may in time want snuffing and so may the most Apostolical Church in after-Ages need Reformation The second place is Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church if he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican Now saith the Letter It were very hard to be condemn'd for a Heathen or a Publican for not hearing a Church that hath so closely lain hid that none could hear see feel or understand it for 900. years First I answer That these words prove not the Church visible or palpable to all men Heathens and Infidels enquiring after the true Church but at most to Christians only who live under the Church's government and submit to her Censures Secondly The words relate to a particular Christian Church of which a person is a member for it were absurd to imagine our Saviour should oblige any Christian if his Brother should offend him to tell the whole Catholick Church throughout the World his offence per literas Encyclicas Yea it 's plain and undeniable the place respects not the whole diffused number of Christians no not in any particular Church but the Governours only Now our Adversaries will not I hope say that any particular Church except their own much less its Rulers or Representatives shall be eminently visible and conspicuous to all Christians at all times Certainly our Saviour in this place does not promise any special privilege to the Church of Rome more than Antioch Ephesus or any other Apostolical Church to whom that Precept of telling the Church doth equally belong some of whom are long since utterly extinguished by the overflowing of Mahometanism How can they then from this place infer that any particular Church shall be perpetually visible and conspicuous to the World exercising Church-Government over its members Nay farther How could the Christians belonging to their Roman Church when under the persecution of Dioclesian or Constantius at which time the Shepherds being smitten the sheep were all scatter'd the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted tell the Church or make complaint to the Governours of it when they scarcely knew where they were to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint Our Saviour's Precept then supposes the free exercise of Church-government which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercis'd or supposed I might add Acosta de Temp. noviss lib. 2. cap. 15. Telesphorus de Magnit tribulat pag. 32. Aquipontanus de Antichrist pag. 23. That their own Writers Acosta Telesphorus the Hermite and others confess that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and publick service of God shall be buried the Church-doors destroy'd the Altars forsaken the Church empty c. Now I appeal to the conscience of any man whether at that time it would be possible in case of Scandal to tell the Church when the Church shall be forc'd to hide it self and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppress'd and dissolv'd by the violence of Persecution Lastly Whereas 't is objected that the Protestant Church hath so closely lain hid for 900. years that no man could see or understand it this is very falsly affirm'd as I shall shew afterward unless such as profess'd the Religion of the Scriptures Ancient Fathers and Councils protesting against some new Roman additional Articles impos'd of late by Pope Pius and the Tridentine Council were no true visible Church of God. The last place viz. 2 Cor. 4.5 If our Gospel be hid c. is least of all to the purpose for there Saint Paul plainly speaketh not of the Church but of the Gospel or Christian Faith Hieronym in Nahum c 2. Chrysost Hom. 49. in Matth. Nunc nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nimirum ex quo obtinuit haeresis Ecclesias nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Irenaeus cont Haeres lib. 2. Quae praeconiaverunt pestea per Dei voluntatem scripserunt c Costerus Enchirid. cap. 1. Alphonsus de Castro cont Haeres grant this which is clearly deliver'd by the Scripture to which as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge we ought especially in times of Heresie and Persecution to have recourse for our establishment in the truth and if the Gospel first preached and afterwards written by the Apostles for what they first preached they afterwards by the will of God as Irenaeus saith wrote be hid to any it 's hid to them that perish whose minds the Devil hath blinded Doth not this place expresly confute our Adversaries who affirm that the Gospel as reveal'd by the Scripture is dark obscure and invisible to the Laity that so they may hang their faith by a blind and implicite obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority of their Church or Popes who may be as some of them have been notorious and manifest Hereticks So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service The Fathers alledg'd for the Roman visibility consider'd I come now to the Fathers quoted in your Letter and first for Chrysostom's saying * Hom. 30. in Matth. It is easier for the Sun to be extinguish'd than the Church to be darkned I wonder any sober men should require us to believe that on Chrysostom's Authority which they do not believe themselves For the Romanists Valentia and others as we have seen confess that the Church even their Roman Church may be obscur'd or darkned as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperours in times of prevailing Heresie and Persecution So that Chrysostom must even by them be understood of a total not partial Eclipse or darkness for in that place he treateth of times of persecution wherein all grant the Church may be darkned and saith the Tyrants are gone and perish'd but the Church remaineth unconquer'd As to the places quoted out of Saint Austin Tract in Joan. de Unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 7. I answer That he speaketh of the state of the Christian Church as it was in his days in its external lustre and glory retaining the Primitive Faith without addition or detraction It was indeed strange blindness in the Donatists he writeth against not to see the true Church which as a Mountain or light on a Hill was then plainly visible before them all over Africa yea the whole World but to dare to restrain it to pars Donati the faction of Donatus as now the Jesuits restrain it to the Popish party was plain impudence Nevertheless St. Austin doth not say that the Church should always and in all after-Ages remain in that visible prosperous and illustrious state yea contrarily he confesseth that it is sometimes obscur'd thro the multitude of scandals Aliquando obscuratur Epist ad Vincentium 47. Ecclesia non apparâ—bit impiis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus Epist 80. ad Hesychium Vide de Baptist contra Donatistas lib. 6 cap. 4. Enarrat in Psalmum 10. that it is like the Moon that may be hid that it shall not appear by reason of the
to Salvation and were some of them saved So that he acknowledgeth in some sense the Visibility of the Church Ecclesia vera erat in Papatu sed Papatus non erat vera Ecclesia Alii cautiùs Papatum dixerunt fuisse in Ecclesiâ non Ecclesiam in Papatu Prideaux Lect. de Visibil Eccl. p. 136. even Roman which Protestants deny not who grant that the true Church was in or under the Papacy although the Papacy was not that Church Neither is there any contradiction in this for a Leper is a true Man and as truly Visible as one that is clean Leprosie is not a distinct Body but a Disease cleaving to it In like manner Popery is not of it self a distinct Church but a corrupt humour in latter Ages predominant in the true Visible Church of God. Nevertheless he denies first the Papacy i. e. the Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine and Worship introduc'd of late by the Popes and their adherents to be any part of the true antient Christian Catholick Faith by which our Ancestors were saved any more than Leprosie is any part of a Man. Secondly he denyeth that there is alwaies and at all times in this true Visible Church a visible Company or State of People actually and personally divided from the rest that profess the True Faith perform Religious Worship and exercise Church-Discipline in open and conspicuous manner wholly free from the Corruptions and Abuses of such as have defiled the Church For 't is one thing to be a True Visible Church another to be free from all such Errors and Corruptions as may being wilfully persisted in endanger Mens Salvation and therefore need Reformation The Church of the Jews was the true yea the only true Church of God yet in the time of Elijah and after in our Saviour's days they were generally ten Tribes of twelve over-run with Idolatry and Superstition The like we say of the Church of Rome in the Ages next before Luther when not only gross Ignorance but many palpable Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Government did visibly appear which many eminent Professors sufficient The Answer to D. White pag. 354. as a Jesuit confesseth to prove the Churches Visibility under Persecution who lived and died in the Communion of that Church openly opposed lamented and bewailed as S. Bernard See the Articles of Reformation proposed to the Council of Trent by Ferdinand the Emperour and Charles the Ninth Apud Goldast constitut Imp. tomo 2. p. 376. and tomo 3. p. 570. Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius Cameracensis Bishop Grosthead with innumerable more although they were over-born by the predominant Party then bearing rule who could not indure to hear of Reformation tho much desired by many true Catholicks and promised by Adrian the Sixth and other Popes before the calling of the Council of Trent But it is very disingenuous to quote out of any Writer a line or two and not to add with it his explained sense and meaning As for Mr. Perkins who in his Reformed Catholick which I have not now by me saith That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholick Church his Words if his admit of the same Answer But I dare appeal to any Christian whether he can possibly believe that any learned Protestant Writer yea any man in his wits Juels Defence pag. 45 46. should think that the Gospel preached by our Saviour and the Apostles asserted by the Antient Fathers and Martyrs should first appear in the World when Luther and Zuinglius began to preach For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel Faith and Church of which Luther Zuinglius or any mere mortal man tho pretending to be Infallible is the Author and Founder Did not I believe the Doctrine generally own'd by the Protestants to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Antient Fathers I could not satisfie my own Conscience as to the profession of it The true meaning then of some Protestant Writers could be only this That the Gospel or Christian Religion did in Luther's days begin first to appear more eminently freed or reformed from those after-grown Errors and Corruptions it was in some later Ages mis-figured with being reduced to the prime Rule of Faith Garenz de Sergio de Conciâ—â—â— 706. Aquin. 2. qu. 1. art 7. resp ad 4. the Scripture and its best interpreter Primitive Antiquity And is it not an unspeakable Blessing that we enjoy such a Reformation For I can scarcely think that any sober Romanist will deny that the first were the best and the last the worst Ages of the Church and that there was after the Apostles days and the first 5 or 600 years a manifest declension of the antient purity of Doctrin and simplicity of Devotion altho there still remained a true Church as to essentials The Question concerning the Visibility of the Church stated BUT that we may not beat the air I shall first of all enquire into the true state of the Question Protestants do not as Bellarmine grants affirm the Church to be wholly and absolutely Invisible or utterly hid from the eyes of all men in any Age but comparatively only not being alwaies equally Visible They acknowledg that God ever had and will have a Church in the World which shall make in some degree a Visible profession of Christian Religion even under Persecution Thus it was in the days of Athanasms and Hilary See their words below tho not so illustrious and conspicuous for they say that the Church may be reduced to a small number the Orthodox Pastors may be violently thrust out of their Churches and the best Christians forced to worship God privately in corners And will any man deny but this detracts much from the Visibility and conspicuousness of the Church They of the Church of Rome grant all this The Jesuit Mr. White answers doth not avow yea disowns it that the Church is visible Defence of the Way p. 354. i. e. that it is a Company of Christians so illustrious as it not only may be but actually is known to all men living at all times for saith he Ecclesia aliquando obscuratur tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum c. Epist ad Vincent 48. Firmiores partim exulabant partim latitabant Ibid. Diligenter animadverti debet non sic accipiendum esse quod dicimus Ecclesiam esse semper conspicuam quasi velimus eamomni tempore dignosci posse aequè facilé Novimus enim illam aliquando errorum schisinatum persecutionum fluctibus esse agitatam ut imperitis quidem nec satis prudenter rationes temporum rerumque circumstantias aestimantibus cognitu fuerit difficilis quod tum maximè accidit cùm Arianorum perfidia in orbâ— pâ—enè tâ—to dominabatur Analys Fid. l. 6. c. 4. I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies especially in time of Persecution such an outward worldly and prosperous estate
Durand Rationale lib. 6. c. 72. Turrecremata de Consecrat Distinct 2. num 4. Ad annum Christi 304. Nomine Christianorum deleto qui rempub evertebant in the days of Dioclesian the worst and last persecutor of Christians such havock and prodigious destruction was made of the Christian Church that several Trophies and Monuments as Baronius grants were set up in Spain in memory of the total extirpation of Christianity superstitione Christi ubique deletâ Where was then the conspicuous as Costerus phraseth it and illustrious state of the Catholick or particular Roman Church Surely had not the Church of Rome her self as well as other Christian Churches been in a great degree invisible as to the knowledge of the Roman Emperour and his Inquisitors in all humane probability the name of Christians as they boasted had been wholly rooted out I might add the state of the Christian Church even Roman Ingemuit totus orbis se factum esse Arianum admiratus est Dialog contra Luciferianos under the prevalency of Arianism and its heretical Head Pope Liberius when as St. Hierom writes the whole World sighed and wonder'd how it became Arian When the Catholick Bishops were banish'd from their Sees and the Orthodox Christians forsaking the Churches worshipped God in cryptis in private houses and corners Concerning which deplorable times St. Hilary writeth in this manner to such as communicated with the Arians Malè voâ—â—â—s parietum amor cepit malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedisiciisque veneramini Montes mihi lacus carceres sunt tutiores Addit Rarumesse apud Orientem invenire aut Episcopum aut populum Catholicum Lib. contr Auxentium Quae nunc Ecclesia Christum liberè adorat Siquidâ—m si pia est periculo subjacet Nam si alicubi sunt pii sunt atem ubique tales permulti illi itidem absconduntur c. Epist ad solitariam vitam agent Vid. Apolog. ejus ad Constant de fuga You are ill taken with the love of walls you ill seek or reverence the Church of God in Houses and Structures Mountains and Prisons and Dungeons are safer He adds that 't was hard to find in the East a Catholick Bishop or people Athanasius saith as much or more What Church saith he now adores Christ freely Seeing if it be pious it is in danger For if there be some pious and studious of Christ as there are every where many such they also as the great Prophet ELIAS are hid thrust themselves into holes and caverns of the Earth or wander in solitude These things being undeniably evident I desire to know whether in those days the true Church was not only visible but very conspicuous to the sight of all men so that it might be evidently distinguish'd and as it were pointed at with the finger as Costerus and Valentia affirm But what need is there of many words in this case Pauiò ante mundi finem externus status Ecclesiae Romanae cessabit publicum fidelium cum eâdem commercium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim obtinebit tamen tunc pii corde Papâ Ecclesiâ Romana communicabunt Rhemenses in Annotat. in animo cum 2 Thess 2. Revel 12. when our Adversaries themselves grant that a little before the end of the World when Antichrist shall come the external state of the Roman Church shall cease and that the publick worship of God shall by persecution be suppressed and that the truly pious shall communicate with the Pope only in heart and soul The difference then betwixt them and us cometh only to this that what we say hath been they say shall be hereafter whilst it is agreed on both sides that an illustrious conspicuous visibility is no essential property or inseparable note of the true Church Texts alledged for Visibility as meant by the Papists answered I now come to examine the places of Scripture mention'd in your Letter to evince the contrary The first and principal urg'd by Valentia and many other is Matth 15.14 15. Ye are the light of the World. A City that is set on an Hill cannot be hid Neither do men light a Candle to put it under a Bushel c. To which may be added Isa 2.2.60.20.61.9 Dan. 7.14 quoted in your Paper To all which the same Answer may be applied My reply is that those words do not prove a perpetual conspicuous and illustrious visibility of the Church in all Ages to all persons which our Adversaries contend for First Because the words are not spoken at least directly of the Church general or successive in all Ages but of and to the Apostles personally Ye are the light of the World. And seeing they were commanded by our Saviour to teach all Nations we may reasonably suppose that they were under a special protection of divine Providence until they had fulfill'd the work committed unto them But the case of ordinary Pastors and Teachers of the Church is not the same with that of Apostles Secondly Suppose we understand the words of the Church general or successive which we grant to be a light to the ignorant World and like a City set on a Hill yet it cannot be deny'd yea our Adversaries grant it that this light of Apostolick doctrine in the Church may be obscur'd or eclipsed by error Aug. Epist ad Vincentium supra scandal and persecumay be obscur'd or eclipsed by error scandal and persecution as the Sun and Moon sometimes are tho they be glorious and most visible lights In like manner a City set on an Hill may be so clouded by foggy mists and vapors that it may become for some time invisible at least not so visible or conspicuous as that any man may point at it with his finger The other Similitude of Mens lighting a Candle and setting it on a Candlestick that so it may give light to all in the House signifies the clearness universality and diffusiveness of the doctrine taught by the Apostles But that any one particular Church Greek or Roman should be such a Candlestick as can never fail or be remov'd as well as that of Ephesus and many other Apostolical Churches wholly rooted out by Mahometanism Revel 2. or which should be as our Adversaries too grosly affirm more visible and discernable to all men than the light it self viz. of the Gospel contain'd in the Scripture plac'd in the Candlestick i. e. the Church this I suppose no prudent man will take to be our Saviour's meaning in those words That they make their Church the Candlestick and its Authority more visible to us than the truth or light of the holy Scripture is so notorious I will not stand to prove it * Quae sit vera scriptura quis ejus verus sensus non possumus scire nisi ex Testimonio verae Ecclesiae Bellarmin de Notis Eccl. lib 4. c. 2. In a word A Candle tho burning clearly on a Candlestick
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
I grant also adds he that sometimes the Church is obscured as S. Austin saith with multitude of Scandals and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuite Greg. de Valentiâ When we say the Church is alway conspicuous this must not be taken as if we thought it might at all times be discerned alike easily For we know that sometimes it i.e. the Church the Mountain Isai 2.2 is so tossed with the waves of Errors Schisms and Persecutions that to such as are unskilful as the far greater part of Christians ever are and do not discreetly enough weigh circumstances of times and things it shall be very hard to be known which then especially fell out when the falshood of Arrians bare rule almost over all the World. Therefore we deny not but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some time than at other some yet this we avouch that it alway might be discerned by such as could wisely esteem things So he And is this all they would infer from Mat. 5.14 15. Ye are the light of the world A City that is set on an hill cannot be hid c. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernable by a few discreet quick-sighted persons Is this the Visibility they so much contend for Well it 's here granted us that the Church is not alway easily visible or discernable to all but only to a few discreet Persons If this will satisfie them we shall readily grant that the Protestant Church under the Persecution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernable yea was or is hardly visible to such as are unskilful and do not wisely enough weigh circumstances of times viz. of Oppression and Persecution Yet this we say that it might have been discern'd even in the next Ages before Luther not only in the Waldenses Wicklevists Albigenses and Bohemians how odious and contemptible soever they are render'd to the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church by such as can discreetly judg of things and times What great matter then can these men make of the Visibility of the Church they so much boast of But is all this Contention about nothing truly it is no easie thing to resolve what it is our Adversaries would have more than is already granted by us I will give the best account I can find out of their own Writings what it is they aim at Bellarmin stateth not the question Ecclesia est â—â—tus hominum â—â—a visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel regnum Galliae Bellarmin de Eccles Milit. lib 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia visibilis est i. e. sic in luce hominum conspectu posita ut quovis seculo evidenter internosci quasi digito monstrari queat congregatio illa quam esse veram Ecclesiam determinatè oredere possis ac debeas Haec autem Ecclesiae proprietas universos Haereticos pessimè habet Anal. Fidei lib. 6. pag. 30. but somewhere saith that The true Church is a Company of men as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France Spain or the State of Venice Gregory de Valentiâ above-mentioned affirms that the Church is Visible i.e. is so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age that Congregation or Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately or particularly believe to be the true Church This property of the Church saith he exceedingly troubleth all Hereticks But it would exceedingly trouble him were he alive or any man else to reconcile this with his former concession For if the true Church be so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age it may be evidently discerned and pointed at by the finger how is it that as he is forced to grant in times of Persecution and over-spreading Error as under the Heathen Emperors and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresie it is very hard to many to see where the true Church is yea none do discern it but such as prudently weigh circumstances of times and things which the far greater part of men neither do nor can Who of our Adversaries if he had lived in the days of Hilary would not have taken the Arians for the true Church Did not all or the far greater part of Bellarmin's Notes of the true Church belong to them only as Multitude Succession temporal Prosperity external Glory efficacy of Doctrine converting Ad ann 358. or rather perverting almost as Baronius grants the whole World Would they have taken those few for the true Catholick Church who separated themselves from their heretical but supposed infallible Head and Guide of the universal Church Pope Liberius Ad ann 357. v. Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 9. Liberius post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus atque ita restitutus est Ecclesiae Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes Hieron in Catal. In Fortunatiano Subscripsit Haeresi Arianorum Et in Chronico ait Liberium taedio victum exilii in Haereticam pravitatem subscripsisse Liberius is declared to be a Heretick by the Sixth Seventh and Eighth General Council and Pope Agatho and Pope Leo the Second Patet ex lib. de Romanis Pontificibus multos Clericos Romae à Constantio necatos esse qui noluerunt cum Liberio communicare Baron ad ann 357. parag 49. Baronius the Cardinal acknowledges that he communicated with the Arians and in his own Letters still extant he professeth that in all things he agreed with them Yea farther S. Hilary Athanasius and S. Hierome write that he subscribed to the Heresie of the Arians and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers make it an essential qualification of a Catholick or Member of the true Church to hold Communion with the Bishop of Rome and to live under his Government who instead of being an infallible Guide to others may fall into damnable Heresie himself I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church whether they that joyned with Liberius or such as separated from him Here I cannot but observe which Cardinal Baronius takes notice of that when by the favour of the Emperour Constantius and the intercession of the Arian Bishops Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishoprick many Clergy-men chose rather to suffer death than to joyn in Communion with him whom they themselves account Martyrs or at least dare not condemn as damnable Hereticks and Schismaticks the appellations they bestow upon Protestants for their not communicating with the Roman Bishop But I have not yet done with Valentia Non usque adeò ipsi volumus Ecclesiam esse conspicuam ut censeamus aut oculis cerni aut evidenti
punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad
omnes dicitur Aug. de agone Christi c. 30. 1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.28 Gal. 2. Chrysost at least in 18 places calls St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Casaubon Exercit. 16. Paulus Apostolorum maximus Origen Hom. 3. in Numer Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem Christus tribuat c. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae Paulus erat Petro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec opus habuit Petro Chrysost in Gal. c. 2. that our Lord gave the Keys first to Peter to be communicated by him â—o the rest of the Apostles No. The Scripture plainly saith Christ breathed on them all at once together and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Here the Keys promis'd to Peter are given not onely to him or first to him to be given to the rest of the Apostles by him but to all of them together in one and the same breath without preferring one before another Neither doth that other place feed my Lambs feed my sheep prove in the least that Christ committed his whole Church to Peter onely as Universal Pastour and Head of it for to feed Christ's sheep is to teach them with the word of life and this is charg'd immediately and equally on all the Apostles who had their Mission and Commission not from Peter but from Christ himself saying All power is committed to me c. Go ye therefore teach all Nations c. Yea this duty of Feeding as also Ruling implied as some think in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Duty incumbent on all inferiour Pastors and Bishops as St. Peter himself acknowledgeth Feed the flock of God taking the care thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I might add that St. Paul had a greater part by far of Christs flock under his Pastoral care than St. Peter for he was the Apostle of the Uncircumcision or Gentiles preaching to them Peter of the Circumcision or Jewish Nation From all which it is evident that the Pope supposing him which is not at all granted to succeed Peter in his whole Apostolick Power in plenitudinem potestatis it no way follows that he is or can be Supreme Head of the Universal Church Other Apostles in their Apostolick Churches planted by them being as to Ecclesiastical Power not at all inferiour but equal to him and the Roman Church As for a priority of Place or Order in regard Rome was at first before Constantine's days the Seat of the Emperour we deny it not but this Preheminency as the General Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon declare was given by the Ancient Fathers and Bishops they say not by any appointment of Christ in regard it was the Imperial City of which more hereafter But to put an end to this Controversie we will appeal to an infallible Judge such as the Pope himself shall not refuse even Saint Peter himself whose words are these 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves c. whether to the King as supreme c. If St. Peter acknowledge not himself but the King to be Supream methinks it should ill become his Successours to deny Kings to be supream over them But possibly it will be said St. Peter meant this supremacy onely in matters Civil not Ecclesiastical Well we take what is granted Carerius de Potestate Pontificis lib. 2. cap. 23. Cajetan in Aquin. 2. qu. 99. art 3. See the R R. Bishop of Lincoln his observation on the Pope's Bull against Q Elizabeth How is it then consonant to Apostolical doctrine for St. Peter's Successors to exempt and that in civil matters all Clergy-men from the jurisdiction and commands of the King as if they were not his Subjects as well as others Yea farther to absolve the Laity also from all obedience to their natural Princes cursing all such as obey them stirring them up when they think fit to fight against depose and murther them Is this to acknowledge the King supream Peter did but draw his sword to rescue Christ the Son of God from the hands of Murtherers and he is commanded to put it up And may Popes as they often have done command Subjects to draw it against their lawful Sovereigns But the King here spoken of was an Heathen even Nero. True. However all Christians according to Apostolical doctrine must be subject to their King tho an Heathen and ought they not much rather then to be subject to him being a Christian St. Paul's Precept is general Let every soul be subject to the higher powers which Powers were at that time Heathens yet every soul i.e. a Synecdoche every Person tho an Apostle or Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in locum As also Theodoret. Theophylact. and Oecumenius in locum Add Bernard Epist 64. ad Senonensem Archiepisc Qui scipsum excipit seipsum decipit as St. Chrysostom comments on that Text much more the Pope ought to be subject Possibly some will reply That the Church and St. Peter the Head of it had no Auhority over Heathens which are without but that they had a supremacy over all Christians and consequently over Kings as Christians If this exception be of any weight it unavoidably follows that whilst Nero was an Heathen St. Peter was his Subject and he Sovereign but if he had become a Christian S. Peter was his Sovereign and had the supremacy over him Was not this an excellent reason to persuade Nero to become a Christian whereby he must deprive himself of the Sovereignty The truth is Christ came not tollere jura sed peccata mundi to take away the sins not the rights of the meanest Subjects much less of Kings or in the least to diminish their just Authority 1 Tim. 6.1 2 The Apostles expresly charge Children to be obedient to their Parents Servants to their Masters tho they were Heathens and themselves Christians Dominion is not founded in Grace neither is Christ's Kingdom as he himself professed of this World for then would my Servants fight He that gives Kings converted a Crown of Glory deprives not them of their Earthly one or any due right belonging to it Obedience therefore in all things either active or passive is necessarily to be yielded unto them as supream Governours Nor the Sacrifice in the Mass Eighthly Concerning a real and proper Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or Holy Eucharist it is expresly contradicted in the Scripture especially by St. Paul Heb. 7.27.9 25 26 27 28. 10.10 In which places the blessed Apostle distinguisheth Christ's Sacrifice from and prefers it before the Levitical ones in regard they were reiterated and often repeated not so this but by once offering of himself once offered up by himself Heb. 9.27 28. and once for all he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified As then men properly can die no more than once so Christ can be properly sacrific'd no more but once 'T is St. Paul's own argument In
us any thing De praescript c. 8. Arnobius Lib. 3. contra Gent. The first God is enough to us in him we worship all that is to be worshipped Lactantius agreeth with him Invocatio supponit omnipraesentiam lib. 6. p. 183. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. 17. for he adviseth all men to look up and adore nothing worship nothing but the Majesty of God our Father and Maker Eusebius Caesar Demonstr lib. 1. c. 5. lib. 3. c. 3. sheweth that the Jewish Church directed their Adorations to God onely and for Christians he affirmeth lib. 4. c. 6. that they prayed to God onely in the name of Christ not of Saints or Angels as their Mediator For seeing saith he it is peculiar to Christ as the great High Priest to frame for us spiritual Sacrifices in praises and thanksgivings and because as a Priest he hath offered up himself a perfect Sacrifice to God for us V. Origen supra Psalm 20. Si cultus tantum dicatur non soli Deo debetur sed religio c. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 1. De Praep. lib. 12. c. 7. hence we say to him let him remember all thy sacrifice c. Here we see Propitiation is the ground of Intercession As for Angels he granteth to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honour according to the dignity of their excellent nature so do we but reserveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all religious honour or worship to God only This is the very Doctrine of Protestants The due honour of Saints he explaineth thus We go to their Sepulchres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Prayers not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsis to them as Trapezuntius falsly if not perfidiously translated it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at them which is another thing But let us hear the testimony of Athanasius the truly Great who every where in his Orations against the Arians Orat. tertia in Arian proveth as the rest of the Fathers unanimously do Christ to be true God by this argument especially because he is prayed to V. Novatian de Trinit c. 14. Si homo tantummodo Christus cur in orationibus invocaeur c. Quomodo adest ubique invocatus cum haec hominis natura non sit sed Dei which were of no force if any Creature Saint or Angel might be in any sense invocated Particularly in his fourth Oration against the Arians from that Prayer of Saint Paul God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you He inferreth Christ to be consubstantial with the Father For no man is a true Catholick which appeareth hereby a Papist is not would pray to receive any thing of God and Angels or any Creature Neither saith he hath any Christian as yet then Invocation of Saints or Angels was unknown and unpractised amongst all true Christians used this form of Prayer or words God and an Angel we may add Saint grant it you Laus Dec Virginique Mariae in fine Tom 2. 3. Bellarm. See Dr. Brevint's Saul and Samuel at Endor Whether Papists use not such forms of words in their Prayers is too notorious to be proved to any who are acquainted with their Books of Devotion Then taking notice of one of their chief Arguments now pressed by our new Roman Catholicks for proof of their Invocation of Angels to wit the words of dying Jacob The Angel that delivered me out of all my distresses bless the Lads Athanasius as the other Fathers unanimously expounds them not of any created Angel but of the Son of God who is God and the Angel of the Covenant whom Jacob saw face to face at Peniel and termeth God. So Euseb Hist lib. 1. cap. 2. Ambrose in Psalm 43. Novatian de Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. Hi agnoscunt se esse creaturas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Orat. 3. in Arian He addeth David prayed to none for deliverance but to God To thee O Lord have I cryed c. and concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is evident the Patriarch Jacob joined none in his prayer to God but the Word whom he therefore calleth the Angel because he alone revealeth the Father Do not they then willingly abuse themselves and others who take Athanasius for a Roman Catholick or Invocation of Angels for an Article of the antient Catholick faith held by all sound Christians in all Ages or that the Angel appearing to the Old Patriarchs was a created Angel I will add his Contemporary Saint Hilary who altho he granteth which Protestants deny not that the Angels pray for the Church Militant here on Earth yet he no where alloweth Invocation of them but on Psalm 29 and 124. he adviseth all Christians to pray to God in regard he is Omnipresent in all places ready to help which is not true of Saints or Angels In like manner on Psalm 140. he saith In maledicto est religio creaturae Hil. de Trinit l. 8. p. 106. Magnificentiae Dei est orari It pertaineth to the magnificence or Prerogative of God to be prayed unto Hitherto the Coast is clear and we have the unanimous consent of the Fathers for about 340 years after Christ against Invocation of Saints Angels or any Creature Whence we undoubtedly conclude that it is tho a part of the present Roman yet not of the true antient and Catholick Faith believed semper ubique apud omnes always in all places by all sound Christians for such Doctrines as Vincentius Lyrinensis rightly notes are onely truly Catholick that is Universal as the name it self Catholick signifies To proceed Basil the Great Hom. 3. in Hexaemeron all Honour Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is due to God onely In Psalm 7. he saith Our hope is to be placed in God onely In Psal 18. That if any man worship the Creature beside tho with the Creator he giveth not glory to God but the Creature and in Psalm 45. Instead of Saints and Angels he telleth us that in all our necessities God is our onely Refuge In his Funeral Oration on Gordius he acquainteth us with the true ends of those commendatory or commemoratory Solemnities observed on the Natalitia or Festivals of the Martyrs to wit to glorifie God and to stir up the people to imitation of their Virtues but no mention find we there of praying to them I am not ignorant that out of Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen c. their Funeral Orations some Rhetorical Apostrophes to and Compellations of the Saints deceased are urged for Invocation of Saints by Bellarmine and others To which I answer First That in the most Primitive and antient Fathers we as we have seen find them not from the beginning it was not so Secondly That Rhetorical flourishes of Eloquence are no safe and sure grounds to build an Article of faith upon as Theodoret grants Non ego dogmatum regulam ea duco Dial. 3. quae in Ecclesia
in the body thinketh the more that the body so like its own body hath sense also The like we find in his 49th Epistle Who doubts that Idols want all sense yet when they are placed aloft in an honourable sublimity by the very likeness of living members although dead and without sense they affect our minds the veneration of a multitude being added thereunto which crazy and pestilent distempers the Scripture healeth saying They have eyes but see not Whether Images in Popish-Churches have not the very same influence and effect on ignorant and superstitious Women let impartial men and such as have travelled abroad amongst them determine The same Saint Austin quoteth and commendeth a saying of Varro De Civitat Dei Lib. 4. c. 9. 31. that they who brought in Images for the People both took away the Fear of a Deity render'd base and contemptible by representations of wood and stone and added Error i. e. false and unworthy apprehensions of God. To all this it will I suppose be answered First That the Fathers inveigh against making Images of God or false Gods not Saints I reply 1. Some of them expresly condemn all Images 2. Do not Roman Catholicks though some of their own Writers condemn it make Images or Pictures of God the Father in the likeness of an old Man and of the Holy Ghost of a Dove True say they but we do it not to represent the nature of God but certain properties and actions appertaining to God I do not wonder they say they do not what cannot be done to wit to represent by an Image the infinite invisible and incomprehensible nature of God But herein they say what even the Heathens said of their Idols For Hermes Trismegistus quoted by Cyril Xenophon by Minutius Foelix Olympius by Sozomen confessed Hist Lib. 7. c. 15. that it is impossible to signifie the incorporeal God by a Body and that the form of God cannot be seen that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelt in those corporeal Images but they were not the Powers themselves It 's granted Ne facias nisi tibi Deus jusserit Tertul. de Idololat c. God and the Holy Ghost did appear in such likenesses what 's that to us We have an express command not to make to our selves any likeness of any thing in Heaven c. Is not God the Father with the Holy Ghost in Heaven Secondly They answer V. Concil Constant 6. Can 82. apud Caranzam that they give religious worship to Images not for themselves propter se but for the sake of the Persons they represent The Heathens as we have seen above said the very same If Romish worship of Images be lawful it will be difficult to condemn or convince the Heathens of Idolatry The Jews did not worship the Calf for it self but as a Representative of God. Lastly They affirm that they yield to Images a mean low and inferiour worship not what belongs to God onely I answer that as we have shewn above they give to the Images of God and Crucifixes the same Divine worship they yield unto God and Christ themselves To say they give Images Latria and yet an inferiour kind of such religious worship is to contradict themselves for all Latria as such is summus cultus the highest worship a creature can give if they give them an inferiour religious honour it is not Latria Art. 6 Concerning the Popes Supremacy I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catholick Faith The Popes Supremacy over all Emperors Kings Bishops Councils Churches and Christians throughout the World. Concerning the Fathers before the Nicene Council called above 300 years after Christ we need not make any strict enquiry seeing Aeneas Sylvius who was Pope himself afterwards confesseth Epist 288. that before this Council aliquis sed non magnus some but no great respect was given to the Roman Bishops in Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Tatianus Athenagoras I find no mention of any Supremacy in the Bishop of Rome Come we then to the Antient Father Irenaeus He in his third Book Cap. 12. quoting the words of the Church of Jerusalem ☞ Acts 22 23 25. saith These are the words of that Church from which every Church had its beginning If every Church V. Epist Concilii Constant 1. c. 9. Epist ad Damasum then the Roman How can she then be Mater Magistra the Mother and Mistris of all Churches as is now pretended by our Romanists This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome for threatning or attempting at least to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia Lib. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 15. for not observing Easter on the same day he did as Eusebius relateth At the same time lived Polyerates the renowned Bishop of Ephesus with whom many Catholick Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatned Excommunication but resolutely persisted in the Tradition and Custom received from his Predecessors particularly John the Evangelist as we find in Eusebius lib. 5. Hist c. 23. Hence it is evident that Polycrates as also Irenaeus did not look upon the Bishop of Rome as Prince and Sovereign Head of the Church or more infallible than any other Bishop It 's true Irenaeus had a great reverence for the Roman Church and testifieth to her honour that in his days the Apostolick Doctrine or Tradition remained pure and incorrupt which he opposed to the Heretical Novelties of the Valentinians But this no way proveth that she had Supreme Jurisdiction over all Churches But in regard it would be long as he saith to reckon up all Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Ephesus c. Lib. 3. cap. 3. to whom he giveth the same testimony of purity of doctrine he instances in Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem in regard of its more powerful principality known to all But these words plainly enough relate not to the Roman Church immediately as a Christian Church but to the City of Rome which at that time was the Imperial City and Head of the World. Alas What powerful Principality could the poor persecuted Church of Rome enjoy then living under Heathen Emperours It is not therefore meant strictly and properly of an Ecclesiastical but Civil Power and Principality of the City of Rome V. Concil Chalcedon infra Epist ad Roman in which the Church of Rome sojourned as St. Ignatius writeth to them whereby through concourse of all Nations it was rendred more conspicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Sylvius before mentioned confirm the same In Clemens Alexandrinus I find nothing concerning this matter I will go on to Tertullian Run through saith he the Apostolical Churches If ye be near Achaia ye have Corinth if Macedonia Philippi and Thessalonica si Italiae adjaces habes Romam If ye live near Italy ye
have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8◠ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal
86. 97. in himself i. e. his own body and bloud really and yet in the Sacrament not onely every Easter but every day quotidie populis immolatur he is immolated or offer'd to the people He saith not to God but to the people For Sacraments if they had not some similitude similitudinem of those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not at all be Sacraments Hence the names of the things signified are communicated to them Here Saint Austin plainly affirmeth that Christs body and bloud are immolated or offer'd up in and by the sacramental Signs not really properly and substantially but per similitudinem by way of similitude or representation in regard the sacramental Symbols as he saith secundum quendam modum after some manner not proper but figurative Epist 23. are his body and bloud or as Saint Ambrose hath it in imagine in an Image or representation but there in He … at Gods right hand in veritate Lib. 1. de Offic. c. 48. in Psal 38. in truth where he pre … 〈◊〉 his very body and bloud by way of interpellation to the Eyes of his Father as our Advocate In another place As often as the Pascha the Christian Passover is offer'd In Psal 21. Compare in Psalm 75. Memoriâ quotidie nobis immolatur Cùm hostia frangitur sanguis in ora fidelium infunditur quid aliud quam Dominici corporis immolatio significatur Aug. de Cons dist 2. doth Christ so often die No yet anniversaria recordatio quasi repraesentat quod olim factum est The Anniversary recordation at Easter doth as it were represent what was done long since and so admonisheth us as if we saw Christ hanging on the Cross So much for sacrificing Christ in â—â—e Mass or Sacrament which the antient Fathers own not allowing only with Protestants an improper offering of him by way of Image representation similitude memorial and communication Art. 8 Concerning Communion in one kind I come to the last Article before-mentioned of the new Roman Creed Receiving the Communion in one kind in bread onely Evangelistae ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Jesum Apol. 2. prope finem Epist 54.56 63. lib. de Lapsis Cypr. de coena Domini Here it is needless to quote many Testimonies seeing our Adversaries themselves confess that herein they have departed from the practice of all the antient Fathers We have already seen in Justin Martyr that both Bread and Wine were administred to all that were present at the Sacrament yea he there informs us that the Deacon carried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated Bread and Wine to such as were sick and absent In Cyprian's days it 's undeniable that the Sacramental Cup was given to the people yea Infants Bibimus de sanguine Domini ipso jubente Christ commanding us we drink of his Bloud I might alledge Ignatius ad Philadelph Origen Hom. 16. in Num. Tertul. ad Uxorem lib. 2. Cyril Hierosol Catech. c. Ambrose lib. 1. de Offic. c. 41. de Sacrament l. 4. c. 4. Jerome in Sophon c. 3. 1 Cor. 11. Chrys Hom. 18. in 2. ad Corint Theodoret in 1 Cor. 11. Dionysius Carthusian in 1 Cor. 11. Austin in Levit. qu. Theophylact. 1 Cor. 11. Paschasius de Coena Dom. with many more but it 's needless as we shall shew by and by Lyra in Proverb 1.9 and Carthusianus grant it Assert 3 Several Articles of the Romish Faith are not 600 years old I come to my third Assertion That some of the Articles before-mentioned in Pope Pius's Creed and declared by him to be parts of the Primitive Catholick and Apostolick Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians to salvation cannot be proved to be such by the Testimonies of any eminent Writers for above one thousand years after Christ I instance First In the Article concerning their seven Sacraments It was first made an Article of Faith by the Council of Florence 1439. V. Cassand Consul Art. 13 Chemnit in Examen Perkins Demonstr Problem Licet Primitiva Ecclesia c. Concil Basil Licet ab Initio Christianae Religionis c. Trent Council Can. 1. Sess 5. No antient Writer for one thousand years after Christ ever taught that there were seven Sacraments nec plura nec pauciora neither more nor less and that extreme Unction Matrimony with the rest were they Peter Lombard who lived An. 1160. first taught this Doctrine which he could not prove although he endeavoureth it in other Points by the Testimonies of the antient Fathers But of this more below Secondly In the Article concerning Communion in one kind The Councils of Constance and Trent confess that the Primitive Church administred the Eucharist to the people in both kinds as Christ did yet non obstante as if this were little to be regarded they decree the Laity shall not receive both yea anathematize such as say it is necessary from the Institution practice and command of our Saviour Do this c. Drink ye all of this The same is acknowledged by Bellarmine Valentia Costerus and others of their most eminent Writers Consult Art. 13. Cassander confesseth that the Primitive Church at least in all her publick Administrations gave both Elements to the people for one thousand years after Christ Part 3. qu. 80. Art. 12. V. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. Alph. de Castro De Transubst rara apud antiquos mentio p. 572. c. 8. The present Roman Custom in Aquinas his days was but in quibusdam Ecclesiis in some Churches only Thirdly Transubstantiation as Scotus and Biel in Can. Sect. 4. acknowledge was first made an Article of Faith by Pope Innocent in the Lateran Council not much above four hundred years ago Fourthly Opuse de Imagin Worshipping of Images with Latria came in as Camarinus granteth one thousand years after Christ The second Nicene Council condemns it Fifthly V. Caranzam in Concil Nicaeno 2. Art. 2. Alph. de Castro lib. 8. p. 572. V. Concess fidei Cyrilli Patriarchae Constant Dr. Field against Higgons The belief of Purgatory and use of Indulgences were serò recepti in Ecclesia lately received by the Church as we have seen Roffensis and Alphonsus de Castro two zealous Papists affirming It 's notorious that Purgatory was first made an Article of Faith in the late Council of Florence about three hundred years ago which the Greek Church owneth not at this day nor ever did Who can now but wonder at the confidence of our Adversaries who boast of their Antient Catholick and Apostolick Religion accusing Protestants of Novelty and Heresie setting up a new Faith and Church because we protest against and reject these erroneous Novelties they would impose upon us and all Christians as Catholick Truths necessary to be believed to Salvation Assert 4 Several Articles of the Roman Faith condemned by eminent Writers before Luther and by some of their own Communion since But I