The custome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church Georg. Cass in his Defence of his Book entituled De officio pii viri saith The use of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the ministring of this Sacrament is both of the institution of Christ and observed by the custome of the whole Church for above a thousand years and unto this day of the Eastern Churches And although the use of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the most learned of those times never taught that it was necessary so to be observed Tonstal Bishop of Durhom de verit corp sanguinis p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist Polydor Virgil. de invent rer l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expurgatorius put them out had these words By the testimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worship of images for fear of Idolatry Cassand consult tit de imag It is verily manifest out of Augustin writing on Psal 113. that in his age the use of Images in Churches was not Claudius Espencaeus a Bishop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apostles by reason of the want of others Priests were married Greg. de Val. tom 4. disp 9. punct 5. sect 9. with others confesseth that in the most ancient times of the Church and after the Apostles death Priests had their wives Harding in his answer to Jewel on the third Article Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary when the faith was in learning And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people for cause of their further instruction who being of late converted to the faith and of Painims made Christians had need in all things to be taught John Hart in his Epistle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower In truth I think that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend of the other Whereupon I gather as a certain conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes is unreasonable and improbable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly much less to depose them or give away their Kingdoms that is no part of his commission He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himself taking no such title on him nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Disciples Bishop Jewels challenge and performance is known Bishop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal besides many other books are extant by which it may be plainly discerned that Papists have not the Fathers of the first five hundred years for them and that even the learned writers of the Popish party have vented so much in their writings as yeilds an apology for Protestants in all or many of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists SECT III. Protestants have had a sufficient succession to aver their doctrin in the Latin Churches BUt I shall add a direct answer to H. T. his argument 1. By denying his syllogism to
He that knoweth God heareth us and he that heareth us not is not of God in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures c. He that believeth not shall be condemned St. Mark 16. 16. Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with H. T. his tenet and so the proof is in the same manner faulty as in the first argument 2. The Minor is denied nor doth any one of the texts alleged prove it or any thing like it For 1. The text Matth. 18 17 or 18. is not as this Author cites it be that will not hear the Church as if it were an indefinite speech equipollent to this universal every man that will not hear the Church without which H. T. proves not his Minor but thus but and if he hear not the Church restraining it to the brother finning against his brother And first reproved singly 2. Before two or three witnesses 3. Of whom the Church hath been told 4. And he doth not obey the Church 2. The text speaks not at all of believing the Church in a point of faith but doing right to an injured brother For the phrase of sinning against a brother ver 15. can neither be meant of heresie or error in faith no nor sinfulnesse in life which is termed commonly though for the most part mistakingly a publick scandal or scandalous practise but only of a particular injury such as he against whom the sin was might forgive as is manifest from ver 21. and the parable following whereas to forgive heresies or errors in faith or publick scandalous practises is not in the power of a private brother 3. That by the Church is meant the Christian Church is not certain sith it is not as Matth. 16. 18. my Church but the Church nor if it were can it be understood either of the universal Church diffused over all the world sith it is impossible for every injured brother to tell his injury to it not of a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the world for either there never was such a Church or if ever there were it hath not been in many ages together H. T. confesseth p. 7. 25. the second third and tenth ages produced no councils Nor if there were in every age or every year could every injured brother addresse their complaints to them And the same may be said of the Pope sometimes there hath been none for some years together sometimes it hath been uncertain which was the true Pope sometimes by reason of persecutions and for other causes no accesse could be to him sometimes the wronged brother could not travel to him nor he hear his cause Nor is there any direction to go to his legate or any assurance that he can commit his power to another or that such a legate is infallible Undoubtedly by the Church Matth. 18. 17. must be meant such an assembly whether regularly formed or otherwise occasionally convening which is of near accesse and which is fit to hear the cause and to determin And I must confesse that I cannot deprehend that by the Church is meant the meer Ecclesiastical authority nor is here appointed that disciplin Ecclesiastical which is termed the power of the keyes to excommunicate hereticks and scandalous livers in the Church but a direction to a wronged brother how to deal in case of particular injuries the neglect of which the Apostle Paul blames so much in the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 4. Neither doth let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publican import excommunication out of the Church For it is said let him be to thee not to the Church as a heathen or a Publican nor is any power at all therein given to the Church to excommunicate all that the Church is to do is to injoyn what the injurious brother should do that excommunication which is here mentioned is appointed or permitted to the wronged brother Nor did the being a Publican exclude out of the Jewish assembly or service the Publican went up to the Temple to pray Luke 18. 10. Matthew a Publican was a Jew and had the priviledge of a Jew though a Publican nor was a heathen as such damned there were proselytes as Cornâ—lius who were heathens and yet were accepted with God only the publicans and heathens were such as the Jews would not have familiar arbitrary converse with as Luke 15. 2. 19. 7. Acts 11. 3. appears and therefore the speech can have no other sense but this If thy brother who wrongs thee will neither right thee after private rebuke nor after rebuke before two or three witnesses nor after the monition of the Church that is either that particular assembly of Christians to which ye are joyned or some other competent number of Christian brethren fit to hear such differences then mayst thou shun his society in such a manner as Jews are wont to shun heathens and publicans by not going in to them to eat or inviting them or other unnecessary society that so they may know how evil their dealing is and be ashamed and amended Which is nothing to that Ecclesiastical discipline or juridical excommunication which is at this day arrogantly claimed by Popes even over Emperours and by other Ecclesiastical prelates for breaking their Canons much lesse doth this text infer damnation to him that shall not hear the universal Church or Oecumenical council or Roman Pope The other text 1 John 4. 6. is lesse to H. T. his purpose For it speaks not a word of hearing the Catholick Roman Chuâ—ch or universal diffused over all the world or Oecumenical council or Roman Popâ— but of hearing the Apostles and other teachers of the Gospel opposite to false Prophâ—â—s ver 1. who denyed Jesus Christ to become in the flesh and of hearing them not in every thing but in the doctrine of Christs coming in the flesh And in like sort Marke 16 15 16. is a plain command to the Apostles not to the Bishop of Rome or an Oecumenical council or the universal Church for then the Pope should be â—ound to leave his See and the Bishops in a council to be non resident and go into all the world and the Apostles are bid preach not Popes decrees or councils Canons but the Gospel of Christ and the threatning of damnation is not to him that shall not believe the Popes decrees or the determinations of an Oecumenical council or universal Church but the Gospel of Christ which reacheth not them who deny the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation purgatory humane merits worshipping imagâ—â— not eating flesh in Lent Priests single life and such other innovations as neither Christ nor his Apostles taught but such as believe not the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ and salvation by him alone Whence it is apparent to any that are not resolved to shut their eyes against manifest light that none of these texts
the Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Constanâ—inople equal power with the Roman in his Province and ascribed the Popes dignity not to any grant of Christ to Peter but to custome out of regard to Rome as the imperial city not to the council of Basil or Constance which made the council above the Pope But H. T. adds an argument for the Churches supreme power of judicature That is the supreme Judge in every cause who hath an absolute power to oblige all dissenters to an agreement and from whom there can be no appeal in such a cause But the Catholick Church hath an absolute power to oblige all that disagree in controverted points of faith nor is there any appeal from her decision therefore the Catholick Church is supreme Judge in controverted points of faith The Major is manifest by induction in all courts of judicature the Minor hath been proved above by the first second and fourth arguments Answ It is denied that the Minor hath been proved or that there is any other Judge besides the sentence of God in holy Scripture which can so oblige dissenters in those points Nor do a great part of Papists themselves at this day namely the French Papists make such account of the Roman church oâ— Popes judgement but that they do conceive they may and sometimes have appealed from them to a general council Occham held that the Pope was haereticabilis that is might be an heretick some of them being suspected of heresie have been fain to acquit themselves to Emperours by Apologies some of them have been condemned as hereticks by general councils Fathers universitie of Paris Gerson wrote a book de auferibilitate Papae and the French churches conceive their churches may be without a Pope and well governed by a Patriarch of their own It is but a new and late invented doctrine of Jesuits and other flatterers of Popes that the Roman church or Pope or a general council approved by him are infallible nor is there a word in any of the Fathers cited by H. T. to that purpose The words of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 40. are cited maimedly by H. T. they are entirely thus For where the Church is there is also the spirit and where the spirit of God is there is the Church and all grace but the spirit is truth By which it may appear that truth is ascribed to the Church by reason of the spirit and that by the Church he means not only the Roman but any where the Spirit of God is and in the words before he sets down the truth he means to wit that if one God and salvation by Christ which he terms the constant preaching of the Church on every side and equally persevering having testimony from Prophets and from Apostles and from all Disciples By which it is manifest that he commends no other preaching of the Church then is in the Scriptures not the definitions of any now existent Church or after Church without the Scriptures The next words of Irenaeus are not as here H. T. themâ— 1. c. 49. there being not in my book so many chapters but l. 4. c. 43. and are alleged by H. T. art 4. and answered by me before art 4. sect 7. The other words of Irenaeus The Church shall be under no mans judgement for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect faith of the Father and of all the dispensation of Christ and firme knowledge of the holy Ghost who teacheth all truth I finde not any where as he cites them In l. 1. there are not sixty two chapters and in l. 4. c. 62. which I suspect by his former quotation he would have cited the words are thus After he had said ch 53. such a Disciple meaning who had read diligently the holy Scripture which is with the Presbyters in the Church with whom is the Apostolical doctrine truely spiritual receiving the Spirit of God c. judgeth indeed all men but he himself is judged of none in several following chapters sets down various hereticks whom he shall judge and ch 62. saith he shall judge also all those who are without the truth that is the Church but he himself is judged of none For all things constant are known or manifest to him both the entire faith in one God omnipotent from whom all things are and in the Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord and the dispositions of him by which the Son of God was made man the firm sentence which is in the spirit of God who causeth the acknowledging of truth who hath expounded the dispositions of the Father and Son according to which he was present with mankind as the Father willeth By which any one may perceive that H. T. if these were the words he meant hath corruptly cited them mangling them and perverting them to prove an infallibility and supreme judicature of the Roman Church or Pope for others which are meant of every true spiritual Disciple and his private judgement for himself and in the main points of faith and according to and by means of the Apostolical doctrine of the Scriptures which is the very doctrine of Protestants concerning the judgement which each Christian may have and hath in points of faith and the certainty of it according to the Scriptures which while he follows he is judged of none nor needs any ones judgement Popes or others to define what he shall believe The words of Origen That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagreeth from the tradition of the Church And in our understanding Scripture c. We must not believe otherwise than the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us prefat in lib. periarch Whether they be rightly cited I know not having not the book to examine them by and by his other citations as by his citation of Origen art 4. where the same words as I conceive are cited somewhat otherwise which are answered art 4. sect 7. before the words from the Apostles being here left out and his c. here I suspect fraud Yet if the words be as he cites them they prove not what he brings them for there being no restriction to the Roman Church much lesse to the Pope nor is the tradition of the Church said to be that which is unwritten and other then is in the Scriptures and the faith which by succession the Church is said to deliver is not meant of any of those points which the Pope would obtrude on the Church of God and Protestants reject but in probability the points of faith which were in the Apostles Creed professed at baptism which Irenaeus Origen Tertullian c. were wont to hold forth against the hereticks of their times and Protestants do still avouch The words of Cyprian de unitate Eccles are not meant of the Roman Church but of the Church throughout the whole world as the words precedent shew and the freedom from adultery and the uncorruptednesse and chastity of
so much malice to the Banchor Monks men of more reputed holiness than himself that he was suspected at least to have been Instigator of a cruel Massacre of two thousand of them for not submitting to him and receiving the Roman Rites And for his converting of England though I am willing to let him have his due commendation yet neither is it true that he converted all England and those he did convert he did also pervert by his obtruding the Romish Orders which Christ never appointed whence a great Deluge of Superstition spread over Britain and much discord and misery followed thereupon as may be seen in the Writers of the English Histories As for Benedict who was before Austin the Monk and Francis and Dominick after that which I finde in the Relation of their Lives by Villegas translated by Heigham gives me no such cause as to judge them to have been men of such holiness as the Popes and Friers have judged them to be but at the best deluded persons with the Errour of those times in which holiness was placed in monastical profession and austere Discipline which the Apostle counts to be no better than will-worship Col. 2. 23. and their talk of their Miracles and Visions are no better than old wives tales upon the report of which Popes as ignorant as themselves or otherwise corrupt have canonized them for their own ends and the preaching of Dominick was against the truth professed by the Albigenses whom Rainerius confesseth to have been men otherwise holy in Life and Doctrine but that they spake against the church of Rome of whose idolatry pride cruelty avarice uncleanness of body there is so much in all the Writers of those times as is sufficient to shew that those men had cause to abhor them and to fear the yielding subjection to them who had departed from Christ by their setting up other Mediatours besides him and changed pure Christian Religion into a corrupt mixture of Paganism Judaism and Christianity the shedding of whose Blood was in a great measure caused by Dominick's Sermons who may be therefore judged a wicked Murderer rather than an holy Saint That which the century Writers say of these men is but a Relation out of the Writers of the Romanists that they were by them accounted eminent for sanctity according to the opinion of those times but that they any where ascribed to them real holiness I finde not SECT IV. The Roman Church is not proved to be the true Church by the holness of their Doctrine but the contrary is true H. T. proceeds thus Adde hereunto what the Catholick Church teaches that the Commandments are possible nay must be kept she teaches the necessity of Contrition Confession aud Satisfaction with many other practices of self-denial she teaches obedience to Priests and spiritual Pastours in things belonging to the soul and the government of the Church she teaches much fasting prayer and mortification she exhorts to good works voluntary poverty chastity and obedience The contrary to all which Doctrines are taught by Protestants and other Sectaries Answ THe Papists teach not onely that the Commandments of God are possible and that they must be kept which Protestants teach also but they also teach that in this life a person in the state of grace may perfectly keep the whole Law of God so as not to sin except venially which is with them not a sin properly as being besides not against the Law and thereby be justified and that many things which are horrid evils are venial sins and that a person may satisfie for them by Works of Penance which are for the most part easie things yea they teach that a man may by his good works merit of condignity either by virtue of Gods promise or the worth of the work eternal life yea that he may do Works of Supererogation and merit for others and that thereby is made up a Treasury in the Church which with the redundance of Christ's sufferings may by Indulgences be laid out for others for the relaxation of their punishment in Purgatory But this Doctrine Protestants abhor as being so far from being holy that they detest it as anti-evangelical proudly evacuating the grace of the Gospel and they teach that most blessed holy and precious Doctrine of the Gospel that the most holy meeâ— man is unable in this life though regenerate according to the measure of renewing grace he hath to keep the Law of God perfectly so as to fail in no point or so as to be justified before God by pleading any Works of his own before or after Regeneration or can merit of condignity in proper acception any thing at Gods hands much lesseternal life but all that are justified are justified by faith in Christ freely by the grace of God through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ and that eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and this we are sure as far exceeds in holiness Popish Doctrine as Christ exceeds Moses the Gospel the Law the new covenant the old Protestants teach the necessity of contrition of spirit for sin and confession of sin to God and satisfaction to men whom we have injured if able but the necessity of confession to a Priest and such power of absolution and enjoyning Penance as Papists ascribe to a Priest and such satisfaction to God for sin as they teach and practise we deny as being injurious to the Blood of Christ an arrogant usurpation of what Christ never conferred but a fruit of ignorance of the nature of repentance and of the mystery of the Gospel and a meer Engine to rob the people and to hold them in slavish subjection to their Priests We say that it is true self-denial when Christ requires it and either the glory of God the truth of Christ and obedience to him must be forsaken or our goods liberties and lives than to deny our selves by not retaining them but that it is no part of that self-denial which Christ requires nor any part of Christian mortification for a man unnecessarily to leave his estate and imployment to whip himself creep to a cross go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and such other things as Christ never required but are meer superstition and hypocrisie Protestants teach obedience to spiritual Pastours in things belonging to the soul and the government of the Church when they teach them to observe what Christ commanded but they justly refuse to subject their consciences to such commands of Prelates and Priests as Christ never appointed but judge it necessary to stand fast in the liberty they have by Christ and not be entangled with the yoke of bondage which Popes and Prelates and Priests under pretence of the Church of which they are the least part about difference of Meats Marriage Holy-days Temples and such like things endeavour to impose on their consciences and practise as being injurious to their Christian freedome and an heavy burden Protestants teach much fasting
be granted and yet the supreme Headship not proved The power said Hart Conf. with Rainold chap. 1. divis 2. which we mean to the Pope by this Title of Supreme Head is that the Government of the whole Church throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all Causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Dâ—crees of ordering and confirming Bishops and Pastours of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ Now a person may be above others in power and dignity yea the Head and Primate of them and yet not have this power The Lord Chief Justice of one of the Benches the Speaker of the Parliament Chair-man of a Committee Duke of Venice President in a Council of Bishops the Head of a College the Dean of a Cathedral may have power and dignity above other Justices of the same Bench over Counsellours in the same Council over Knights and Burgesses in the same Parliament Prelates in the same Council Fellows in the same College Canons in the same Chapter and in a sort Primates and Heads of the rest yet not such supreme Heads over the rest as the Popes claim to be Yea notwithstanding such power he may be limited so as that he cannot act without them in making any Laws or passing any Sentence binding but they may act without him and legally proceed against him So that the Conclusion might be yielded and yet the Popes Supremacy not proved The truth is the Pope claims such a vast and monstrous power in Heaven and Earth and Hell as exceeds the abilities of any meer mortal man to discharge and is as experience shews the Introduction to a world of miseries and oppresons But let us view his proof of the power of Peter which H. T. ascribes to him Tâ—e Major saith he is proved because the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker nor the less worthy to be set before the more worthy generally speaking Answ This doth not prove his Major for a person may be weaker and less worthy and yet above others in power and dignity Queen Elizabeth was a Woman and so weaker in respect of her Sex and perhaps less worthy in respect of parts than some of her great Commanders and Privy Counsellours Will H. T. say she was below them in power and dignity Many a Father and Master may be weaker and less worthy and yet superiour in power and dignity Many a Prelate is stronger in knowledge and wisdom and more worthy in respect of holy life than many Popes I will not onely say than Pope Joan and Bennet the Boy but also than Pius the second or any other of the best of their Popes and yet H. T. will not yield such Prelates to be above Popes in power and dignity Me thinks he should yield Athanasius to be stronger and of more worth than Liberius Hiâ—rom than Damasus Bernard than Eugenius and yet he would be loath to ascribe more power and dignity to them than to the Pope Nor is it true that the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker whether we mean it of moral or natural strength or weakness and confirmation Apollos was confirmed by Priscilla David by Abâ—gail Naaman by his servant Nor if by generally speaking be meant very frequently is the speech true that the more worthy is set before the less worthy I think in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas is more often before Paul than after as Acts 11. 30. 12. 25. 13. 7. 14. 12 14. 15. 12. I am sure in the Holy Ghost's Precept Acts 13. 2. whereupon they were ordained and in the Decree of the Apostles Acts 15. 25. Barnabas is first Will H. T. say Barnabas was more worthy than Paul Me thinks a man should be ashamed to utter such frivolous toys in so weighty a matter and fear to ascribe to a sinfull man so great and immense a Dominion on such slight pretences But how doth he prove his Minor The Minor saith he is proved I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not and then being at length converted confirm thy Brethren St. Luke 22. 31. The names of the twelve Apostles are these the first Simon who is called Peter c. St. Matth. 10. 2. St. Mark 3. St. Luke 2. and Acts the 1. Answ The Text doth not say Confirm the Apostles in the faith nor do we finde that they did but that he doubted as well as they Mark 16. 14. yea there is mention of another Disciples believing the Resurrection afore Peter John 20. 8 9. yea Paul seems to have confirmed Peter in the faith when he walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Acts 14. 22. Paul and Barnabas are said to confirm the souls of the Disciples and Judas and Silas did the same Acts 15. 32. So that this Act shewes no Headship in Peter nor any privilege at all much less such a supreme Headship over the Apostles as H. T. allegeth it for but a common duty of charity which not onely may but must be done by an equal or inferiour to an equal or superiour Sure if Paul had known of this as a Privilege in Peter he would not have said that he went not up to the Apostles before him nor conferred with flesh and blood Gal. 16. 17. and that Peter added nothing to him Gal. 2. 6. As for his being preferred generally before the rest it is not proved by his being named before the rest he may be named after who is preferred before as Paul is after Barnabas nor do the four Texts express a general or frequent priority of nomination three expressing but one and the same act of Christ and the Catalogue being varied in the order of the rest some Evangelists reckoning Andrew next Peter sometimes James and in like manner the order altered in some others shews that the order of nomination imported no Privilege yea sâ—metimes Peter is named after Andrew John 1. 44. who had this Privilege to bring Peter to Christ vers 41 sometimes after Paul and Aâ—ollos 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. and other Apostles 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 2. 9. which shews that John and Paul understood not that any such Primacy or Prerogative was given to Peter by his nomination first as Papists assert thence for if they had they would not at any time have inverted the order And therefore however a Primacy of order may be given to Peter yet 1. There is no necessity we should yield the acknowledgement of it to be a Duty imposed much less a perpetual Privilege of
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
profession or other act it is which makes Schism Nor is this a definition which doth agree with their own grants For the Councils that deposed Popes separated from the government of the Pope and the French in their pragmatick Sanction and the Venetians that refused to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory deny themselves to be Schismaticks Nor is it shewed how either is damnable or sacrilegious nor how Protestants are Sectaries or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection yet sith by what follows we may ghess his meaning let 's view his dispute SECT II. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation The Argument saith H. T. All such as are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state But most Protestants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church Therefore they are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state The Major is manifest out of the very notion and definition of Schism and Heresie The sequel of it proved thus by Scriture Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 2. 1. Jude 13. Rom. 16. 17. Matth. 18. 7 17 18. 2 Thess 3. 14. Answ 1. BY denying his Definition to be good and that any of the Texts prove it 2. By granting the Sequel of them that are truly termed Schismaticks and Hereticks but not of such as he calls such to wit that do wilfully divide from the Doctrine and Discipline of the now Roman Church falsly by him called Catholick There is no need of examining each Text till they are shewed to prove what is denied The Minor saith he is proved because Luther and his fellow Protestants divided themselves from the Communion of all Churches therefore from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that as well in Points of Doctrine as matters of Government as plainly appears by all we have said and is yet confirmed because when they began their Separation Luther in Germany Tyndal in England c. the Catholick Church was in most quiet possession of her Tenets in perfect peace and unity her Doctrine and Government being the same they had been not onely to the time of Gregory the Great as Protestants confess but to the very time of the Apostles as is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages in which no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Discipline then professed by the Roman Catholick Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as you have seen in the Councils Answ 1. The Minor speaks of most Protestants but mentions none but Luther and his fellow Protestants and Tyndal in England now it is no good proof against us that we are Schismaticks because Luther and his fellow Protestants were so and Tyndal began Separation in England It is told them by Câ—illingworth c. 5. p 1. against Knot that there may be an unjust Separation begun and so a Schism in the Leaders and yet no Schism in the Followers in after Ages as in a Common-wealth it may be a Sedition and Rebellion to set up another Government and Governour in the first Authours and yet none in the Posterity to continue them but rather their duty to maintain them in order to the peace and liberty which was unjustly obtained at first 2. It is denied that Luther or Tyndal divided themselves wilfully that is without necessity It is known in the History of Sleidan and others that Luther at first spake honourably of the Pope and was willing to have continued in communion with the Roman Church till Leo the tenth did by his Bull condemn his Doctrine afore he had heard him and he saw plainly as the World found by experience that the Popes and Court of Rome did never by good proofs out of Scripture go about to refute them but by Excommunications Fire and War to which Emperours and Kings were stirred up by them endeavour to root them out And for Tyndal it is manifest by the Book of Acts and Monuments of the Church written by Mr. Fox in the Reign of Henry the eighth that Tyndal was persecuted by the Popish Bishops and his body burnt in Brabant Now sure were the Protestants never so erroneous yet the Law of Nature ties them to run away from such cruel Wolves as in stead of teaching them with love endeavour to destroy them with cruelty 3. It is most false that Luther and his Fellows divided themselvs from the communion of all Churches It is certain that they actually joyned with the remainder of the Hussites in Bohomia and the Waldenses about the Alpes who were true Churches of Christ however the Romanists term them nor did they ever renounce communion with the Greek Eastern or Southern Churches though by reason of distance and the Power they were under they could not have actual communion with them And by their desire of a free Council in Germany not called by the Pope but the Emperour and Christian Princes nor of Bishops sworn to the Pope but of men that were equal Judges by whom their Doctrine might be examined and by their often Colloquies for Reconciliation they plainly shewed that they tried all means they could with a good conscience to have prevented the breach between them and the Popish party who were certainly the cause of the Schism and truly the Schismaticks as may be gathered from their own stories such as Thuanus Frier Paul's History of the Trent Council and others who relate the proceedings of those times and not the Protestants 4. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in point of Doctrine It is most certain that the party from whom the Protestants separated had relinquished the Catholick Doctrine of the Scripture and Primitive times for five hundred years at least and had brought in a new upstart Doctrine of Invocation of Saints worshiping Images Transubstantiation half-communion as sufficient denial of Priest's Marriage Popes universal Monarchy Purgatory-fire Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass Justification by Works and many more which were unknown to the first Christians nor hath the contrary appeared by any thing H. T. hath said before as the Reader of this Answer may perceive 5. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in the point of her Government The Government of the whole Church by one universal Bishop was never the Government of the Catholick Church It is manifest by the first general Councils that the Pope of Rome was not acknowledged superiour to other Patriarchs and the Greek Churches have always resisted his claim of Supremacy and many as Nilus Arch-bishop of Thessalonica Barliam and others have written against it as an unjust claim 6.
subject which if so meant the words are not true if meant as Cyprian meant that there is one Bishoprick of which each Bishop holds a part intirely in respect of unity of Doctrine the speech is good but not against Protestants who hold the unity of that Episcopal Chair The words of Augustine lib. 4. de Symb. fidei ad Catech. cap. 10. if they were true yet are they nothing to the purpose unless it were said that by the holy Church he meant the Church of Rome or that he who is found out of the Church of Rome is a stranger from the number of sons that he hath not God for his Father nor will have the Church for his Mother none of which are said by him It is true there are these words in Austin's second Exposition on Psalm 21. with us 22. ver 18. He who hath charity is secure or safe No man moveth it out of the Catholick Church But these words are not against Protestants but against Papists who move it out of the Catholick Church and confine it to the Roman and most uncharitably damn them who are not of their party therein following the Donatists whom Austin there condemns who confined the Church to the part of Donatus in Africa And there is another passage in the same Exposition which doth justifie the Protestants and condemn the Papists in the main point of controversie between us what shall determine controversies between us they say the Church when the great controvesie is which is the Church we say the Scripture and so doth Augustine in these words The Testament of our Father that is the Scriptures as the words a little before shew is come out of any hole I know not what Thieves would take it away I know not what Persecutours would burn it Whencesoever it is brought let it be read Why strivest thou We are brethren why do we strive The Father died not without a Will he made his Will and so died he is dead and risen again So long there is contention about the Inheritance of the Dead untill the Will be publickly produced and when the Will is brought into the publick all are silent that the Tables may be opened and recited The Judge hears within the Advocates are silent the Criers make silence all the People is suspended that the words of the Dead not perceiving it in the Tomb may be read He lies without sense in the Monument and his words are in force Christ sits in Heaven and is his Testament contradicted Open let us read we are Brethren why do we contend Let our minde be pacified our Father hath not left us without a Will He that made the Will lives for ever hears our voices acknowledgeth his own Let us read why do we contend Where the Inheritance it self is found let us hold it These words were spoken by Austin against Donatists and may rightly be applied to Papists who are the true canse of all the horrible Schisms and bloodsheds among Christians because they will not try who hath the Inheritance of the Church by the Scriptures which are God's Will but usurp the name of the Catholick Church as the Donatists did and under that pretence trample under foot all their Christian Brethren in the World who have as great and better Portion in the Inheritance of God their Father and of the Church than themselves The words of Augustine in his Sermon super gestis Emeriti are not that out of the Church an Heretick may have all things but Salvation For he saith He may have the Faith which he would not say of the Heretick but he speaks it of the Donatists which whether it be true or no is nothing to Protestants who are and may be in the true Church of Christ and have salvation though they be not in the Roman Church The words of Augustine Epist 48. concerning the Donatists that they were with other Christians in Baptism in the Creed and in the other Sacraments of the Lord but in the spirit of unity in the bond of peace and finally in the Catholick Church you are not with us do not at all touch Protestants who are in the Catholick Church with other Christians though not with the Roman party who are most like the Donatists and the Protestants hold with Augustine in the same Epistle that that kinde of Letters to wit of Bishops such as Hilary Cyprian c. is to be distinguished from the authority of the Canon of the Scripture For they are not so read as if testimony were brought out of them that it may not be lawfull to think to the contrary if perhaps they thought otherwise than the truth requires SECT IV. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquiting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists It follows in H. T. Objections solved Object We separated onely from the Church of Rome's errours Answ Yea from her Catholick and Apostolical Doctrines She doth not erre in Faith as hath been proved I answer therefore with St. Augustine to the Donatists I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations cont Petil. Add no nor with any Nation before Luther I Reply that we separate from any other than the Church of Rome 's errours and sins is said but not proved and that she that is the Bishop of Rome and his party do not erre in Faith is not proved but impudently said against plain evidence of Scripture Councils and Fathers and I reply by retorting Augustine's words I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations particularly you English Recusant Papists H. T. and the rest are manifest Schismaticks for you separate from the Catholick Church in that you do not communicate with the Protestant Church of Christ in England It is false that those who held the same truth with Protestants under other names held no communion with any Nation before Luther For as far as they could and ought they held communion with a. called on the Name of the Lord Jesus in France Bohemia England and elsewhere under the names of Waldenses Hussites Picards Wiclevists Lollards and such like H. T. adds Object We refused onely the Church of Rome's Innovations and Superstitions Answ You slander Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same then that they have been in all precedent Ages Did the Church perish saith St. Augustine to the Donatists or did she not If she did what Church brought forth the Donatists or the Protestants If she did not what madness moved you to separate your selves from her on pretence of avoiding the communion of bad men lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap 7. And again We are certain no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations yet Martin Luther and Mr. Tyndal did it Epist 48. And in another place All Separation made before the