the Intention of the Ordainers And therefore Bellarmine is fain to take up with this that though we cannot be sure that he is a true Pope Bishop or Presbyter that is ordained yet we are bound to obey him But where then is the Certainty of succession 4. What succession of Episcopal Consecration was there in the Church of Alexandria when Hierom Epist ad Evagrium tells us that At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even till Heraclus and Dionysius their Bishops the Presbyters did alwayes name one man that Bishop whom they chose from among themselves and placed in a higher degree Even as if an Army make an Emperour or the Deacons choose one of themselves whom they know to be industrious and call him the chief Deacon Thus Hierom shews that Bishops were then made by meer Presbyters And in the same Epistle he proves from Scripture that Presbyters and Bishops were then all one And if so there were no Prelatical Ordinations then at all And your Medina accusing Hierom of error in this saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact were in the same heresie as Bellarmine himself reporteth him So that Presbyters now may either ordain or make themselves Bishops as those of Alexandria did to do it And as Hierom there saith All are the successors of the Apostles and our Bishops or Presbyters are such as much at least as yours yet Apostles as Apostles have no Successors at all as Bellarmine well teacheth lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 25. saying Bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles were not ordinary but extraordinary and as it were delegate Pastors who have no Successors Bishops have no part of the true Apostolick Authority Apostles could preach in the whole world and found Churches but so cannot Bishops The Apostles could write Canonical Books but so cannot Bishops Apostles had the gifts of tongues and miracles but so have not Bishops The Apostles had Jurisdiction over the whole Church but so have not Bishops And there is no Succession but to a Predecessor but Apostles and Bishops were in the Church both at once as appeareth by Timothy Titus Evodius and many more If therefore Bishops succeed Apostles to what Apostle did Titus succeed and whom did Timothy succeed To conclude Bishops succed Apostles but in the same manner as Presbyters succeed the seventy two Disciples But its manifest that Presbyters do not properly succeed the seventy two Disciples but only by similitude For those seventy two Disciples were not Presbyters nor did they receive any Order of Jurisdiction from Christ Philip Stephen and others that were of the seventy two had never been after Ordained Deacons if they had been Presbyters before Thus Bellarmine See now what 's become of the Popish Apostolical Successors among their Bishops And the scope of all this is to prove that all Bishops receive their Power from the Pope and so their succession is confined to him alone and therefore as oft as there have been interruptions in the Papal Succession so oft the Succession of all their Church was interrupted But if Bishops succeed not Apostles and have not any of the Apostolick Power who then doth the Bishop of Rome succeed Why Bellarmine hath a shift for this but how sorry an one it is you shall bear cap. 25. he saith that The Pope of Rome properly succeedeth Peter not as an Apostle but as an Ordinary Pastor of the whole Church Let us then have no more talk of the Apostolick seat or at least no more Arguing from that name You see then that Peter was not the Universal Vicar as an Apostle nor doth the Pope so succeed him And do you think this doth not give away the Vicarship Which way hereafter will they prove it But an Objection falls in Bellarmines way that If this be so then none of the Bishops of Africk Asia c. were true Bishops that were not made by the Pope To which he answers as well as he can that its enough that the Pope do Consecrate them Mediately by making Patriarchs and Arch-bishops to do it and so Peter did Constitute the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch who thus receiving authority from the Pope did Rule almost all Asia and Africk But 1. That almost marreth the whole Cause For where now is the universal Headship 2. Did Bellarmine think in good sadness that Alexandria and Antioch were made at first the seats of Patriarchs having as large Jurisdiction as afterward they attained 3. How will he prove that Peter made these two Patriarchates and that not as an Apostle but as an Ordinary Vicar General 4. Who made the Patriarchate of Constantinople and gave them that vast Jurisdiction Did Peter many hundred years after his death Or did the Pope of Rome that tooth and nail resisted and still sought to diminish his Power Or rather did not the General Councils do it by the Emperors Commands the Pope excepting and repining at it 5. Who made the Patriarch of Jerusalem and who made James Bishop of Jerusalem did Peter And who made Timothy and Titus Bishops did Peter or Paul And who gave Paul that Power not Peter certainly Reader do not these men jest with holy things Or is it like that they believe themselves 6. Bellarmine confesseth that the Potestas Ordinis interioris jurisdictionis are both as immediately from God to every Bishop as to the Pope cap. 22. And why then should it be denyed of the power of exterior Jurisdiction 1. Is one part of the Essence of the Office given by the Pope and the rest without him 2. And what if it be proved that exterior and interior Jurisdiction of a Pastor is all one Though the matter of obedience be exterior yet the Jurisdiction is exercised only on the soul directly in one case as well as another it being the mind on which the obiglation lyeth and the Pastoral Rule is powerful and effectual and further then you procure consent you are despised For it s the Magistrates work to use violence Bishops as Bishops can but perswade and deal by words with the inner man And thus you see what is become of the Papists Succession 5. Most of the Ministers in England till within these few years were ordained by Bishops If that were of Necessity they have it 6. He that is ordained according to the Apostles directions or prescript in Scripture hath the true Apostolical Ordination but so are we Ordained therefore The Apostles never Confined Ordination to Prelates much less to those Prelates that depend on the Pope of Rome The Bishops to whom the Apostles committed this Power are the same that are called Presbyters by them and they were the Overseers or Pastors but of one single Church and not of many Churches And such are those that Ordain among us now Gregor Nazianzen Orat. 18. saith thus I would there were no Presidency nor Prerogative of Place and Tyrannical Priviledges that so we might be known
as well able to prove that a London Convocation was a General Council Pighius pleading for the Pope saith plainly that General Councils were the devise of Constantine And the Popes themselves do fetch the most specious Evidences for their primacy from the Decrees or Edicts of Emperors Valentinian Gratian and others And what power had those Emperors at the other side of the world 3. And then before the Nicene Council what General Councils were there since the Apostle days None doubtless that the world now knows of It 's senseless enough to think that 350 Roman Bishops at the second Council of Nice or the 150 Bishops in the third Council at Constantinople or the 165 Bishops at the second Council at Constantinople or the 150 Bishops at the first there were the Universal Church of Christ But it will be more ridiculous to say that the new-found Concilium Sinuessanum imagined without proof to meet in a certain Cave for the deposition of an Idolatrous Pope were a General Council Where then was the Head the unity the form of the Church for 300 years Was it governed all that time think you by a General Council yea or ever one day since the Apostles Well but was there ever such a thing at all Indeed men have a fairer pretence when the Church was contained in a family or a City or a narrow space to call the meetings of the Apostles or other Christians then by the name of a General Council but they are hard put to it if this be all The great Instance insisted on is the Council Act. 15. But were the Bishops of all the Churches there or summoned to appear Act. 14. 23. they had ordained them Elders in every Church but few of them were there Timothy Titus abundance were absent It 's plain that it was to the Apostles and Church at Hierusalem as the Fountain and best informers that they sent Not because these were the Universal Church but because they were of greatest knowledge and authority If it could be proved that all the Apostles were there it would no more prove them a General Council then that the Deacons of one Church were ordained by a General Council Act. 6. And Matthias and Justus put to the Lot by a General Council Act. 1. and that Christ appeared to a General Council after his Resurrection and gave the Sacrament of his Supper to a General Council before his death So that it is most evident from the event that Christ never made a General Council the Head or Governor of his Church and that there never was such a thing the world much less continually Argum. 3. The form or unity no nor the well-being of the Catholick Church dependeth not on that which is either unnecessary unjust or naturally or morally impossible But a true General Council is none such It cannot be or if it were it would be unnecessary and unjust Therefore it is not the Head or Soveraign Governor of the Church on which its being unity or well being doth depend I have nothing here to prove but the Minor And 1. I shall prove the Impossibility 2. The non-necessity 3. The unjustice of a General Council and so that no such thing is to be expected A true General Council consisteth of all the Pastors or Bishops of the whole world or so many as Morally may be called All. A General Council of Delegates from all the Churches must consist of so many proportionably chosen as may signifie the sense and consent of all or else it is a meer name and shadow Both these are Morally if not Naturally Impossible as I prove 1. From the distance of their habitations some dwell in Mesopotamia some in Armenia some in Ethiopia some in Mexico the Philippines or other parts of the East and West-Indies some at St. Thome's some dispersed through most of the Turks Dominions Now how long must it be before all these have tidings of a Council and summons to appear or send their Delegates Who will be at the cost of sending messengers to all these Will the Pope Not if he be no richer then Peter was How many hundred thousand pound will it cost before that all can have a lawful summons And when that is done it will be long before they can all in their several Nations meet and agree upon their Delegates and their instructions And when that is done who shall bear their charges in the journey Alas the best of the Churches Pastors have had so little gold and silver that they are unable themselves to defray it A few Bishops out of each of these distant Countries will consume in their journey a great deal of money and provision To provide them shipping by Sea and Horses and all other necessaries by land for so many thousand miles will require no small allowance And then consider that it must be voluntary contribution that must maintain them And most love their money so well and know so little of the need of such journeys and Councils that doubtless they will not be very forward to so great a contribution And it is not to be expected that Infidel Princes will give way to the transporting of so much money from their countries on the Churches occasions which they hate But suppose them furnished with all necessaries and setting forward How long will they be in their journey Shipping cannot always be had Many of them must go by land It cannot be expected that some of them should come in less than three or four if not seven years time to the Council And will ever a General Council be held upon these terms 2. Moreover the persons for the most part are not able to perform such journeys Bishops are Elders Most of them are aged persons The wisest are they that are fit to be trusted in so great a business by all the rest And few attain that maturity but the aged Especially in the most of the Eastern Southern Churches that want the helps of Learning which we have And will the Churches be so barbarous as to turn out their aged faithful Pastors upon the jaws of death Some of them are not like to live out so long time as the journey if they were at home They must pass through raging and tempestuous Seas through Deserts and enemies and many thousand miles where they must daily conflict with distress It were a fond conceit to think that without unusual providences ten Bishops of a thousand â—â—ould come alive to the Council through all these labors and difficulties And moreover it 's known how few bodies will bear the Seas and so great change of air How many of our Souldiers in the Indies are dead for one that doth survive And can ancient Bishops spent with studies and labors endure all this Most studious painful Preachers here with us are very sickly and scarse able to endure the small incommodities of their habitations And could they endure this 3. Moreover abundance of the Pastors of
did Reject the chief of the Popish errors as we do Besides many particular points named in my Safe Religion they Rejected with us the Popes Catholick Monarchy the pretended Infallibility of the Pope or his Councils the new form of the Papall Catholick Church as Headed by him with other such points which are the very fundamentall controversies between us and the Papists So that besides that the Papists themselves profess our Religion the major part of the Catholick Church did profess it with the Rejection of the Papacy and Papall Church and so you may as easily see where our Religion was before Luther as where the Catholick Church or most of Christians were before Luther 3. And beside both these our Religion was professed with a yet greater Rejection of Romish corruptions by thousands and many thousands that lived in the Western Church it self and under the Popes nose and opposed him in many of his ill endeavours against the Church and truth together with them that gave him the hearing and were glad to be quiet and gave way to his tyranny but never consented to it Concerning these we have abundant evidence though abundance more we might have had if the power and subtilty of the Papall faction had not had the handling of them 1. We have abundance of Histories that tell us of the bloody wars and contentions that the Emperours both of East and West have had with the Pope to hinder his tyranny and that they were forced by his power to submit to him contrary to their former free professions 2. And we have abundance of Treatises then written against him both for the Emperours and Princes and against his doctrine and tyranny some store of them Goldastus hath gathered And intimations of more you have in their own expurgatory Indices 3. And we have the histories and professions of the Albigenses Waldenses Bohemians and others that were very numerous and if Raynerius say true they affirmed about the year one thousand one hundred that they had coutinued since the Apostles and no other Originall of them is proved 4. Particular evidence unanswerable is given in by Bishop Usher de Succes statu Eccl. and Answer to the Jesuites and the Ancient Religion of Ireland and in Dr. Field and Morneyes Mysterie of Iniquity and of the Church and Illyricus and many others 5. Even Generall Popish Councils have contended and born witness against the Popes superiority over a Councill 6. And in that and other points whole Countreyes of their own are not yet brought over to the Pope 7. They have still among themselves Dominicans Jansenists c. that are reproached by the Jesuites as siding with Calvin in many Controversies as Catharinus and many more in others Most points of ours which we oppose to Popery being maintained by some or other of them 8. But the fullest evidence is the certain history or knowledge of of the case of the common people and Clergy among them who are partly ignorant of the main matters in Controversies between us as we see by experience of multitudes for one to this day and are generally kept under the fear of fire and sword and torments so that the truth of the Case is this the Roman Bishops were aspiring by degrees to be Arch-bishops and so to be Patriarchs and so to have the first seat and vote and to be called the Chief Bishops or Patriarchs and at last they made another thing of their office and claimed about six hundred years or more after Christ to be universal Monarchs or Governours of all the Church But though this claim was soon laid it was comparatively but few even in the West that made it any Article of their faith but multitudes sided with the Princes that would have kept the Pope lower and the most of the People medled not with the matter but yielded to necessity and gave place to violence except such as the Albigenses Bohemians Wicklefists and the rest that more openly opposed So that no man could judge of the multitude clearly which side they were on being forced by fire and sword and having not the freedom to profess their minds So that in summ our Religion was at first with the Apostles and the Apostolick Church and for divers hundred years after it was with the universal Christian Church And since Romes usurpation it was even with the Romanists though abused and with the greater part of the Catholick Church that renounced Popery then and so do now and also with the opposers of the Pope in the West under his own nose You see now what Succession we plead and where our Church and Religion still was If any deny that we are of the same Church and Religion with the Greeks Abassines and most of the Christian world yea all that is truly Christian I easily prove it 1. They that are Christians joyned to Christ the Head are all of the same Church and Religion for none else are Christians or united to Christ but the Church which is his Body But the sincere Greeks Abassines c. and we are Christians united to Christ the Head therefore we are all of one and the same Church and Religion 2. They that believe the same holy Scripture and differ in no essential part of the Christian faith are of the same Church and Religion but so do both we and all true Christians therefore we are all of one Church and Religion 3. They that are truly regenerate and Justified hating all known sin longing to be perfect Loving God above all and seeking first his Kingdom and Righteousness and accounting all things but as dung in comparison of Christ these are all of the true Catholick Church and the true Christian Religion but such are all that are sincere both of the Greeks Abassines c. and the Reformed Churches as we prove 1. To others by our Profession and Practice by which only they are capable of judging of us 2. To ourselves infallibly against all the Enemies of our salvation in Hell or Earth by the knowledge and acquaintance with our own hearts and the experience of the work of God upon them All the Jesuites in the world cannot perswade me that I love not God and hate not sin and prefer not the Love of Christ before all the world when I feel and know that I do till they can prove that they know my heart better then I do 4. If Christ Consent to it and we Consent to it then we are all that are sincere in their profession of the true Catholick Church and Religion for if he consent and we consent who is there that is able to break the match But Christ consenteth and we consent as we prove by parts 1. His consent is expressed in his Gospel that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life and whoever will may drink of the water of life freely 2. And our consent we openly professed at Baptisme and have frequently renewed and our own
John Baptist that was dead not only before Rome had a Church but also before the time that Bellarmine and his Brethren pretend that Peter received his Commission to be the universall Head And did not this writer know that Protestants can give him the same names as for them and if printing them be proof their proof is as good If it be not what proof shall we have Our proof is the Holy Scriptures written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost in those times Thence we prove that the first Church held the same belief as we have yea though it be not incumbent on us we will thence prove that the Catholick Church was not then Papists Why else do we still appeal to Scriptures and they refuse to stand to the tryal of it any otherwise then as expounded by the Pope but that we are confident and they diffident of them We know the Apostles faith from the Apostles but the Papists will not know it but from the present Church of Rome They tell you the Apostles were for them but how know we that Why by the testimony of the next age and where is that testimony Why the third age received it and how is that proved Why because the fourth age was of their mind And how prove you that Why in the upshot because the present age is of their mind Why but most Christians of the present age are against them yea but they are none of the Church It is only the present Church of Rome Well! but the present Church of Rome represented in a General Council may err I but the Pope cannot in Cathedra and in approving a Councill So that the summ is this If the Pope himself may be judge the Apostles were Papists But if the Apostles may be heard themselves they were none I make no doubt though Bellarmine deny it but other Churches can prove as good a succession as the Romane as to Bishops And poor Bellarmine after all is fain to give up this Mark as insufficient to prove a true Church Lib. ◠de Eccles cap. 8. Dico secundò Argumentum à successione legittna adferri à nobis praecipuè ad probandum non esse Ecclesiam ibi non est haec successio quod quidem evidens est ex quo tamen n◠colligitur necessario ibi esse Ecclesiam ubi est successio By his own confession then succession will not prove the Romanists a true Church But as to a succession of Religion and a continuation of the Catholick Church for my part I am so far from declining it in argumentation that I here solemnly profess to all the Papists that shall read these words that AS SOON AS I SHALL SEE ANY CERTAIN PROOF BY CATALOGUE OR ANY OTHER WAY THAT THE CATHOLICK CHURCH HATH SUCCESSIVELY FROM AGE TO AGE BEEN PAPISTS I WILL TURN PAPIST WITHOUT DELAY AND I CHALLENGE THEM TO GIVE US SUCH PROOF IF THEY CAN. Nay if they will prove that in the first age alone or the second or third alone the Catholick Church were Papists I am am resolved to turn Papist Nay I am most confident they cannot prove that in any one age to this day the Catholick Church were Papists And as to H. Ts. Catalogue I return him further answer that no one named by him in the first age had any one of their errors And no one named by him to the year four hundred I may add to the year six hundred if his false catalogue be truly corrected was a Papist so well hath he proved the Popish Succession But for the plainer opening of this I shall add the discussion of another of their deceits CHAP. XXV Detect 16. ANother notable fraud of the Papists is to confound all their own errors and corruptions together and then to instance in some of those errors that are common to them with some others and to omit the Essentiall parts of Popery And so they would make the world believe that if they prove the Antiquity of any points in difference between them and us they do thereby prove the antiquity of Popery and so of the succession And so they would make our Religion also Essentially to consist in every inferiour difference between us Suffer them not therefore thus to juggle in the dark but distinguish between the Essentials of Popery or the main difference between them and us and the other errors which are not proper to them alone Thus Bellarmine opens his jugling lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 9. where he pleadeth Antiquity of Doctrine as a Note of the true Church And saith he Jam duobus modis c. Two wayes we may by this Mark prove our Church 1. By shewing the sentences of the Ancients by which we confirm all our tenets and refute our adversaries But this way saith he is most prolix and obnoxious to many calumnies and objections Mark Papists and take heed of appealing to Antiquity The other way saith he is shorter and surer by shewing first from the confession of the adversaries that our tenents are the doctrine of all the antients c. And indeed if the weakness or rashness of any Protestants be the Papists strength its time for us to be more prudent but if it be the Papists unhappiness that cannot understand the antients in the antients but only from the Pope or the Protestants the Fathers are faln into the hands of Babies as well as the Scriptures and the Protestants have too little wit if they will join with the Pope in an abusive interpreting the Fathers for the Papists And thus Bellarmine proceeds to cite Calvin and the Centurists as giving them the Fathers But wherein Forsooth in the point of Free-will Limbus Concupiscence Lent Lay baptism in necessity c. And therefore by our Confessions Antiquity is for the Papists And this is their shortest and surest way The more fools we then Is not here great diffidence in the Fathers when they have more confidence in our sayings then their writings But this jugling will not serve the turn Take up the Essentials of Popery and prove a Catholick succession of them and you shall win the day In Explication of my former professions I here again solemnly promise and protest that WHEN EVER I SEE A VALID PROOF OF A CATHOLICK SUCCESSION OF THESE FOLLOWING POINTS I WILL PRESENTLY TURN PAPIST OR OF ANY ONE OF THEM I WILL TAKE UP THAT ONE And I provoke the Papists that boast of Tradition Succession and Antiquity to do this if they are able 1. Let them prove a Catholick Succession or continuation of this point that The Pope of Rome is appointed by Christ to be the universall Monarch Soveraign Governour Head of the Catholick Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth and holding the place of God himself whom all must obey 2. And that the true and only Catholick Church is a Society thus headed and Governed by the Pope and that no man is a true member of the Catholick Church that is
And they extoll Cyril equally with Celestine Novo Paulo Celestine they forgot Peter Novo Paulo Cyrillo Unu◠Celestinus Unus Cyrillus c. The next witness brought is the Council of Calcedon as caling Leo Universal Archbishop and Patriarch of old Rome and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the names of Leo and Saint Peter Answ 1. This is but one of your common frauds It was not the Council that called him universall Archbishop but two Deacons in the superscription of their Libels viz. Thedodorus and Ischirion And were they the Catholick Church 2. By Universal Archbishop it s plain that they meant no more then the chief in dignity and order of all Archbishops and not the Governour of all 3. I have shewed you before that this very Council in its Canons not only give the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome but expresly say that Rome received this primacy of order à patribus from a Council because it was Sedes Imperii the seat of the Emperour I thought I had given you enough of this Council before Sure I am when Bellarmine comes to this Canon he hath nothing to say for his cause but plainly to charge this famous fourth General Council with lying or falshood and to say that the Pope approved not this Canon But approved or not approved if this was the Catholick Church representative sure I am that their testimony is valid to prove that there was then no Catholick reception of the Roman Monarchy as of God but contrarily a meer primacy of Dignity and Honour given it newly by men In the sixth age he had not one Council to pretend it seems for the Roman Soveraignty for he cites none but about other matters of which anon In the seventh age which he calls the sixth though then the Soveraignty was claimed by Boniface he citeth no Council for it niether In the eighth age from the year seven hundred he cites the second Council of Nice as approving an Epistle of Pope Adrian wherein he saith that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches Answ 1. But whether Adrian himself by the Head meant the chief in Dignity or the Governour of all is a great doubt 2. But whatever he meant the Synods approving his Epistle for Images is no proof that they approved every word in it 3. Yea Tharasius seems to imply the contrary calling him only Veteris Romae primas testatorum principum successor as if his Sea had the Priviledge only of being the Primate of Rome and not the Ruler of the world 4. But if this Council did as it did not openly own the Papal Soveraignty it had been no great honour to him For as in their decrees for Images they contradicted two Councils at Constantinople and that at Frankford contradicteth them so might they as well contradict the Church in this Even as they defined Angels to be corporeal which the Council of Laterane afterward contradicted But the plain truth is it was the scope of Adrians Epistle as for Images which they expressed themselves to approve And that their Image-worship it self hath no Catholick succession me thinks they should easily grant considering not only 1. That there is nothing in the first ages for them 2. And that Epiphanius and many before him speak expresly against it 3. But specially that there have been more General Councils of those ages against them then for them and that before this of Nice decreed for them the representative Catholick Church except still the Pope be the Catholick Church did condemn them I suppose by this time you will think it needless for me to follow H. T. any further in his Catalogue I am content that any impartial sober person judge whether here be a satisfactory proof of a Catholick succession of the Papal Soveraignty when through so many ages they bring not a word for any succession at all much less that it was owned by the Catholick Church and least of all that all the rest of Popery was so owned Object But at least some other points of Popery are proved by H. T. to have such a succession Answ Peruse his proofs and freely judge Two of the thirty two Articles which I mentioned before he speaks to The one is that Bishops Priests and Deacons should abstain from their Wives or be degraded But 1. The Council which he cites for this is but a Provincial Council in Spain in the fifth Age and what 's this to Catholick succession 2. The Evidences for the Antiquity of Priests marriages are so clear and numerous that I will not thank any of them to confess their doctrine a Novelty 1 Cor. 9. 5. Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as other Apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas I hope they will not deny that Peter had a Wife 1 Tim. 3. 2 4. A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one Wife One that ruleth well his own house having his children in subjection with all gravity ver 12. Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife ruling their children and their own houses well Tit. 1. 7. If any be blameless the husband of one Wife having faithfull children The Antient Canons called the Apostles say Can. 6. Let not a Bishop or Presbyter put away his own Wife on pretence of Religion And if he reject her let him be excommunicated but if he persevere let him be deposed Let Bellarmine perswade those that will believe him that this Canon speaks but of denying them maintenance Canons as well as Scripture are unintelligible to these men The Canons at Trull of the fifth and sixth Council do expresly expound this Apostolick Canon as I do here and they profess it was the Apostles concession then to the Bishops to marry and they themselves forbid any to separate Priests from their Wives and professedly oppose the Roman Church in it Can. 12 13. For this Bellarmine lib. 2. cap. 27. de Pontif. Rom. reproacheth them and that 's his answer Forsooth the Pope approved not these Canons 1. Let Adrians words be read and then judge 2. What if he did not Our enquiry is of Catholick Tradition and succession and not of the Popes opinion But it s easie to bring much more for this Another point that H. T. proves is The same Canon of Scripture which they own And for this he brings one Provincial Council Carth. 3. as in the sixth Age. An excellent proof of Catholick succession through all Ages But have we not better proof of the contrary Let him that would be satisfied peruse these records and judge Euseb Eccles Hist l. 3. cap. 9. vel 10. and there Joseph li. 1. cont Apion Constitut Apostol whosoever was the author lib. 2. cap. 57. Canon Apostult Dionys Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. Melet. in Euseb Eccl. Histor lib. 5. cap. 24. Origen in Niceph. hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 16. Orig. Philocal cap. 3. Euseb Hist l. 6. cap.
men know what Council of Carthage decreed that the Bishop primae sedis should be called neither Summus Sacerdos nor Princeps Sacerdotum vel aliquid hujusmodi tantum Episcopus primae sedis i. e. Not the chief Priest or the chief of Priests but the Bishop of the first seat And how long will they shut their eyes against the testimony of two of their own Popes Pelagius and Gregory the first that condemned the name of Universal Bishop Sometime they find the Church of Rome called Apostolick and so were others as well as that as is commonly known And sometime the Pope is called the Pillar of the Church And what of that so are many others as well as he as all the Apostles were as well as Peter The Church is built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets That the Pastors of the Church were ordinarily called the Pillars and props of it as by Nicephorus Gildas Theodoret Basil Tertullian Dionysius Hierom Augustine c. you may see proved in Gatakers Cinnus page 395 396. And lastly when the Papists read their Popes called the Successors of Peter they take this as a proof of their Soveraignty Whereas 1. Peter himself had no such Soveraignty 2. They succeed him not in his Apostleship 3. They are called Pauls Successors as well as Peters 4. Others are called Peters Successors too as well as they by the Fathers 5. And other Bishops ordinarily are called the Apostles Successors and other Churches called Apostolick Churches I shall only set before them the words of one man at this time Hesychii Hierosol apud Photium Cod. 269. and desire them to tell me whether ever more were said of the Pope yea or of Peter then he saith of Andrew calling him Chori Apostolici primogenitus primitus defixa Ecclesiae columna Petri Petrus fundamenti fundamentum principii principium vel primitiae qui vocavit antequam vocaretur adduxit priusquam adduceretur i. e. The first begotten of the Apostolick Chore the first fixed Pillar of the Church the Peter of Peter or the Rock of Peter the Foundation of the Foundation the Principal of the Principal who called before he was called and brought others to Christ before he was brought to him by any others And the same Hesychius saith of James apud Photium Cod. 275. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. With what Praises may I set forth the servant and Brother of Christ the chief Emperour or Commander or Captain of the New Hierusalem the Prince or chief of Priests the President or Principal of the Apostles the Crown or Leader among the Heads the principal Lamp among the Lights the principal planet among the Stars Peter speaketh to the people but James giveth the Law or sets down the Law Can they shew us now where more then this is said of Peter himself Much less of the Pope CHAP. XXVII Detect 18. ANother of the Principal Deceits of the Papists is the forging and corrupting of Councils and Fathers and the citation of such forgeries Be carefull therefore how you receive their Allegations till you have searched and know the Books to be genuine and the particular words to be there and uncorrupted They have by their greatness obtained the opportunity of possessing so many Libraries that they might the easilyer play this abominable game But God in mercy hath kept so many monuments of Antiquity out of their hands partly in the Eastern and partly in the Reformed Churches as suffice to discover abundance of their wicked forgeries and falsifications Of their forging Canons yea feigning Councils that never were as Concil Sinuessan Concil Rom. sub Silvestr See Bishop Ushers Answer to the Jes pag. 12 13. As also of their forging Constantines Donation and Isidore mercators forging of a fardell of Decretals and of their falsifying and corrupting in the Doctrine of the Sacrament the works of Ambrose of Chrysost or the Author operis Imperfecti of Fulbertus Bishop of Chartres of Rabanus of Mentz of Bertram or Ratrannus c. Read I pray you the words detecting their horrible impious cheats But their Indices expurgatorii will acquaint you with much more And yet their secreter expurgations are worst of all What words of Peters Primacy and others for their advantage they have added to Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae see in Jer. Stephens his Edition of it where much more additions to Cyprians works are detected out of many Oxford Manuscripts Andreas Schottus the Jesuite publishing Basils works at Antwerp Lat. A. D. 1616. with Jesuitical fidelity left out the Epistle in which is this passage following which should not be lost speaking of the Western Bishops he saith verily the manners of Proud men do use to grow more insolent if they be honoured And if God be merciful to us what other addition have we need of But if Gods anger on us remain what help can the pride of the West bring us when they neither know the Truth nor can endure to speak it but being prepossessed with false suspicions they do the same things now which they did in the case of Marcellus contentiously disputing against those that taught the truth but for Heresie confirming it by their authority Indeed I was willing not as representing the publike person of the East to write to their Leader Damasus but nothing about Church matters but that I might intimate that they neither knew the truth of the things that are done with us nor did admit the way by which they might learn them And in general that they should not insult over the calamitous and afflicted nor think that Pride did make for their dignity when that one sin alone is enough to make us hatefull to God so far Basil in that Epistle left out by the Jesuite in which you may see the Romane power in those daies in the consciences of Basil and such other Fathers in the East And by the way how Tertullian reverenced them you may see lib. de pudicit pag. 742. where he calls Zepherinus as we say all to naught And the Asian Bishops condemning of Victor with Irenaeus his reproof of him Cyprians and Firmilians condemning Stephen Marcellinus his condemnation by all Liberius his being so oft Anathematized by Hilary Pictav the resistance of Zosimus and Boniface by the Africans c. shew plainly in what esteem the now-infallible universal Head was then among the Fathers and in all the Churches But when the Papists come to the mention of such passages what juglings do they use sometime they silence them sometime they pass them over in a few words that are buried in a heap of other matters sometime they bring in some forgeries to obscure them But commonly they make a nose of wax of Councils and Fathers as well as of Scripture and put any ridiculous sence upon them that shall serve their turns though perhaps six men among them may have five or six Expositions An Epistle of Ciril of Jerusalem to Austin is forged by one
whether the tongues of these men be fit to call us Mercenaries or Hirelings or such as preach for filthy lucre Or whether ever greater impudence was manifested by the vilest Son of Adam then for such men that Lord it over Emperors Kings and Princes and devour the wealth of the Christian world to call poor Ministers of Christ Covetous or Hirelings that are content with food and rayment and a mean education of their children and that have done so much to take down the Lordliness and Riches of the Clergy Judge of this dealing and if you had rather have the Popish Priesthood with the numberless swarm of Fryars and several orders you may take them and say you had your choice CHAP. XXXIII Detect 24. ANother of their designs Conjunct with the last mentioned is to perswade the world that they only have a true Ministry or Priesthood and an Apostolical Episcopacy and true Ordination and that we and all other Churches have no true Ministers but meer Lay men under the name of Ministers because we have no just Ordination And how prove they all this Why they say that they have a Pope that is a true Successor of Saint Peter but we have no Succession from the Apostles and therefore no just Ordination because no man can give that Power which he hath not And we are Schismaticks separated from the Church and therefore our Ordinations are invalid And some of our Churches have no Bishops and therefore say they we have no true Ministry there nor are they true Churches These are their Reasons In answer to which I shall first refer the Reader to my Second sâ—eet for the Ministry in Justification of their Call Where these Reasons are confuted and our calling vindicated and I shall forbear here to repeat the same things again Also I refer you for a fuller Answer to the London Ministers Jus Divinum Ministerii and to Mr. Tho. Balls Book for the Ministry and Mr. Masons Book in vindication of the Ministry of those Reformed Churches that have not Prelates and to Voetius Desper Caus 2. Though we need not fetch our Ordination from Rome yet as to them we may truly say that if they have any true Ordination and Ministry then so have we For our first Reformers were Ordained by their Bishops which is enough to stop their mouths If they say that our Schism hath cut off our power of Ordination I answer ad hominem that though it is they that are indeed the Notorious Schismaticks yet if we were what they falsly say we are it would not null our Ordination Confirmation or such other acts And this is the Judgement of their own writers I shall at this time only cite the words of one of them and of many in that one and that is Thom. Ã Jesis de Conversione Gentium lib. 6. cap. 9. Where he affirms it to be one of the Certainties agreed on that Schismaticks lose not nor can lose any spiritual power consisting in the spiritual Caracter of Baptism or Confirmation of Orders For this is indelible as Dr. Thomas teacheth here Art 3. and Turrecremata confirmeth lib. 4. sum part 1. c. 7. and Silvester verb. Schismatici and it appeareth by Pope Urbans Can. Ordinationes 9. q. 1. Who judgeth those to be truly ordained that were ordained by Schismaticall Bishops And from Austin lib. 6. de Bapt. Cont. Donatist cap. 5. where he saith that A Separatist may deliver the Sacrament as well as have it He next addeth that yet such are deprived of the faculty of Lawfull using the Power which they have so that it will be their sin to use it though it be not a nullity if they do use it and that thus those are to be understood that speak against the Ordination Confirmation c. of Schismaticks viz. that it is unlawfull because their power is suspended by the Church but not a Nullity because they have the Power pag. 316. He puts the Question Whether Schismatical Presbyters and Bishops do want the Power of Order or only want Jurisdiction And he answereth out of D. Thom. 22. q. 39. art 3. that they want Jurisdiction and cannot Absolve Excommunicate or grant indulgences and so they cannot elect and give Benefices and make Laws But yet they have the holy Power of Orders and therefore a schismaticall Bishop doth truly make and consecrate the Eucharist truly Confirm truly Ordain and when he Electeth and promoteth any to Ecclesiastical Orders they truly receive the Character of Order but not the Use because they are suspended if knowingly they are ordained by a Schismatical Bishop He next asketh Whether this punishment depriving them of Jurisdiction take place with all Schismaticks And answers that some say that before the Council of Constance this punishment belonged to all notorious Schismaticks but not to the unknown ones but since that Councill it takes place only on those that are expresly and by name denounced or manifest strikers of the Clergy Others say otherwise But he himself answers that If a schismatick be toleraeted and by the common error of the people be taken for lawfull there 's no doubt but all his acts of Jurisdiction are valid which we shall affirm also of Hereticks But if a Presbyter or Bishop be a manifest Schismatick then some say that those acts that require Jurisdiction are invalid but others say that they are all valid in case the Schismatick be not by name excommunicated or a manifest striker of the Clergy Thus far Thom. Ã Jesu opening the judgement of the Papists Doctors themselves in the point And by the way our new superprelatical Brethren that degrade others that want their Ordination yea or commands and nullifie their Acts should learn not to go beyond the Papists themselves if they will go with them And observe that it is but their own Canons that is their own wills that the Papists here plead when the Council of Constance hath so altered the business 2. Though this that is said is enough as to the Papists yet I add for fuller satisfaction that their succession is interrupted and therefore they are most unfit to be our Judges in this They have had so long schisms in which no man knew who was the right Pope nor knoweth to this day and so long removes and vacancies and such interpositions of various wayes of choosing their Pope and interruptions by Hereticall Popes condemned by General Councils besides Murderers Adulterers Symonists and such as their own Writers as Genebrard expresly say Were not Apostolical but Apostatical yea Popes that by General Councils have been judged or charged with infidelity it self as I have formerly proved that there 's nothing more certain then that their succession hath been interrupted 3. They cannot be certain but its every age interrupted and that there 's no true Pope or Bishops among them because the intention of the Ordainer or Consecrator is with them of necessity to the thing and no man can be certain of
weighty a point without intolerable accusation of it The Soveraign Power or Headship of Pope or Council is not revealed in the Holy Scripture Therefore c. They have not yet produced a Text to prove either of them Those produced by the Italians for the Popes Headship are disclaimed by the French as meaning no such thing and our Writers have largely manifested their abusing of the Text. So have they done of those that are brought for the Headship of Councils These texts are spoke to so fully by Chamier Whitaker Amesius and abundance more that I think it in vain to do it here again That of 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth doth not speak a word of a General Council nor a word of Headship The whole Church united in Christ is the Pillar and Ground that is the certain Receptacle and retainer of the Truth the Law of Christ being written in their hearts None seems more to favour their concecit then Ephes 4. 15 16. which Grotius fastens on But even that is against them and not for them For 1. It is Christ and only Christ that is here said to be the head and all other parts contradistinguished and excluded from Headship and the Body is not said to be united in them 2. And it is by association and mutual communication of their several gifts that the parts are compacted together and edifie the whole and not by meeting in any one and deriving from it Object But were not the Apostles General Officers and so the Church united in General officers Answ This is little to the Question For 1. the Apostles had one among them to be the Soveraign or Head of the rest but were of equal power 2. Nor did a major part of their whole number make such a Head for the Church to unite in nor do we read that ever a Major vote carryed it among them against a Minor for they were all guided by the Spirit Yet its true that they met ofter together then a General Council can 2. The Apostles as extraordinarily qualified and as the Secretaries of the Spirit have no successors But the Apostles as ambulatory unfixed Ministers had even then many companions For Barnabas Luke Apollo and abundance more did then go up and down preaching as well as the Apostles yet had not any one of them a special charge of Governing all the Churches nor yet all of them united in a body For the Apostles called not the Evangelists and other fellow workers to consult in Councils about the Government of the whole But both they and their helpers did severally what they could to teach and settle the Churches 3. Who be they now that are the Apostles successors If all the Bishops in the world the case is as we left it If any small number of Primates or Patriarcks how shall we know which and how many If they be not twelve why should one Apostle have a successor and not others But there are no twelve only that lay claim to the succession And if you go further who can limit and say who and how many they be and how far the number may be increased or decreased and by whom In Cyprians dayes he and his fellows in the Council at Carthage declare that all Bishops were equal and none had power over other And so thought others in those times Nor was there then any number of Bishops that claimed to be the sole successors of the Apostles to rule all the rest And if they had when the Church increaseth the Rulers must increase But this is not to the main point Argum. 20. The Scripture doth appropriate the Universal Headship to Christ only and deny it to all others therefore neither Pope nor Council are the Universal Head Eph. 5. 23. It is the peculiar Title of Christ to be Head of the Church to whom it must be subject 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Apostle would have us know that the Head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the Head of Christ is God So that there is a particular Head over some parcell of the body below Christ but to be the Universal Head of every man is the proper Title of Christ In 1 Cor. 12. the unity of the body and diversity of the members is more largely expressed then any where else in Scripture and there when the said unity of the body had been so fully mentioned the Apostle comes to name the Head of that Unity Vers 27. which is only Christ Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular The Church is never called the body of the Pope or of a Council but the body of Christ yea as was even now said in the next words the Apostles Prophets and Teachers are enumerated to the particular members contradistinct from the Head so far are all or any one of them from being the head themselves And in Col. 2. 10 17 19. it is Christ only that is called the Head and the body is said to be of Christ and he only is mentioned as the Center of its Unity And not holding the Head from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God And Col. 1. 18. And he is the Head of the body the Church If any say that you cannot hence argue Negatively that therefore no one else is the Head I answer They may as well say when it is affirmed that the Lord he is God you cannot thence conclude that Baal is not God The Apostle plainly speaks this of Christ as his peculiar honour And he spoke to men that knew well enough that natural bodies have but one Head unless they be Monsters And he would not so oft insist on this Metaphor intending so great a disparity in the similitude and never discover any such intention So in Ephes 1. 22. He gave him to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him that filleth all in all And in Ephes 4. the Apostle purposely exhorteth us to the observation of this unity and purposely telleth us by a large enumeration wherein it doth consist but in all he never mentioneth the Pope or a Council yea he plainly excludeth them Vers 3 4. c. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace There is one body and one spirit even as you are called in one hope of your calling One Lord One Faith One Baptism One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all But unto every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the Edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the
such as comes not from a wilfull neglect of means there no ignorance of the articles of faith is damnable and so no article absolutely necessary so that the question indeed is not Whether men believe or not but Whether they are Unbelievers or Heathens or ignorant persons by a willfull neglect of sufficiently proposed Truth or not So that all that part of the Heathen or Infidell world O how great that have no such proposals of the Gospel may not only be saved but be better and safer then most Christians if not all who certainly are sinfully ignorant of some truth which they ought to know Obj. But say they it will not stand with faith to deny belief to God in any thing sufficiently revealed for he that believeth him in one thing believeth him in all Answ Very true if they know it to be the Word of God And if this be all the Protestants are ready to averre upon their most solemn Oaths that they believe every thing without exception which they know to be a Divine Revelation and no wonder for so doth every man that believes that there is a God and that he is no lyar If this will serve your turn you have no more to say against us your mouths are stopt But may it not stand with faith to be ignorant and that through sinfull neglect of some revealed truth of God or of the meaning of his word If you are so proud as to think that all the justified are perfect and have no sin yet at last consider whether a man that liveth in Heathenism til fourscore years of age and then turns Christian is not afterward ignorant through his former sinfull negligene But dare you say that you have no sinfull ignorance to bewail Will you confess none nor beg pardon or be beholden to Christ to pardon it That they make no point of faith necessary while they seem to make all necssary see but what I have after cited from Frans à S. Clara probl 15 16 17. and abundance more that are mentioned there by him 3. And that by this Protean jugling they make the Church invisible is apparent For what man breathing knoweth the secrets of the souls of others whether they have resisted or not resisted the light and whether they are ignorant of the articles of faith upon sinfull contempt or for want of some due means of faith or internal capacity or opportunity We are as sure that all men are ignorant of some thing that God hath revealed to be known in nature and Scripture as that they are men But now whether any one of these men be free from those aggravations of his ignorance and that in every point upon which the Papists make him an unbeliever is unknown to others When the Faith or Infidelity of men and so their being in the Church or out of it must not be known by the Matter of Faith which they profess but by the secret passages of their hearts their willingness or unwillingness resistance or not resistance and such like the Church then is invisible no man can say which is it nor who is of it He that professeth not the Faith may be a Catholick and he that professeth it for ought they know may be an Infidel as being sinfully yet ignorant of some one truth that is not in his express confession thus by confusion the bulders of Babel marre their work 4. And that the wisest of them say in the main as we say see here in some proofs Bellarm. de Verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. In the Christian Doctrine both of Faith and Manners some things are simply necessary to salvation to all as the Knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed of the ten Commandements and of some Sacraments The restore not so necessary that a man cannot be saved without the explicite Knowledge belief and profession of them These things that are simply necessary and are profitable to all the Apostles preached to all Allthings are Written by the Apostles which are Necessary to all and which they openly preacht to all see the place Costerus Echirid c. 1. p. 49. Non inficiamur praecipua illa fidei capita quae omnibus Christianis cognitu sunt ad salutem Necessaria perspicuè satis esse Apostolicis scriptis comprehensa That is We deny not that those Chief Heads of the Faith which are to all Christians necessary to be known to salvation are perspicuously enough comprehended in the Writings of the Apostles Judge by these two to spare the trouble of citing more whether they be not forced after all their Cavils to say as we in distinguishing of Articles of Faith And they cannot be ignorant that the Church hath still had Forms of Profession which were called her Symbols as being the Badge of her Members and did not suspend all upon uncertain conjectures about the frame and temper of the Professors minds But if indeed it be not the want of Necessary Articles of Faith that they accuse us of but the want of willingness or diligence to know the truth let them prove their accusations and let those persons that they prove guilty bear the blame Do they think we would not as willingly know the truth as they and that we do not pray as earnestly for Divine illumination Do we not read their Books I verily think incomparably more then they do ours and are we not willing to confer with the wisest of them that can inform us I have often privately and publickly desired you that if any of them can say more then all these Schoolmen Fryars and Jesuites say which I have read they would let me hear it that I may want no means they can afford me for my fuller information But yet they have not done with us When we prove a succession of our Religion by proving a succession of such as adhered to the Scriptures which are the Doctrine of our Religion an Argument that no Papist under heaven can confute they vainly tell us that All Hereticks pretend to Scripture and therefore that will not prove the point But 1. Doth it follow that Scripture is not a sufficient Rule of our Religion because Hereticks may pretend to it You take the 39 Articles for our Religion and yet may Hereticks that are far from our minds pretend to them It 's the liker to be the Rule because all Hereticks pretend it and would borrow credit from it to their Heresies The Law of the Land is the Rule of our Justice and yet Lawyers and their Clients that are contrary to each other do plead it for their contrary Causes The Creed it self is pretended by Arrians for their Heresie What must we have no Rule or Test or discovery of our Religion which a Heretick can pretend for his impiety What words of God or man are not capable of being misinterpreted If we should give you every day a confession of Faith some Hereticks might pretend to hold the same No wonder then if they
do so by the Scriptures 2. And can any Learned Papists be so ignorant as not to know that the Arrians pretended the Authority of General Councils and so do many other Hereticks and that the Authority of Pope and Councils are frequently pretended for contrary opinions among them and may be pretended by many an Heretick And will they therefore grant that the Decrees of Popes and Councils are no sufficient discovery of their Faith If Hereticks pretending to your Test of Faith disprove not that to be your Faith then Hereticks pretending to our Rule and Test of Faith which is the Holy Scripture is no proof that it is not our Rule of Faith I do therefore conclude that the Proof of a Succession of such Churches as have received the Holy Scriptures is a valid proof of a succession of Churches of our Religion seeing we have no Religion doctrinally but the Holy Scriptures And this as far as modesty will permit I challenge all the Jesuites on Earth to confute with any solid Reasons yet adding that we do ex superabundanti prove a succession also of Churches that never owned Popery even the greatest part of the Christian world But let these men themselves but prove to us a succession of their Church even such as they require of us Let them prove that from the Apostles days the Catholick Church or any one Congregation of twenty men did hold all that now their Councils and Popes have Decreed and are esteemed Articles of their Faith and I am contented to be their bondslave for ever or to bear a fagot or be used by them as cruelly as their malice can invent or flames or their strappado's execute Let my Head be at their Mercy if they can but prove that Succession of Popery as they require us to do of Protestancy or as I have produced of our Churches and Religion In the 15th and 16th Detection I have more largely spoken to them of this point to which I refer the Reader In the very principal point of their Papal Soveraignty they have nothing but this gross deceit to cheat the world with The Roman Emperors divers ages after Christ did give the Bishop of Rome a Primacy in their Empire and hence these men would perswade us that even from Christ they have had a Soveraignty over all the Christian world Wink but at these small mistakes and they have won the Cause 1. Suppose but Christs Institution to stand in stead of the Emperors 2. Suppose divers hundred years after Christ to have been in the Apostles days 3. Suppose Primacy to be Soveraignty or Universal Government 4. But especially grant them that the Roman Empire was all the Christian world and then they have made good that part of their Cause That there were many Nations without the reach of the Roman Empire that had received the Christian Faith is past doubt Socrates lib. 1. c. 15. saith that Thomas chose Parthia Bartholomew chose India Matthew Ethiopia to plant the Gospel in but the middle India was not converted till Constantines days by Frumentius and Edesius and Iberia by a Maid So Euseb l. 3. c. 3. tells us of Thomas his Preaching to the Parthians and Andrew to the Scythians Et in vit Const l. 4. c. 8. that there were many Churches in Persia cap. 91. how Constantine wrote for them to the King Godignus and others of them maintain that the Abassines did receive the Gospel from the beginning Besides Scotland and many other Countries that were not under the Roman Power And none of these were Governed by the Pope These three Arguments against the Papal Cause I shall here premise to more that follow 1. If all that part of the Christian world that was out of the reach of the Roman Empire did never submit to the Soveraignty of the Pope then hath he not been successively or at any time the actual Head of the Universal Church But the Antecedent is most certain therefore so is the Consequent How an old woman the Emperors Mother of Habassia did baffle their Jesuites by asking them How it came to pass if obedience to the Pope be necessary to salvation that they never had heard from him till now I have told you after from themselves If Primacy were Soveraignty and Emperors and Councils were Gods yet the Indians Abassines Persians and many more in the East and the Scots and Irish and Danes and Sweeds and Poles and Muscovites and most of Germany in the West and North should be no subjects of the Pope 2. If the Rule and Test of the Faith of Papists never had a Real Being or no succession from the Apostles then their Faith and Church hath either no Real Being or no such Succession But the Antecedent is true as I prove It is either General Councils or Popes or the Church Essential as they use to call it that is the Whole Body that is the Rule of their Faith If it be General Councils 1. They had no being from the Apostles till the Council of Nice therefore the Rule of the Papists Faith was then unborn 2. Yea they never had a being in the world There was never any thing like a General Council since the days of the Apostles to this day The first at Nice had none save one John of Persia who its like was some persecuted Bishop that was fled or if one or two more its not material but the Bishops of the Empire and out of the Western parts so few as was next to none The following Councils as Constantinop 1. c. were only out of one piece of the Empire The Council of Trent I disdain to reckon among the modester pretenders to an Universality 2. And if it be not General Councils but the Pope that is the Rule of their Faith then 1. Their Faith hath been interrupted yea and turned to Heresie and to Infidelity when the Pope hath so turned 2. And why then do they tell our people that they take not the Pope for the Rule of their Faith 3. If it be the Major part of the Universal Church 1. It 's known that two to one are against them or at least the Greater part therefore by that Rule their Faith in the Papal Soveraignty is false 2. And yet it would be hard if a man must be of no Belief till he have brought the world to the pole for it Argum. 3. If all the stir that the Papists make in the world for the Papal Government be but to rob Christian Princes and Magistrates of their Power then are they but a seditious Sect But the Antecedent is apparent For there are but two sorts of Government in the Church The one is by the Word applyed unto the Conscience which worketh only on the willing either by General exhortations as in Preaching or by personal application as in Sacraments Excommunication and Absolution And this is the work of the present Pastors and cannot be performed by the Pope Nor would he be
end the. p. 288. l. 24. for left r. lest p. 297. l. 17. for them r. the. p. 314. r. Paulus 5. p. 356. l. 31. r. hatchets p. 362. l. 28. r. at last p. 365. l. 8. for may r. many l. 33. r. Maldonate p. 397. l. 30. r. the other of l. 32. for parties r. straw p. 409. l. 32. r. in the. l. 36. blot out none p. 422. l. 13. r. presided p. 426. l. 17. blot out of p. 432. l. 33. for had r. had not p. 434. l. 4. for to r. as p. 435. l. 1. r. members p. 433. l. 29. blot out a. p. 452. l. 20. r. But when the. A Key for Catholicks To open the juglings of the Jesuits and satisfie all that are but truly willing to understand whether the cause of the Romane or the Reformed Churches be of God and to leave the Reader utterly unexcusable if after this he will be a Papist CHAP. I. THE thoughts of the divided state of Christians have brought one of the greatest and constantest sadness to my Soul that ever it was acquainted with especially to remember that while we are quarrelling and plotting and writing and fighting against each other so many parts of the world about five of six remain in the Infidelity of Heathenism Judaism or Mahometanism where millions of poor souls do need our help and if all our strength were joyned together for their Illumination and Salvation it would be too little Oh horrible shame to the face of Christendom that the Nations are quietly serving the Devil and the Turk is in possession of so many Countries that once were the Inheritance of Christ and that his Iron yoak is still upon the necks of the persecuted Greeks and that he stands up at our doors in so formidable a posture still ready to devour the rest of the Christian world and yet that instead of combining to resist him and vindicate the cause and people of the Lord we are greedily sucking the blood of one another and tearing in pieces the body of Christ with furious hands and destroying our selves to save the enemy a labour and spending that wit that treasure that labour and that blood to dash our selves in pieces on one another which might be nobly and honestly and happily spent in the cause of God These thoughts provoked me to many an hours consideration How the wounds of the Church might be yet healed And have made it long a principal part of my daily Prayers that the Reconciling Light might shine from Heaven that might in some good measure take up our differences and that God would at last give healing Principles and dispositions unto men especially to Princes and the Pastors of the Church But the more I studied how it might be done the more difficult if not impossible it appear'd and all because of the Romane Tyranny the Vice-Christ or pretended Head of the Church being with them become an essential part of it and the Subjection to him essential to our Christianity it self So that saith Bellarmine de Eccles l. 3. c. 5. No man though he would can be a Subject of Christ that is not subject to the Pope and this with abundance of intolerable corruptions they have fixed by the fancy of their own Infallibility and built upon this foundation a worldly Kingdom and the temporal Riches and Dignity of a numerous Clergy twisting some Princes also into the Interest so that they cannot possibly yield to us in the very principal points of difference unless they will deny the very Essence of their New Christianity and Church and pluck up the foundations which they have so industriously laid and leave men to a suspicion that they are fallible hereafter if they shall confess themselves mistaken in any thing now and unless they will be so admirably self-denying as to let go the temporal advantages which so many thousands of them are interested in And whether so much light may be hoped for in so dark a generation or so much love to God and self-denyal in millions of men so void of self-denyal is easie to conjecture And we cannot in these greatest matters come over to them unless we will flatly betray our Souls and depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church and from the Center of that Unity to unite with another called the Romane Catholick Church in another Center And if we should thus cast away the Truth and Favour of God and sin against our Knowledge and Conscience and so prove men of no Faith or Religion under pretence of desiring a Unity in Faith and Religion yet all would not do the thing intended but we should certainly miss of these very ends which we seek when we had sold the Truth and our Souls to obtain them For there is nothing more certain then that the Christian World will never unite in the Romane Vice-Christ nor agree with them in their Corruptions against plain Scripture Tradition Consent of the ancient Church against the Reason and common sense of Mankind This is not by any wise man to be expected Never did the universal Church or one half of it center to this day in the Romane Soveraignty And why should they hope for that which never yet was done When they had their Primacy of Place to be the Bishop of the first Seat and first of the Patriarcks it made the Pope no more a Soveraign and a Vice-Christ then the King of France is Soveraign to the Duke of Saxony or Bavaria or then the Senior Justice on the Bench is the Soveraign of the rest and yet even this much he never had but from the Romane Empire What claim did he ever lay in his first Usurpations to any Church without those bounds It was the Empire that raised him and the Empire limited his own Usurpations Saith their own Reinerius or whoever else Cont. Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. To. 4. pag 773. The Churches of the Armenians and Aethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Yea in Gregories days they found the Churches of Brittain and Ireland both strangers and adversaries to their Soveraignty insomuch as they could not procure them to receive their Government nor change so much as the time of Easter for them no nor to have Communion with them at last Anno 614. Laurentius their Arch-Bishop here wrote this Letter with Mellitus and Justus to the Bishops and Abbots in all Scotland that is Ireland While the Sea Apostolick after its manner directed us to preach to the Pagan Nations in these Western parts as in the whole world and we happened to enter this Island called Brittain before we knew them believing that they walked after the manner of the universal Church we reverenced both the Brittains and the Scots in great Reverence of their Sanctity But when we knew the Brittains we thought the Scots were better But we have learnt by Daganus the Bishop in this forementioned Island and by
Columbanus the Abbot coming into France that the Scots do nothing differ from the Brittains in their Conversation For Bishop Daganus coming to us refused not only to eat with us but even to eat in the same House where we did eat Usher Epist Hibern 7. p. 18. Our most peaceable Bishop Hall was forct to write a Roma irreconciliabilis While we are thinking of Reconciliation they are about our ears with Plots and violence and with swarms of Rome-bred Sects and are day and night industriously undermining us so that by their continual Alarms I am called off to these defensive wars which here I have undertaken yet still resolving that the Desperateness of the Cure shall not make me run from them into a contrary extream nor be out of the way of Peace nor neglect any necessary means how hopeless soever of success The Work that here I have undertaken is 1. To give you briefly those Grounds on which you must go if you will keep your ground against a Papist 2. To give a few invincible Arguments which the weakest may be able to use to overthrow the principal grounds of the Papists 3. To detect their Frauds and give to the younger sort of Ministers sufficient Directions for the Confutation of all the Papists in the world 4. To propound though in vain such terms of Peace as we can yield to CHAP. II. BEfore I mention the Grounds or Cause that you must maintain I must premise this Advice to the Common People 1. Wrong not the Truth and your selves by an unequal conflict Enter not rashly upon Disputes with those that are Learned and of nimble tongues if you be ignorant or of weak capacities your selves Though I shall here shew you that Scripture Church Tradition Reason and Sense are on your side yet experience tels us how the words of Juglers have made millions of men deny belief to their eyes their taste and other senses An ignorant man is soon silenced by a subtile wit and many think that when they cannot answer they must yield though they deny both Sense and Reason by it If any of them secretly entice you desire them to debate the case with some able learned experienced Minister in your hearing It is the office of your Pastors to defend you from the wolves If you once despise them or straggle from them and the Flocks and trust to your own Reason that is unfurnished and unprepared for such work you may take that you get by it if you be undone You need the help of Pastors for your souls as well as of Physicians for your Bodies and Lawyers for your Estates or else God would never have set them over you in his Church Let them but come on equal terms and you shall see what Truth can do In this way we will not avoid a Conference with any of them But alas with ignorant unlearned people what may not such Deceivers do that can perswade so many thousand souls to give no Credit to their own eyes or taste or feeling but to believe a Priest that Bread is not Bread and Wine is not Wine 2. Yet I would have the weakest to endeavour to understand the reasons of their Profession and to be able to repell Deceivers And to that end I shall here give you first some Directions concerning the cause which you must defend And concerning this Observe these things following 1. Understand what the Religion is that you must hold and maintain It is the antient Christian Religion Do not put every Truth among the Essentials of your Religion Our Religion doth not stand or fall with every Controversie that is raised about it That which was the true Religion in the Apostles days is ours now that which all were baptized into the Profession of and the Churches openly held forth as their Belief Reformation brings us not a new Religion but cleanseth the old from the dross of Popery which by innovation they had brought in A man that cannot confute a Papist may yet be a Christian and so hold fast the true Religion It followeth not that our Religion is questionable or unsafe if some point in Controversie between them and us be questionable or hard The Papists would fain bring you to believe that our Religion must lie upon some of these Controversies but it s no such matter Perhaps you will say That then it is not about Religion that we differ from them I answer yes it is about the Essentials of their Religion but it is but for the preserving the Integrity of ours against the Consequences and additions of theirs They have made them a New Religion which we call Popery and joined this to the Old Religion which we call Christianity Now we stick to the old Religion alone and therefore there is more essential to their Religion then is to ours so that our own Religion even the ancient Christianity is out of Controversie between us The Papists do confess that the Creed the Lords Prayer the ten Commandments are true yea that all the Scripture is the word of God and certainly true so that our Religion is granted us as past dispute And therefore it is only the Papists Religion that is in question between us and not ours If you will make those lower Truths to be of the Essence of your Religion which are not you will give the Papists the advantage which they desire 2. If the Papists call for a Rule or Test of your Religion and ask you where they may find it assign them to the Holy Scriptures and not to any Confessions of Churches further then as they agree with that We know of no Divine Rules and Laws of Faith and Life but the holy Scripture and the hearts of Believers have an imperfect Transcript of them The Confessions of Churches are but part of the Holy Scripture or Collections out of them containing the points of greatest weight And if in phrase or order much more in matter there be any thing humane we make it not our Rule nor are we bound to make it good no more then the Writings of godly men A point is not therefore with us an Article of Faith because our Churches or a Synod put it into a Confession but because it is in the Word of God For a Councils determinations do with us differ but gradually from the Judgement of a single man in this respect And therefore we give them the Scripture only as the full Doctrine of our Faith and the perfect Law of God And those points in it which Life or Death is laid upon and God hath told us we cannot be saved without we take as the Essentials of our Religion and the rest as the Integrals only If they ask Why then we do draw up Confessions of Faith I answer 1. To teach and help the people by gathering to their hands the most necessary points and giving them sometimes an explication of them 2. To let our Accusers see that we misunderstand not the
many others so like to the Arguments and Language of the Seekers and Infidels that we can scarcely know whom we hear when they speak to us For the discovery of their desperate fraud in this point and the right confuting of them 1. You must distinguish them out of their confusion 2. You must grant them all that is true and just which we shall as stiffly defend as they 3. You must reject their errors and confute them And 4. You may turn their own principall weapon against them to the certain destruction of their cause Of all these briefly in course 1. For the first two I have spoke at large in the Preface to the second part of the Saints Rest and in the determination in the first part of my Book against Infidelity But briefly to touch some of the most necessary things here 1. We must distinguish the Tradition of the Scriptures or the Scripture doctrine from the Tradition of other doctrines pretended to be the rest of the word of God 2. We must distinguish between a certain proved Tradition and that which is unproved and uncertain if not grosly feigned 3. We must distinguish between the Tradition of the whole Catholick Church or the greater part and the Tradition of the lesser more corrupted selfish part even the Roman part 4. We must distinguish between a Tradition of necessary doctrine or practice and the Tradition of mutable Orders 5. And we must distinguish between Tradition by way of Testimony or History or by way of Teaching Ministry and Tradition by way of Decisive Judgement as to the Universal Church suffer them not to jumble all these together if you would not be cheated in the dark 2. And then concerning Tradition we grant all these following Propositions so that it is not all Tradition that we deny 1. We grant that the Holy Scriptures come down to us by the certain Tradition of our fathers and Teachers and that what the seeing and hearing of the Apostles was to them that lived with them that Tradition and belief of certain Tradition is to us by reason of our distance from the time and place So that though the Scripture bear its own evidence of a Divine author in the Image and superscription of God upon it yet we are beholden to Tradition for the Books themselves and for much of our knowledge that these are the true writings of the Apostles and Prophets and all and not depraved c. 2. We thankfully acknowledge that the Essentials of the faith and more hath been delivered even from the Apostles in other wayes or forms besides the Scriptures as 1. In the Professions of the Churches faith 2. In the baptismal Covenant and signs and whole administration 3. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 4. In Catechisms or Catechizings 5. In the prayers and praises of the Church 6. In the hearts of all true believers where God hath written all the Essentials of the Christian saith and Law So that we will not do as the Papists perversly do when God delivereth us the Christian Religion with two hands Scripture compleatly and Verbal Tradition in the essentials they quarrell with the one hand Scripture on pretence of defending the other so will not we quarrell with Tradition the other hand but thankfully confess a Tradition of the same Christianity by unwritten means which is delivered more fully in the Scripture and this Tradition is in some respect subordinate to Scripture and in some respect co-ordinate as the spirits left hand as it were to hold us out the truth 3. We confess that the Apostles delivered the Gospel by voice as well as by writing and that before they wrote it to the Churches 4. By this preaching we confess there were Christians made that had the doctrine of Christ in their hearts and Churches gathered that had his ordinances among them before the Gospel was written 5. And we confess that the Converted were bound to teach what they had received to their children servants and others 6. And that there was a setled Ministry in many Churches ordained to preach the Gospel as they had received it from the Apostles before it was written 7. And that the said ordinances of Baptism Catechizing Professions Eucharist Prayer Praise c. were instituted and in use before the Gospell was written for the Churches 8. And that when the Gospel was written as Tradition bringeth it to us so Ministers are commissioned to deliver both the Books and the doctrine of this Book as the Teachers of the Church and to preach it to those without for their conversion 9. And that Parents and Masters are bound to teach this doctrine to their children and servants yea if a Minister or other person were cast into the Indies or America without a Bible he must teach the doctrine though he remembred not the words 10. We grant that to the great benefit of the Church the writers of all ages have in subserviency to Scripture delivered down the Sacred Verities and Historians the matters of fact 11. And that the unanimous Consent of all the Churches manifested in their constant professions and practices is a great confirmation to us 12. And so is the suffering of the Martyrs for the same truth 13. And the Declarations of such consent by Councils is also a confirming Tradition 14. And the Confessions of Hereticks Jews and other Infidels are Providentiall and Historical Traditions for confirmation 15. And we profess that if we had any Certain proof of a Tradition from the Apostles of any thing more then is written in Scripture we would receive it All this we grant them for Tradition 3. But in these points following we oppose them 1. We take the holy Scriptures as the Compleat universal Rule or Law of faith and Holy living and we know of no Tradition that containeth another word of God Nay we know there is none such because the Scripture is true which asserteth its own sufficiency Scripture and unwritten Tradition are but two wayes of acquainting the world with the same Christian doctrine and not with divers parts of that Doctrine so as that Tradition should add to Scripture yea contrarily it is but the substance of greatest verities that are conveyed by unwritten Tradition but that and much more is contained in the Scripture where the Christian doctrine is compleat 2. The manner of delivery in a form of words which no man may alter and in so much fullness and perspicuity is much to be preferred before the meer verbal delivery of the same doctrine For 1. The Memory of man is not so strong as to retain as much as the Bible doth contain and preserve it safe from alterations or Corruptions Or if one man were of so strong a memory no man can imagine that all or most should be so Or if one Generation had such wonderfull memories we cannot imagine that all their posterity should have the like If there were no statute Books Records or Law-books in
England our Laws would be but sorrily kept and obeyed and executed 2. If all the world had such miraculous memories yet men are apt to be negligent either in learning or keeeping of holy doctrine All have not that zeal that should excite them to such wonderfull diligence without which such a treasure could not be preserved 3. When matter and so much matter is commited to bare memory without a form of unalterable words new words may make an alteration before men are aware The change of one word sometimes doth make a whole discourse seem to have another sense 4. There are so many carnal men in the world that love not the strictness of that doctrine which they do profess and so many hereticks that would pervert the Holy Doctrine that it would purposely be altered by them if it could be done and it might much more easily be done if it lay all upon mens memories For one party would set their memory against the others and as it was about Easter a publick matter of fect tradition would be set against tradition especially when the far greater part of the Church turn Hereticks as in the Arrians dayes then Tradition would be most at their keeping and interpretation and if we had not then had the unalterable Scriptures what might they not have done 5. A whole Body of Doctrine kept only in Memory will be soon disjoynted and dislocate and if the matter were kept safe yet the method and manner would be lost 6. And there could not be such satisfactory Evidence given to another of the Integrity or Certainty of it as when it is preserved in writing We should all be diffident that the Laws of England were corrupted or that Lawyers might combine to do it at their pleasure if there were no Law Books or Records but all lay in their memories If they were never so faithfull yet they could not give us such evidence of it I do not think any man of common reason can heartily believe that all the holy Truths of God Historical Doctrinal Practical Prophetical c. could without a course of miracles or extraordinary means have been kept through all ages as well without writing as with it 7. And if writing be not necessary why have we so many Fathers Histories and Canons And why do they fetch their Tradition from these and ridiculously call them unwritten verities Are they unwritten when they turn us to so many volumes for them And if mans writing be necessary for their preservation me thinks men should thankfully acknowledge that God hath taken the best way in giving it us in his own unalterable phrase 3. If they do prove that some matters of fact are made known to us by Tradition that are not in the Scripture or that any Church Orders or Circumstances of worship then used are so made known to us which yet we wait for the proof of it will not follow that any of these are therefore Divine Institutions or universal Lawes for the unchangable obligation of the whole Church If there be some things Historically related in the Scripture that were obligatory but for a season and ordained occasionally and ceased when the occasion ceased as the Love-feasts the Kiss of Love the washing of feet the abstaining from things strangled and blood the anointing the sick the Prophesyings one by one mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 31. miraculous gifts and their exercise c. then it will not follow if they could prove that the Apostles fasted in the Lent or used the sign of the Cross in Baptisme or holy Ordinances or confirmed with a Cross in Chrysme c. that therefore they intended these as universal Laws to the Church though I suppose they will never prove that they used the things themselves 4. We will never take the Popes Decision or bare word for a Proof of Tradition nor will we receive it from pretended Authority but from rational Evidence It is not their saying we are the authorized keepers of Tradition that shall go with us for proof 5. And therefore it is not the Testimony of the Papists alone who are not only a lesser part of the Church but a part that hath espoused a corrupt interest against the rest that we shall take for certain proof of a Tradition but we will prefer the Testimonie of the whole Catholick Church before the Romish Church alone 6. They that can produce the best Records of Antiquity or rational proof of the Antiquity of the thing they plead for though they be but a few Learned Antiquaries may yet be of more regard in the matter of Tradition then millions of the vulgar or unlearned men so that with us universal Tradition is preferred before the Tradition of the Romish sect and Rational proof of Antiquity is preferred before ignorant surmises But where both these concur both universal consent and records or other credible evidence of Antiquity it is most valid And as for the Romish Traditions which they take for the other part of Gods word 1. In all Reason they must produce their sufficient proof that they came from the Apostles before we can receive them as Apostolick Traditions And when they have done that they must prove that it was delivered by the Apostles as a perpetual universal doctrine or Law for the whole Church and when they have well proved both these we shall hearken further to them 2. Either these Traditions have Evidence to prove them Apostolical or no Evidence If none how can the Pope know them If they have Evidence why may not we know it as well as the Pope at least by the helps that his charity doth vouchsafe the world 3. If there be any Proof of these Traditions it is either some Antient Records or Monuments and then our Learned Antiquaries may better know them then a multitude of the unlearned Or it is the Practice of the Church And then 1. How shall we know how long that practice hath continued without recourse to the writings of the ancients The reports of the people is in many cases very uncertain 2. But if it may be known without the search of Antient Records then we may know it as well as they 4. If the Pope and Clergy have been the keepers of it have they in all ages kept it to themselves or declared it to the Church I mean to all in common If they have concealed it 1. Then it seems it belonged not to others 2. Or else they were unfaithfull and unfit for the office 3. And then how do succeeding Popes and Clergy know it If they divulged it then others know it as well as they We have had abundance of Preachers from among the Papists that were once Papists themselves as Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Bucer c. and yet these knew not of your truly Apostolical Traditions 5. And it mars your credit with us because we are able to prove the beginning of some of your traditions or a time
we have your own Confessions I have elsewhere mentioned some Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. saith Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperors and the greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Pope of Rome Mark here whether the Catholick Church was then your subjects when the greater number of Churches and most of the Bishops of the whole world as well as the Greeks were against you and vehemently fought against your pretended priviledges Rainerius supposed contra Waldenses Catal. in Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 4. pag. 773. saith The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Read and blush and call Baronius a parasite What would you have truer or plainer And what Controversie can there be where so many Nations themselves are witnesses against you And you may conjecture at the numbers of those Churches by what a Legate of the Popes that lived among them saith of one Corner of them Jacob. Ã Vitriaco Histor Orient cap. 77. that the Churches in the Easterly parts of Asia alone exceeded in multitude the Christians both of the Greek and Latine Churches Alas how little a thing then was the Roman Catholick Church If all this were not enough the Tradition of your own Catholick Church is ready to destroy the Papacy utterly For that a General Council is above the Pope and may judge him and depose him and that is de fide and that its Heresie to deny it and that all this is so jure that ne unquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit no wise man ever doubted of it all this is the judgement of the General Council of Basil with whom that of Constance doth agree And whether these Councils were confirmed or not they confess them lawfully called and owned and extraordinary full and so they were their Catholick Church Representative and so the Popes Soveraignty over the Council is gone by I radition but that 's not the worst For if a free General Council should be called all the Churches in the world must be equally there represented And if they were so then down went the usurped Head-ship of the Pope For we are sure already that most of the Churches in the world are against it and therefore in Council they would have the Major vote And thus by the concession of the Roman Representative Catholick Church the Pope is gone by Tradition So that by that time they have well considered of the matter me thinks they should be less zealous for Tradition CHAP. XXI Detect 12. ANother of the Roman frauds is this They perswade men that the Greeks the Protestants and all other Churches were once under their Papal soveraignty and have separated themselves without any just cause and therefore we are all schismaticks and thereforefore have no vote in general Councils c. A few words may serve to shew the vanity of this accusation 1. Abundance of the Churches were so strange to you that they had not any notable communion with you 2. The Greek Churches withdrew from your Communion but not from your subjection If any of the Patriarcks or Emperours of Constantinople did for carnal ends at last submit to you it was not till lately nor was it the act of the Churches nor owned nor of long continuance So that it was your Communion and not your subjection that they withdrew from 2. And as for us of the Western parts we answer you 1. We that are now living our Fathers or our Grand-fathers were not of your Church and therefore we never did withdraw 2. There were Churches in England before the Roman Power was here owned And therefore if it was a sin to change the first change was the sin when they subjected themselves to you and not the later in which they returned to their ancient state 3. And for the Germanes or English or whoever did relinquish you they have as good reason for it as for the relinquishing of any other sin If they did by the unhappiness of ill education or delusion submit to the usurped Soveraignty of the Pope they had no reason to continue in such an error Repentance is not a Vice when the thing Repented of is a vice Justifie therefore your usurpation or else it is in vain to be angry with us for not adhering to the usurper and the many corruptions that he brought into the Church CHAP. XXII Detect 13. ANother deceit that they manage with great confidence is this say they If the Church of Rome be the true Church then yours is not the true Church and then you are Shismaticks in separating from it But the Church of Rome is the true Church For you will confess it was once a true Church when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans and if it ceased to be a true Church tell us when it ceased if you can If it ceased to be a true Church it was either by heresie or Schism or Apostacy but by none of these therefore c. A man would think that children and women should see the palpable fallacy of this Argument and yet I hear of few that the learned Papists make more use of But to lay open the shame of it in brief I answer 1. The deceit lieth in the ambiguity of the word Church As to our present purpose observe that it hath these several significations 1. It is taken oft in Scripture for one particular Church associated for personal communon in Gods Worship And thus there were many Churches in a Countrey as Judea Galatia c. 2. It is taken by Ecclesiastical writers often for an Association of many of these Churches for Communion by their Pastors such as were Diocesan Provincial National Churches whereof most were then ruled by Assemblies where a Bishop Archbishop Metropolitan or Patriarck as they called them did preside 3. It is taken oft in Scripture for the Body of Christ the holy Catholick or Universal Church containing all true Believers as mystical or all Professors of true faith as visible 4. It is taken by the Papists oft for one particular Church which is the Mistris or Ruler of all other Churches And now I come to apply these in answer to the argument 1. If the Question be of a true particular Church we grant you that the Church of Rome was a true and noble Church in the daies of Paul and long after and thus Paul owneth it in his Epistle as a true Church And to the question when it ceased to be a true Church I answer 1. What matter is it to us whether it be reasoned or not any more then whether Corinth Ephesus Coloss Thessalonica or Jerusalem be true Churches or ceased In charity we regard them all
but otherwise what is it to the faith or salvation of the world whether Rome or any one of these be yet a true Church or be ceased I know not well whether there be any Church at Coloss or Philippi or some other places that had then true Churches And doth it therefore follow that I am not a true believer what would you say to such a fellow that should argue thus concerning other Churches as these men do of Rome and say e. g. If Philippi be a true Church then England are no true Churches If it be not when did it cease to be a true Church Would you not answer him What is it to me whether Philippi be a true Church or not May not we and they be both true Churches How prove you that And whether it be ceased or not ceased doth no what concern my faith or salvation further then as my charity is to be exercised towards them So say we of Rome It was a true particular Church in the Apostles dayes And if it be still a true Church what hinders but we may be so to But whether it be so or not is little to me It concerneth not my faith or Salvation to know whether there be any such place as Rome on earth or whether it were consumed long ago If a man were so simple as to believe a report that Rome was destroyed by Charls of Bourbon and never inhabited or had a Pope since he were but such a Heretick as Pope Zachary and Bishop Boniface made of Virgilius for holding there be Antipodes though further from the South 2. And if you take the word Church in the second sence for a Diocesan or Patriarchiall Church or Association of Churches supposing such forms proved warrantable the same answer serveeth as to the first 3. But to come to the true state of our Controversie If by a true Church you mean either of the two last that is 1. The whole Universal Church or 2. A Mistris Church that must Rule all the rest it was never such a true Church in Pauls dayes And therefore here we turn this argument of the Papists against themselves If the Church of Rome were neither the whole Catholick Church nor the Mistris of all other Churches when Paul wrote his Epistle to them then it is not so now nor ought to be so accounted But the former is proved 1. That the Church of Rome was not the whole Catholick Church then no man that 's well in his wits can doubt that reads what a Church there was at Jerusalem what a Church at Ephesus and Philadelphia Smyrna Thyatira Laodicea Corinth and abundance more Prove that all or any of these were parts of the Church of Rome if you can 2. Where doth Paul once name them either the Catholick Church or the Mistris or Ruler of all Churches or give the least hint of any such thing or mention any Pope among them whom the whole world was to take to be their Soveraign Head Is it not an incredible thing that Paul and all the Apostles would forget to make any mention of this priviledge or teach them how to use it or teach other Churches their duty in obeying the Church of Rome if indeed they had been made the Mistris Church Men that can believe what they list may say what they list But for my part I will never think so hardly of Paul and all the Apostles as to accuse them of so great oblivion or negligence And therefore I conclude Rome was neither the Universal Church nor the Mistris Church then not many an age after and therefore it is not so to be accounted now So that you see how easily this silly Argument shews its shame But though it concern not our main question I shall tell them further that the Matter of the Roman Church must be distinguished from its New Political Form For the Matter so many of its members as are true Christians are part of the Catholick Church of Christ though not the whole And for the form 1. There is the form of its severall parts and the form of the whole The form of any parts of the Roman Church that are Congregations or particular Churches of true Christiant may make those parts true Churches that is there may be many a true Parish Church that yet live under the Papall Yoak But as to the Politicall form of their Roman Catholick Church as it is a Body Headed by one claiming an Universall Monarchy so the form is false and Antichristian and therefore the Church as Papall must be denominated from this form and can be no better And this is our true answer to the question whether the Church of Rome be a true Church There are I doubt not among them many a thousand true members of the Catholick Church and there may be true particular Churches among them having true Pastors and Christian people joyned for Gods worship though I doubt there is but few of them but do fearfully pollute it and I am confident that salvation is much more rare and difficult with them then it is with the Reformed Catholicks yet that many among them are true Christians and saved I am fully perswaded especially when I have read such writings as Gersons Guil. Parisiensis Ferus Kempis c. And I think the better of Bellarmine himself for saying of Kempis de imitatione Christi Ego certe ab adolescentia usque in senectam hoc opusculum saepissime volvi revolvi semper mihi novum apparuit nunc etiam mirifice cordi meo sapit Bellarm. de Scripter Eccl. pag. 298. But the Pope as a pretended Universal Monarch is a false Head and consequently their Papall Church as such is a false Antichristian Church and no true Church of Jesus Christ And by the way I conceive you are thus to understand a clause in a late oath of Abjuration drawn up by the last Parliament to be offered to the Papists viz. that the Church of Rome is not the true Church that is 1. Not the whole Catholick Church but part of it as they are Christians 2. Nor a true Church at all as Papal and so formally as the Now Romish Church But all this is little to our main Question CHAP. XXIII Detect 14. ANother great Endeavour of the Papists is to edness unity consistency and setledness in Religion but we are still at uncertainty and to seek incoherent not tyed together by any certain bond but still upon divisions and upon change And they instance thus A while ago you were Episcopal and then Presbyterian and now you are nothing but every one goes his own way A while ago you worshipped God in one manner in Baptising Marrying Burying Common Prayer the Lords Supper and now you have all new Where is the Church of England now some of you are for one Government and some for another the Lutherans have superintendents the Calvinists are Presbyterians And what names of reproach do the Episcopal
Popes and Councils Their own Polidore Virgil de Inven. Rerum p. 410. lib 8. c. 4. calling us a Sect doth give you a just description of us Ita licentia pacta loquendi c. i. e. Having once got leave to speak that sect did marvailously increase in a short time which is called Evangelicall because they affirm that no Law is to be received which belongeth to salvation but what is given by Christ or the Apostles Mark what they confess themselves of our Religion And yet these very men have the face to charge us with Novelty as if Christ and his Apostles were not of sufficient Antiquity for them Our main quarrel with them is for adding new inventions in Religion and their principal business against us is to defend it and yet they call theirs the old Religion and ours the new Our Argument lieth thus That which is most conform to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles is the truly Antient Religion and Church But our Religion and Church is most conform to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles therefore it is the truly antient Religion and Church The Major they will yield For no older Religion is desirable further then as the Law of Nature and Moral Determinations of God are still in force I suppose they will not plead for Judaism For the Minor we lay our cause upon it and are ready to produce our evidence for the Conformity of our Religion and Churches to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles That Religion which is most conform to the Holy Scriture is most conform to the doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles But our Religion and Churches is most conform to the holy Scriptures therefore c. They can say nothing against the Major but that the Scripture is Insufficient without Tradition But for that 1. We have no Rule of faith but what is by themselves confessed to be true They acknowledge Scripture to be the true word of God So that the Truth of our Rule is Justified by themselves 2. Let them shew us as good Evidence that their Additional Articles of faith or Laws of life came from the Apostles as we do that the Scriptures came from them and then we shall confess that we come short of them Let them take the Controversies between us point by point and bring their proof and we will bring ours and let that Religion carry it that is Apostolicall But we are sure that by this means they will be proved Novelists For 1. Their Traditions in matter of faith superadded to the Scripture are meer Hereticall or Erroneous forgeries and they can give us no proof that ever they were Apostolicall 2. The Scripture affirmeth its own sufficiency and therefore excludeth their Traditions 3. I shewed you how in their own General Council at Basil the Scripture sufficiency was defended 4. I have shewed you in my Book called the Safe Religion that the ancient Fathers were for the sufficiency of Scripture 5. Their Traditions are the opinions of a dividing sect contrary to the Traditions or doctrine of the present Catholick Church the far greater part of Christians being against them 6. We are able to shew that the time was for some hundred years after Christ when most of their pretended Traditions were unknown or abhorred by the Christian Church and no such things were in being among them 7. And we can prove that the chief points of Controversie mantained against us are not only without Scripture but against it and from thence we have full particular evidence to disprove them If the Scriptures be true as they confess them to be then no Tradition can be Apostolicall or true that is contrary to them For example the Papists Tradition is that the Clergy is exempt from the Magistrates judgement But the holy Scripture saith Let every soul be subject to the higher power Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. The Papists Tradition is for serving God publickly in an unknown tongue But the holy Scripture is fully against it Their Tradition is against Lay mens reading the Scripture in a known tongue without special License from their ordinary But Scripture and all antiquity is against them The like we may say of many other Controversies So that these seven wayes we know their Traditions to be deceitfull because they are 1. Unproved 2. Against the sufficiency of Scripture 3. Against their own former confessions 4. Against the concent of the Fathers 5. Contrary to the judgement of most of the Catholick Church 6. We can prove that once the Church was without them 7. And they are many of them contrary to express Scripture And if Scripture will but shew which of us is neerest the doctrine and practice of the Apostles then the controversie is ended or in a fair way to it For we provoke them to try the cause by Scripture and they deny it we profess it is the Rule and test of our Religion but they appeal to another Rule and test And thus you may see which is the old Religion which will be somewhat fullyer cleared in that which followeth II. And that our Church and Religion hath been continued from the dayes of Christ till now we prove thus 1. From the promise of Christ which cannot be broken Christ hath promised in his word that that Church and Religion which is most conform to the Scripture shall continue to the end But our Church and Religion is most conform to the Scripture therefore Christ hath promised that it shall continue to the end 2. From the event The Christian Religion and Catholick Church hath continued from the dayes of Christ till now But ours is the Christian Religion and Catholick Church therefore ours hath continued from the dayes of Christ till now The Major they will grant the Minor is proved by parts thus 1. That Religion which hath all the Essentials of Christianity and doth not deny or destroy any Essential part of it is the Christian Religion but such is ours therefore c. 2. That Religion which the Apostles were of is the Christian Religion But ours is the same that the Apostles were of therefore c. 3. That Religion which is neerer the Scripture then the Romish Religion is certainly the Christian Religion But so is ours therefore c. 4. They that believe not only all that in particular that is contained in the Ancient Creeds of the Church but also in generall all that is besides in the holy Scripture are of the Christian Religion But thus do the Reformed Churches believe c. 2. And for our Church 1. They that are of that one holy Catholick Church whereof Christ is the head and all true Christians are members are of the true Church For there is but one Catholick Church But so are we therefore c. 2. They that are Sanctified Justified have the love of God in them are members of the true Catholick Church But such are all that are sincere
Professors of our Religion therefore c. But all this will not serve them without a Catalogue and telling them where our Church was before Luther To this we further answer we have no peculiar Catholick Church of our own for there is but one and that is our Church Wherever the Christian Church was there was our Church And where-ever any Christians were congregate for Gods worship there were Churches of the same sort as our particular Churches And wherever Christianity was there our Religion was For we know no Religion but Christianity And would you have us give you a Catalogue of all the Christians in the world since Christ Or would you have us as vain as H. T. in his Manuall that names you some Popes and about twenty professors of their faith in each age as if twenty or thirty men were the Catholick Church Or as if those men were proved to be Papists by his naming them This is easie but silly disputing In a word Our Religion is Christianity 1. Christianity hath certain Essentials without which no man can be a Christian and it hath moreover many precious truths and duties necessary necessitate praecepti and also necessitate medii to the better being of a Christian Our being as Christians is in the former and our strength and increase and better-being is much in the latter From the former Religion and the Church is denominated Moreover 2. Our implicite and actuall explicite Belief as the Papists call them must be distinguished or our General and our particular Belief 3. And also the Positives of our Belief must be distinguished from the implyed Negatives and the express Articles themselves from their implyed Consectaries And now premising these three distinctions I shall tell you where our Church hath been in all Ages since the birth of Christ 1. In the dayes of Christ and his Apostles our Church was where they and all Christians were And our Religion was with them in all its parts both Essential and perfective That is we now Believe 1. All to be true that was delivered by the Apostles as from God with a General faith 2. We believe all the Essentials and as much more as we can understand with a Particular faith 3. But we cannot say that with such a particular faith we believe all that the Apostles believed or delivered for then we must say that we have the same degree of understanding as they and that we understand every word of the Scriptures 2. In the dayes of the A postles themselves the Consectaries and implied Verities and Rejections of all Heresies were not particularly and expresly delivered either in Scripture or Tradition as the Papists will confess 3. In the next ages after the Apostles our Church was the one Catholick Church containing all true Christians Headed by Jesus Christ and every such Christian too many to number was a member of it And for our Religion the Essential parts of it were contained both in the Holy Scriptures and in the Publick Professions Ordinances and Practices of the Church in those ages which you call Traditions and the rest of it even all the doctrines of faith and universal Laws of God which are its perfective parts they were fully contained in the holy Scriptures And some of our Rejections and Consectaries were then gathered and owned by the Church as Heresies occasioned the expressing of them and the rest were all implyed in the Apostolical Scripture doctrine which they preserved 4. By degrees many errors crept into the Church yet so that 1. Neither the Catholick Church nor one true Christian in sensu composito at least did reject any essential part of Christianity 2. And all parts of the Church were not alike corrupted with error but some more and some less 3. And still the whole Church held the holy Scripture it self and so had a perfect General or Implicite belief even while by evill consequences they oppugned many parts of their own profession 5. When in process of time by claiming the universall Soveraignty Rome had introduced a new pretended Catholick Church so far as their opinion took by superadding a New Head and form there was then a two fold Church in the West the Christian as Christian headed by Christ and the Papal as Papal Headed by the Pope yet so as they called it but one Church and by this usurped Monarchy as under Christ endeavoured to make but one of them by making both the Heads Essential when before one only was tolerable And if the Matter in any part may be the same and the same Man be a Christian and a Papist and so the same Assemblies yet still the forms are various and as Christians and part of the Catholick Church they are one thing and as Papists and members of the separating sect they are another thing Till this time there is no doubt of our Churches Visibility 6. In this time of the Romish Usurpation our Church was visible in three degrees in three severall sorts of persons 1. It was visible in the lowest degree among the Papists themselves not as Papists but as Christians For they never did to this day deny the Scriptures nor the Ancient Creeds nor Baptism the Lords Supper nor any of the substance of our Positive Articles of Religion They added a New Religion and Church of their own but still professed to hold all the old in consistency with it Wherever the truth of holy Scriptures and the ancient Creeds of the Church were professed there was our Religion before Luther But even among the Papists the holy Scriptures and the said Creeds were visibly professed therefore among them was our Religion And note here that Popery it self was not ripe for a corruption of the Christian faith professed till Luthers opposition heightned them For the Scripture was frequently before by Papists held to be a most sufficient Rule of faith as I shewed before from the Council of Basil and consequently Tradition was only pleaded as conservatory and expository of the Scripture but now the Council of Trent hath in a sort equalled them And this they were lately driven to when they found that out of Scripture they were unable to confute or suppress the truth 2. At the same time of the Churches oppression by the Papacy our Religion was visible and so our Church in a more illustrious sort among the Christians of the most of the world Greeks Ethiopians and the rest that never were subject to the usurpation of Rome but only many of them took him for the Patriarch primae sedis but not Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae or the Governour of the Universall Church So that here was a visibility of our Church doubly more eminent then among the Romanists 1. In that it was the far greatest part of the Catholick Church that thus held our Religion to whom the Papists were then but few 2. In that they did not only hold the same Positive Articles of faith with us but also among their Rejections
souls are acquainted with the sincerity of it whatever any that know not our hearts may say against it 5. All that are truly Baptized and own their Baptismal Covenant are visible members of the true Catholick Church For it is the very nature and use of Baptisme to enter us into that Church But Greeks Abassines Georgians Armenians c. and Protestants are all truly Baptized and own their Baptismal Covenant therefore we are all of the true Catholick Church What is ordinarily said against this succession of our Church I have answered in my safe Religion I now add an answer to what another viz H. Turbervile in his Manuall saith against us in the present point The easiness of his Arguments and the open vanity of his exceptions will give me leave to be the shorter in confuting them His first Argument pag. 43. is this The true Church of God hath had a continued Succession from Christ But the Protestant Church and so of all other Sectaries hath not a continued Succession from Christ to this time therefore c. Answ 1. I pray thee Reader be an impartial Judge what this man or any Papist ever said with sense and reason to prove that the Eastern and Southern Churches have no true Succession Let them talk what they please of their Schisme the world knows they have had as good a Succession as Rome Are they not now of the same Church and Religion as ever they have been All the change that many of them have made hath been but in the entertaining of some fopperies common to Rome and them And if any of these which you call Sectaries can prove their Succession it destroyes your Argument and Cause Me thinks you should not ask them where their Church was before Luther 2. But how doth this Disputer prove his Minor that we have no Succession Only by a stark falshood forsooth by the Concession of the most Learned Adversaries who freely and unanimously Confess that before Luther made his separation from the Church of Rome for nine hundred or one thousand years together the whole world was Catholick and in obedience to the Pope of Rome Answ O horrid boldness that a man that pleads for the sanctity of his Church dare thus speak so notorious an untruth in the face of the world At this rate of Disputing the man might have saved the labour of writing his Book and have as honestly at once have perswaded his Disciples that his Adversaries unanimously consess that the Papists cause is best What if the fifteen cited by him had said so when I can bring him one thousand five hundred of another mind and cite him fifteen for one of another mind is that the unanimous confession of his Adversaries But unless his Adversaries were quite beside themselves there is not one of them could say as he feigneth them to say For doth not the world know that the Eastern and Southern Churches far exceeding the Romanists in number did deny obedience to the Pope of Rome Would this perswade his poor Disciples that we all confess that there are or were no Christians in the world but Protestants and Papists His first cited Confession is Calvins that all the Western Churches have defended Popery A fair proof Doth this Disputer believe in good sadness that the Western Churches are all the world or a sixth part of the world But this is the Popish arguing What Calvin speaks of the Western Churches that is the prevailing power in each Nation of them he interprets of all the world So he deales with Dr. White who expresly in the words before those which he citeth affirmeth the visibility of the Churches of Greece Ethiope Armenia and Rome but only saith that at all times there hath not been visible distinct companies free from all corruption which one would think every penitent man should grant that knows the corruption of his own heart and life It would be tedious to stand to shew his odious abuse of the rest when they that say most of the word world but as it is used Luk. 2. 1. so much of his first argument His second is this Without a continued number of Bishops Priests Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued succession cannot be had But Protestants have no continued number c. Answ And how proves he the Minor No how at all but puts us to disprove it and withall gives us certain Laws which we will obey when they grow up to the honour of being reasonable His first Law is that We must name none but only such as held explicitely the thirty nine Articles all granting and denying the same points that the late Protestants of England granted or denyed for if they differ from them in any one materiall point they cannot be esteemed Protestants Answ A learned Law And what call you a material point You may yet make what you list of it If they differ in any point Essentiall to Christianity we grant your imposition to be necessary But there is not the least Chronologicall or Geographicall or other truth in Scripture but is a Materiall Point though not Essential Must you needs know which these Essentials are In a word Those which the Apostles and the ancient Church pre-required the knowledge and profession of unto Baptism And because all your fond exceptions are grounded on this one point I shall crave your patience while I briefly but sufficiently prove that Men that err and that in points materiall may yet be of the same Church and Religion Argum. 1. If men that err in points material that is precious truths of God which they ought to have believed may yet be true Christians and hold all the Essentials of Christianity then may they be of the same true Church and Religion But the former is true therefore so is the later The Antecedent is proved in that all truths which may be called Materiall are not of the essence of Christianity Argum. 2. The Apostle Thomas erred in a Materiall point which is now an essentiall when he would not believe Christs Resurrection and yet was a member of the true Church therefore c. Argum. 3. The Papists err in material points and yet think themselves of the same true Church therefore they must confess that differing in Material points may be the case of members of the same true Church For proof of the Minor I demand Are none of the points Material that have been so hotly agitated between the Jesuites and Dominicans and Jansenists the Papall party and the Councill party The Thomists Scotists Ockamists c. At least review the Jesuite Casuists cited by the Jansenists Mysterie of Jesuitism and tell us whether it be no whit Material Whether a man may kill another for a Crown or may kill both Judge and witnesses to avoid an unjust sentence Or whether a man should go with good meanings into a Whore-house to perswade them
whether you believe that the Oral Tradition of all the Church did preserve the Knowledge of Augustines Epiphanius Chrysostomes c. doctrine so much as their writings do Is the doctrine of Aquinas Scotus Gabriel c. yea the Council of Trent preserved now more certainly in mens memories then in writing If so they have better memories then mine that keep them and they have better hap then I that light of such keepers For I can scarce tell how to deliver my mind so in any difficult point but one or other is misunderstanding and misreporting it and by leaving out or changing a word perhaps make it another matter so that I am forced to refer them to my writings and yet there by neglect they misinterpret me till I open the book it self to them 6. Either the Fathers of the fifth age are intelligible in their writings or not If they be then we may understand them I hope with industry If they be not then 1. Much less were their transient speeches intelligible 2. And then the writings of the sixth age be not intelligible nor of any other and so we cannot understand the Council of Trent as the Papists do not that controvert its sense voluminously nor can we know the Churches judgement 7. By your leave the Roman Corrupters take on them so much Power to make new Laws and new Articles of Faith quoad nos by definitions and to dispense with former Laws that unless they are all Knights of the Post they can never swear that they had all that they have from their Fore-fathers 8. Well! but all this is the least part of my answer But I grant you that the sixth age understood and retained the doctrine of the fifth age and have delivered it to us But that there were no Hereticks or corrupters you will not say your selves Well then the far greatest part of the Catholick Church did not only receive from the fifth age the same Christian Religion but also kept themselves from the grossest corruptions of the Pope and his flatterers that were then but a small part And thus we stick to the Catholick Church succeeding to this day and you to an usurper that then was newly set on the Throne of universal Soveraignty So that your chief Argument treadeth Popery in the dirt because the greater part of the Catholick Church not only in the fifth and sixth age but in the seventh eighth nineth tenth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth and sixteenth ages have been aliens or enemies to the Roman universal Monarchy therefore if one age of the Church knew the mind of the former age better then the Pope did we may be sure that the Pope is an usurper The third Argument of H. T. is that the Fathers of the first five hundred years taught their tenets therefore its impossible they should be for the Protestants Answ 1. Protestants are Christians taking the Holy Scriptures for the Rule of their faith If the Fathers were Christians they were for the Protestants but its certain they were Christians If you could prove that they were for some of your mistakes that would not prove them against the Protestants in the doctrine of Christianity and the holy Scriptures and so that we are not their Successors in Christianity and of the same Church which was it that you should have proved but forgot the question And of this we shall speak to you more anon Well! by this time I have sufficiently shewed the succession of our Church and continuation of our Religion from the Apostles and where it was before Luther and given you the Catholick Church instead of a dozen or twenty names in each age which it seems will satisfie a Papist but yet we have not done with them but require this following Justice at their hands Seeing the Papists do so importunately call to us for Catalogues and proof of our succession Reason and Justice requireth that they first give us a Catalogue of Papists in all ages and prove the succession of their Roman Catholick Church which they can never do while they are men And here I must take notice of the delusory ridiculous Catalogue wherewith H. T. begins his Manual His Argument runs thus That is the only true Church of God which hath had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day very true But the Church now in Communion with the Sea of Rome and no other hath had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore c. For the proof of the Minor he giveth us a Catalogue And here note the misery of poor souls that depend on these men that are deluded with such stuff that one would think they should be ashamed the world should see from them 1. What if his Catalogue were true and proved would it prove the Exclusion that no other Church had a succession Doth it prove that Constantinople or Alexandria had no such succession because the Romanists had it where is there ever a word here under this Argument to prove that exclusive part of his Minor 2. And note how he puts that for the Question that is not the Question between us A fair beginning The Question is not about Churches in Communion with you but about Churches in subjection to you But this is but a pious fraud to save men by decieving them The Ancient Church of Rome had the Church of Hierusalem Corinth Philippi Ephesus and many a hundred Churches in Communion with her that never were in subjection to her 3. And if the Papists can but prove themselves true Christians I will quickly prove that the Protestants are in Communion with them still as Christians by the same Head Christ the same spirit baptism faith love hope c. though not as Papists by subjection to the same usurper 4. Our question is of the Universal Church And this man nameth us twenty or thirty men in an age that he saith were professors of their Religion And doth he believe in good sadness that twenty or thirty men are either the universall Church or a sufficient proof that it was of their mind 5. But principally did this man think that all or any besides their subjects had their wits so far to seek as to believe that the persons named in his Catalogue were Papists without any proof in the world but meerly because they are listed here by H. T Or might he not to as good purpose have saved his labour and said nothing of them 6 But what need we go any further we will begin with him at lis first Century and so to the second and if he can prove that Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary or John Baptist or the Apostles or any one of the rest that he hath named were Papists much more all of them I am resolved presently to turn Papist But unless the man intended to provoke his reader to an unreverent laughter about this abuse of holy things one would think he should not have named
of any Father whereby it may appear that any account at all was made of it Where he citeth the full express words of the Fathers of those first ages against praying to Saints as Origen in Jus. Hom. 16. And in Rom. lib. 2. cap. 2. And Contr. Celsum lib. 8. page 432 433 406 411 412. lib. 5. pag. 239. Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. Tertullian and Cyprian of Prayer Athanasius Orat. 4. Cont. Arrium pag. 259 260. Eccles Smyrn apud Euseb Hist lib. 4. c. I am loth to recite what is there already given you 3. And when Prayer to the dead did come in how exceedingly it differed from the Romish Prayers to the dead I pray you read there in the same Author 4. And also of those Adorations and Devotions offered by the Papists to the Virgin Mary I desire you to read in the same Author and Place enough to make a Christian tremble and which for my part I am not able to excuse from horrid Blasphemy or Idolatry though I am willing to put the best interpretation on their words that reason will allow 5. The Reason why in the old Testament men were not wont to pray to Saints Bellarmine saith was because then they did not enter into heaven nor see God Bellar. de sanct Beat. li. 2. cap. 19. So Suarez in the third part Tom. 2. disp 42. Sect. 1. But abundance of the chief Doctors of the Church for divers Ages were of opinion that the Saints are not admitted into Heaven to the clear sight of God before the day of Judgement as most of the Eastern Churches do to this day therefore they could not be for the Popish Prayer to Saints And here again observe that men may be of the same faith and Church with us that differ and err in as great a matter as this The Council of Florence hath now defined it that departed souls are admitted into Heaven to the clear sight of God And yet Stapleton and Francis Pegna à Castro Medina Sotus affirm that Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Romanus Origen Ambrose Chrysostome Austin Lactantius Victorinus Prudentius Theodoret Aretas Oecumenius Theophilact Euthymius yea and Bernard have delivered the contrary sentence See Staplet Defens Eccles author cont Whitak lib. 1. cap. 2. with Fran. Pegna in part 2. Director Inquisitor com 21. Now as all these must needs be against the Popish Invocation of Saints so they were against that which is now determined to be de fide Whence I gather on the by 1. That the Romish faith increaseth and is not the same as heretofore 2. That they had not this Article by Tradition from any of these Fathers or from the Apostles by them unless from the Scriptures 3. That men that err in such points as are now defined by Councils to be de fide are yet accounted by Papists to be of their Church and faith And therefore they may be of ours notwithstanding such errours as this in hand 4. And note also by this tast whether the Papists be not a perjured generation that swear not to expound Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers 6. The Council of Laodicea condemned them as Idolaters that prayed to Angels Can. 35. which Caranza Crab and other Papists have turned into Angulos whose falsification you may see fully detected by the said Bishop Usher ibid. pag. 470. 471 472. Read there also the full Testimonies of Greg. Nissen Athanasius Epiphanius c. against praying to Saints and Angels and the detection of Bellarmines fraud that pretendeth the Fathers to speak of the Gentiles Idolatry when they mention the Virgin Mary and the Saints and say expresly they were not to be adored But for all this H. T. Manual page 291 c. hath Fathers for this Adoration of Angels and Saints And who are they The first is Dionysius to which I answer 1. There is never a such a word in the place cited in Dionysius in the Book that I have at hand printed Lugdun 1572. 2. We are for praying the Saints to pray for us too that is those on earth And the words cited by him mention not the Saints in heaven 3. That Dionysius is not Dionysius but a spurious Apochryphal Book Not once known and mentioned in the world till Gregory the greats dayes six hundred years after Christ as Bellarmine himself saith Lib. de Scriptor Eccles de Dionys And lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 5. The second is Clem. Apostol Constit 5. Answ 1. The words speak only of honouring the Martyrs which is our unquestioned duty but not of Praying to them 2. It s an Apochryphal forgery and neither the Apostles nor Clements Work which he citeth but any thing will serve these men Let him believe Bellarmine de scriptor Eccles pag. 38 39. where he proveth it and saith that in the Latine Church these Constitutions are of almost no account and the Greeks themselves Canon 2. Trul. reject them as depraved by Hereticks and that the receiving of them is it that misleadeth the Aethiopians See more against them in Cooks Censurâ pag. 17 18 19. and Rivets Crit. Sac. Dalaeus in Pseudepigrap The third Testimony of H. T. is from Justins second Apol. Answ It is not Praying to Angels that Justin seemeth to intend but giving them due honour which we allow of His intent is to stop the mouths of Heathens that called the Christians impious for renouncing their Gods To whom he replyeth that we yet honour the true God and his Angels c. His Testimony for the third age is only Origen and yet none of Origen First in his Lament Answ 1. Origen there mentioneth the Saints but not the dead Saints It may be all the Saints in the Church on earth whose prayers he desireth 2. If this satisfie you not at least be satisfied with this that you cite a forgery that is none of Origens works Not only Erasmus saith that This Lamentation was neither written by Origen nor translated by Hierom but is the fiction of some unlearned man that by this trick devised to defame Origen But Baronius Annal. Tit. 2. ad an 253. p. 477. witnesseth that Pope Gelasius numbers it with the Apocryphals But H. T. hath a second testimony from Origen in Cantic Hom. 3. Answ 1. That speaks of the Saints prayer for us but not of our prayers to them one word which is the thing in question 2. But Erasmus and others have shewed that neither is this any of Origens works Sixtus Senensis saith that some old Books put Hieroms name to it And Lombard and Aquinas cite passages out of it as Ambroses You see now what Testimonies H. T. hath produced for the first three Ages even till above four hundred years after Christ And yet no doubt but this is currant proof with the poor deluded Papists that read his Book 2. The next exception to be considered is Praying for the Dead which they say the ancient Church was for Answ 1. We are for
that their Molanus calleth A barbarous impostor Histor Imag. l. 3. c. 36. about the miracles of Hierom where Purgatory and other errors are befriended When as Ciril himself dyed thirty years before Hierome And yet Binsfield Suarez and other of the most learned Papists stick not to make use of this forgery for all that But it would be tedious to recite their particular forgeries The studious Reader may find many of them discovered up and down by Bishop Usher and other of our Writers And for his fuller help I advise him to read Dr. Reignolds de Libris Apocryph and Dr. Th. James his corruptions of the Fathers and Scultetus his medulla patrum yea of the Papists themselves read Sixtus Senensis his Bibliothec. and Bellaerm de Scriptorib Eccles and Possevines Apparatus and Erasmus censures on the Fathers which he dealt with But especially let him not be without Cooks censura Patrum and Blondell on the Decretals to which also add Rivets Critica Sacra and Dallaeus de Pseudepigraphis Of their abominable Legends I shall say nothing but that the wiser sort of themselves are ashamed of them And if any Ancients have abused the Church by shameless forgeries the Papists make use of such as confidently as if they were the word of God For instance Let any man but read over the Books of Basil Bishop of Seleucia if it be his indeed of the life Miracles of Thecla and try his faith upon it whether he be able to believe that Thecla stood so long at the window to hear Paul while all those daily applications and orations were made to her that Demas and Hermogenes were there to stir up the people against Paul as a deceiver under the cloak of being his companions that any of those Orations recited are true when the Author like a professed fabler useth to say I suppose thus or thus they said that her Mother Theoclaea and her lover Thamiris were on the sudden so cruel as to burn her while they are said so much to burn in Love to her that when Thecla had formed her body like a Cross and cast her self into the flaming pile the flames in reverence of the Cross became as a Chamber to her covering her like a vault from the peoples sight and not approaching her and that the earth making a grievous noise the showrs and hail destroyed the people and Thecla went her way without observance finding Paul and Onesiphorus hid in a Sepulcher at prayer for her that Paul permitted her to cut her hair and change her habit and become his fellow travailer that Alexander the Governour was so inflamed with her beauty at Antioch even before she came in full sight of the people in the City Gate that he could not forbear but presently must leap upon her like a mad dog that she tore his Cloak and threw off his Crown and so saved her Virginity that for this she was cast and tyed to wild beasts and the Lyons couched to her and one Lyoness fought for her and killed the rest that assaulted her that yet they turned more upon her that she leaped into the Fish pond among the devouring Sea Calvs and that fire from Heaven came down into the Water and there made her a chamber and saved her from those Sea-beasts that Falconilla's soul appeared to her Mother Tryphaena to beg Thecla's prayers that she might be admitted into heaven telling her how much Thecla was admired in Heaven She knew who was admired in Heaven before she could be let in that at Thecla's prayers she was admitted into heaven but tells us not where she was before that when Thecla was again tied to wild bulls and fire set to their posteriors to enrage them the fire killed them and burnt the bonds and she was unhurt That Thecla again puts on mans cloaths and seeks Paul whether she wore breeches I find not that Paul hereupon pronounceth her an Apostle a predecessor of Pope Joan and ordaineth her to go and preach the Gospel and appointeth her to one Pagan City as if either women were Apostles or ordained to be preachers of the Gospel that by Paul were forbidden to speak in the Church or Apostles were confined to a City that she fixed at Seleucia and there converted and baptized many and at last after many miracles did not die but entred alive into the earth which opened it self for her in the place where the holy Table stood that after her death she wrought those one and thirty miracles that fill a second Book and many more appearing to this Basil and encouraging him when he was weary to go on in the writing of her praises and plucking him by the ear and so curing his headach which else would have prevented his Oration in her praise the next day with abundance more that are more strange then this I have instanced but in this one case of Thecla because it would be endless to tell you of all the rest of their fictions were I acquainted with them all Nor do I mention this as one of their Legends no nor as a piece of Metaphrastes but as the works of St. Basil not Basil the great an ancient Father Now either this is Basils work or it is not If it be not then you see what trust is to be given to the Papists Antiquities and supposed Fathers For this is one of them and this story vindicated by Petrus Pantinus yea by no less a man then the Great Baronius the Master of Antiquities who Annal. Tom. 1. ad An. D. 47. bringeth a whole Army of Fathers to attest the Acts of Thecla and approveth of this of Basils and the like of Metaphrastes Two Testimonies trouble him shrewdly One is no later then Tertullian who de Baptis cap. 18. saith thus But if any women read the pretended writings of Paul and defend the example of Thecla for womens Liberty to teach and baptise let them know that a Presbyter in Asia that framed that writing putting Pauls name instead of his own was cast out of his place being convicted of it and confessing that he did it in love to Paul The other is Hieroms testimony de Script Eccless who citing the fore-cited words saith The travails therefore of Paul and Thecla and the whole fable of the baptized Lyon we reckon among Apocryphal writings For how can it be that the inseparable companion of the Apostle Luke was ignorant of this only among all his matters But yet Baronius thinks that these are not the same Books that Tertullian and Hierom speak against and why so Because 1. Here is no mention of Theclaes Preaching and Baptizing nor of the Lyon baptized 2. Because so many Fathers attest the story But the first is a visible falshood contrary to the express words of the story which feign Paul to have sent her to preach as a true Apostle and mention her baptizing the people of Seleucia And for the baptized Lyon perhaps Hierom spoke de baptismate sanguinis and
only by vertue or meer desert But now this Right side and Left side and Middle and Lower Degree and Presidency and Concomitancy have begot us many Contritions to no purpose and have driven many into the Ditch and have led them away to the region of the Goats What Hierom saith both in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Tit. cap. 2. is commonly known The many plain Testimonies of Anselmn are commonly Cited as plain as Hieroms Alphons à Castro advers Haeres lib. 6. in nom Episcop had more ingenuity then to joyn with them that would wrest Hieroms words to a sence so contrary to their most plain importance Tertullian cap. 17. de Bapt. thought Lay-men in Necessity might Baptize and so doth the Church of Rome now Why then may not Presbyters in such a case at least Ordain when as he there saith Quod ex aequo accipitur ex aequo dari potest And ibid. he saith that it is but propter Ecclesiae honorem that Bishops Rule in such matters and that peace may be kept and Schism avoided But that probati quique seniores did exercise Discipline in the Assembly he testifieth in Apologet. Mr. Prin hath cited you abundance of Fathers that were for the parity of the Ministry or against Prelacy jure Divino Isidore Pelusiat lib. 3. Epist 223. ad Hieracem Episcopatum fugientem saith And when I have shewed what difference there is between the ancient Ministry and the present Tyranny why do you not Crown and Praise the Lovers of equality If you would see more of the Antients making Presbyters to be Bishops and Consenting with Hierom read Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm Cantuar in Enarrat in Phil. 1. 1. Beda on Act. 20. Alcuinus de Divinis officiis c. 35 36. and on John lib. 5. Col 547. c. Epist 108. And that Presbyters may Ordain Presbyters see Anselmn on 1 Tim. 4. 14. And Institut in Concil Colon. de sacr Ordin fol. 196. see also what 's said by our Mart. Bucer script Anglic. pag. 254 255 259 291. sequ Pet. Martyr Loc. Commu Clas 4. Loc. 1. sect 23 pag. 849. And Wickliffes Arguments in Waldensis Passim And your own Cassander Consult Artic. 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between Bishops and Presbyters but afterwards for Orders sake and the avoiding of Schism the Bishop was set before the Presbyters And Ockam determineth that by Christs Institution all Priests of what degree soever are of equal Authority Power and Jurisdiction Reynold Peacock Bishop of Chichester wrote a Book de Ministrorum aequalitate which your party caused to be burnt And Richardus Armachanus lib. 9. cap. 5. ad Quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scriptures any difference between Bishops and simple Priests called Presbyters whence it follows that there is one Power in all and equall from their Order cap. 7. answering the Question Whether any Priest may Consecrate Churches c. he saith Priests may do it as well as Bishops seeing a Bishop hath no more in such matters then any simple Priest though the Church for reverence to them appoint that those only do it whom we call Bishops It seems therefore that the restriction of the Priests Power was not in the Primitive Church according to the Scripture I refer you to three Books of Mr. Prins viz. his Catalogue his Antipathy of Lordly Prelates c. and his unbishoping of Timothy and Titus where you have the Judgements of many writers of these matters And also to what I have said in my Second Disputation of the Episcopal Controversiès of purpose on this point 7. The chief error of the Papists in this cause is expressed in their reason No man can give the Power that he hath not wherein they intimate that it is Man that giveth the Ministerial Power whereas it is the gift of Christ alone Man doth but design the person that shall receive it and then Christ giveth it by his Law to the person so designed and then man doth in vest him and solemnize his introduction As a woman may choose her an husband but it is not she that giveth him the Power over her but God who determineth of that Power by his Law affixing it to the person chosen by her and her action is but a condition fine qua non or cause of the capacity of the matter to receive the form And so is it here When do but obey God in a right choice and designation of the person his Law doth presently give him the Power which for orders sake he must be in a solemn manner invested with But matters of Order may possibly vary and though they are to be observed as far as may be yet they alwayes give place to the Ends and substance of the work for the ordering whereof they are appoineed 8. Temporal power is as truly and necessarily of God as Ecclesiastical and it was at first given immediately by him and he chose the person And yet there is no Necessity that Kings must prove an uninterrupted Succession God useth means now in designing the persons that shall be Governors of the Nations of the earth But not alway the same means nor hath he tyed himself to a successive Anointing or Election else few Kings on earth would hold their Scepters And no man from any diversity in the cases is able to prove that a man may not as truly be a lawful Church-governor as a lawful Governor of the Commonwealth without an uninterrupted succession of Ministerial Collation 9. If Bellarmine be forced to maintain that with them it is enough that a Pastor have the place and seem lawfull to the people and that they are bound to obey him though it should prove otherwise Then we may as well stand on the same terms as they 10. In a word our Ordination being according to the Law of Christ and the Popes so contrary to it we are ready at any time more fully to compare them and demonstrate to any impartial man that Christ doth much more disown their Ordination then ours and that we enter in Gods appointed way Mr. Eliot in New England may better Ordain a Pastor over the Indians converted by him then leave them without or send to Rome or England for a Bishop or for Orders But again I must refer you of this subject to the Books before mentioned and the Sheet which I have written lest I be over-tedious CHAP. XXXIV Detect 25. ANother of their Deceits is In pretending the Holiness of their Churches and Ministry and the unholiness of ours This being matter of fact a willing and impartial mind may the easier be satisfied in it They prove their Holiness 1. By the Canonized Saints among them 2. By the devotion of their Religious Orders and their strictness of living 3. By their unmarried Clergy 4. By their sanctifying Sacraments and Ceremonies In all which they
that changes may be and yet the time and Authors be unknown is from the instance of other Churches that have been corrupted or subverted by Innovations and yet the time and authors are unknown You accuse the Churches in Habassia of many errors your selves and you are not able to tell us when they came in or who introduced them The same may be said of the Georgians Armenians Egyptians yea and of the Greeks and Russians Can you tell us when and by whom each error was introduced that corrupted the Churches mentioned in the Scripture as Corinth Philippi Coloss Thessalonica Ephesus Laodicaea and the rest you know you can give us no better an account of this then we can of the Authors of your Corruptions nor so good You know that among the Primitive Fathers whose writings are come to our hands many errors had the Major vote as that of the Corporeity of Angels which your second General Council at Nice owned and their Copulation with women before the flood the Millenary conceit and many more which you confess to be errors Tell us when any of these came in if you can unless you will believe that Papias received the last from John and then it s no error Who did first bring the Asian Churches to celebrate Easter at a season differing from yours Who first brought the Brittains to it Nay we know not certainly who first Converted many Nations on earth nor when they first received their Christianity and how then should we know when they first received each error And we find that good men did bring in Novelties and what was by them introduced as indifferent would easily by custom grow to seem Necessary and what they received as a doubtfull opinion would easily grow to be esteemed a point of Faith The Presbyters and whole Clergy of Neocaesarea were offended with Basil for his Innovations viz. for bringing in a new Psalmodie or way of singing to God and for his new order of Monasticks and they told him that none of this was so in Gregories dayes and what answereth Basil He denyeth not the Novelty of his Psalmodie but retorts again on them that their Letany also was new and not known in the time of Gregory Thaumaturgus yea saith he How know you that these things were not in the dayes of Gregory For you have kept nothing unchanged to this day of all that he was used to you see what chopping and changing was then in the Church among all sorts when such an alteration was made in less then forty years Yet Basil would not have unity to be laid on any of these things but addeth But we pardon all these things though God will examine all things only let the principal things be safe Basil Epist 63. Isidore Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist 90. saith that the Apostles of the Lord studying to restrain and suppress unmeet loquacity and shewing themselves Masters of modesty and gravity to us did by wise Council permit women to sing in the Churches But as all Gods documents are turned into the contrary so this is turned to dissoluteness and the occasion of sin For they are not affected with deep compunction in singing Divine Hymns but abusing the sweetness of the singing to the irritating and provoking of lust they take it for no better then stage-play songs therefore he adviseth that they be suffered to sing no more Here you see 1. That changes had happened about many Divine things 2. That he adviseth himself the introducing of this novelty that women be forbidden singing in the Church because of the abuse though he confess it a wise Apostolick Order So that for Novelty by good men to creep into Gods worship is not strange 3. Moreover the Nature of the thing may tell all the world that neither you nor we can be accountable of the beginning of every error that creepeth into the Church For 1. The distance of time is great 2. Historians are not so exact and what they tell us not neither you nor we can know 3. Much History is perished 4. Much is corrupted by your wicked forgeries as hath been oft proved to you 5. Mixtures of Fables have hindred the credit of much of it 6. Nations are not individual persons but consist of millions of individuals And as it is not a whole Nation that is converted to the faith at once so neither is it whole Nations that are perverted to Heresie at once but one receiveth it first and then more and more till it over-spread the whole Paul saith that such doctrine eateth like a Gangrene and that is by degrees beginning on one part and proceeding to the rest 7. As I said before that which is at first received but as an Opinion and an Indifferent thing must have time to grow into a Custom and that Custom maketh it a Law and makes Opinions grow up to be Articles of Faith and Ceremonies grow to be Necessary things You know that this is the common way of propagating opinions in the world 4. I have in another Book shewed you out of many of your own writers the rise of divers of your vanities And Usher hath told the Jesuite more and so he hath told you of your thriving to your present height in his Book de success statu Eccles And so hath Mornay in his Mysterie of Iniquity and Rivet in the Defense of him against Cofferellus and Pet. Molinaeus hath purposely written a Book de Novitate Papismi Antiquitate veri Christianismi shewing the Newness of Popery in the several parts of it To these therefore I remit you for Answer to this Objection 5. Can you tell us your selves when many of your doctrines or practices sprung up When took you up your Sabbaths fast for which you have been condemned by a Council You know that when the twentieth Canon of the Nicene Council was made and when the Canons at Trull were made it was the Practice of the Church through the known world to pray and perform other worship standing and to avoid kneeling on the Lords Day Tell us when this Canon and Tradition was first violated by you and by whom It was once the custom of your Church to give Infants the Eucharist who first broke it off It was once your practice to Communicate in both kinds who first denyed the Cup to the Laity At first it was only a doubtful Opinion that Saints are to be Prayed to and the dead prayed for which came into mens minds about the third or fourth Century But who first made them Articles of faith Augustine began to doubt whether there were not some kind of Purgatory But who first made this also a point of faith Who was it that first added the Books of the Maccabees and many others to the Canon of Scripture contrary to the Council of Laodicaea and all the rest of the concent of Antiquity which Dr. Reignolds Dr. Cosin and others have produced Who was it that first taught and practised the
putting an Oath to all the Clergy of the Christian Church within your power to be true to the Pope and to obey him as the Vicar of Christ Who first taught men to swear that they would not interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers Who was the first that brought in the doctrine or name of Transubstantiation and who first made it an Article of faith Who first made it a point of faith to believe that there are just seven Sacraments neither fewer nor more Did any before the Council of Trent swear men to receive and profess without doubting all things delivered by the Canons and Oecumenical Councils when at the same time they cast off themselves the Canons of many General Councils and so are generally and knowingly perjured as e. g. the twentieth Canon of Nice forementioned These and abundance more you know to be Novelties with you if wilfulness or gross ignorance bear not rule with you and without great impudence you cannot deny it Tell us now when these first came up and satisfie your selves One that was afterward your Pope Aeneas Sylvins Epist 288. saith that before the Council of Nice there was little respect had to the Church of Rome You see here the time mentioned when your foundation was not laid Your Learned Cardinal Nicol. Cusanus lib. de Concord Cathol c. 13. c. tells you how much your Pope hath gotten of late and plainly tells you that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that Priests are equall and that it is subjectional consent that gives the Pope and Bishops their Majority and that the distinction of Diocesses and that a Bishop be over Presbyters are of Positive right and that Christ gave no more to Peter than the rest and that if the Congregate Church should choose the Bishop of Trent for their President and Head he should be more properly Peters Successor then the Bishop of Rome Tell us now when the contrary doctrine first arose Gregory de valentia de leg usu Euchar. cap. 10. tells you that the Receiving the Sacrament in one kind began not by the decree of any Bishop but by the very use of the Churches and the consent of believers and tels you that it is unknown when that Custom first begun or got head but that it was General in the Latine Church not long before the late Council of Constance And may you not see in this how other points came in If Pope Zosimus had but had his will and the Fathers of the Carthage Council had not diligently discovered shamed and resisted his forgery the world had received a new Nicene Canon and we should never have known the Original of it It s a considerable Instance that Usher brings of using the Church service in a known tongue The Latine tongue was the Vulgar tongue when the Liturgy and Scripture was first written in it at Rome and far and neer it was understood by all The service was not changed as to the language but the language it self changed and so Scripture and Liturgy came to be in an unknown tongue And when did the Latine tongue cease to be understood by all Tell us what year or by whom the change was made saith Erasmus Decl. ad censur Paris tit 12. § 41. The Vulgar tongue was not taken from the people but the people departed from it 5. We are certain that your errors were not in the times of the Apostles nor long after and therefore we are sure that they are Innovations And if I find a man in a Dropsie or a Consumption I would not tell him that he is well and ought not to seek remedy unless he can tell when he began to be ill and what caused it You take us to be Heretical and yet you cannot tell us when our errors did first arise Will you tell us of Luther You know the Albigenses whom you murdered by hundreds and thousands were long before him Do you know when they begun Your Reinerius saith that some said they were from Silvesters dayes and some said since the Apostles but no other beginning do you know 6. But to conclude what need we any more then to find you owning the very doctrine and practise of Innovation When you maintain that you can make us new Articles of faith and new worship and new discipline and that the Pope can dispense with the Scriptures and such like what reason have we to believe that your Church abhorreth Novelty If you deny any of this I prove it Pope Leo the tenth among other of Luthers opinions reckoneth and opposeth this as Hereticall It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make Articles of faith in Bulla cont Luth. The Council of Constance that took the supremacy justly from the Pope did unjustly take the Cup from the Laity in the Eucharist Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie i. e. Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received by Believers under both kinds The Council of Trent say Sess 21. cap. 1 2. that this power was alway in the Church that in dispensing the Sacraments saving the substance of them it might ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver Vasquez To. 2. Disp 216. N. 60. saith Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles nevertheless the Church and Pope might on just causes abrogate it For the Power of the Apostles was no greater then the power of the Church and Pope in bringing in Precepts These I cited in another Treatise against Popery page 365. Where also I added that of Pope Innocent Secundum plenitudinem potestatis c. By the fulness of our power we can dispense with the Law above Law And the Gloss that oft saith The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle against the Old Testament The Pope dispenseth with the Gospell interpreting it And Gregor de valent saying Tom. 4. disp 6. q. 8. Certainly some things in later times are more rightly constituted in the Church then they were in the beginning And of Cardinal Peron's saying lib. 2. Obs 3. cap. 3. pag. 674. against King James of the Authority of the Church to alter matters conteined in the Srripture and his instance of the form of Sacraments being alterable and the Lords command Drink ye all of it mutable and dispensable And Tolets Its certain that all things instituted by the Apostles were not of Divine right Andradius Defens Concil Trid. lib. 2. pag. 236. Hence it is plain that they do not err that say the Popes of Rome may sometime dispense with Laws made by Paul and the four first Councils And Bzovius The Roman Church using Apostolical power doth according to the Condition of times change all things for the better And yet will you not give us leave to take you for changers and Novelists But let us add
Church Constitution doth infer that all that are duly baptized are interpretatively or implicitely baptized into the Pope 2. And as you have devised a New Catholick Church so you hereby cast off and disown all the Christians of the world that be not of your party determining it as de fide that none of them can be saved who yet had rather venture on your Curse and Censure then into your Heresie and Schism 3. And hereby you fix your selves in this Schism and put us that unfeignedly long for peace out of all Hope of ever having Peace with you because you will hearken to it on no terms but that all men become subjects to your usurping Representative-Christ which we dare as soon leap into the fire as do Do you know now where the Church or Body was that you forsook It was all over the world where ever there were any Christians Were it not a great Schism think you if a few Anabaptists should say We are the whole Church and all others are Hereticks or Schismaticks Or was it not a great Schism of the Donatists to arrogate that title to themselves and unchurch so many others And what Church did they forsake Augustine tells them over and over what the Catholick Church was that they withdrew from even all true Christians dispersed over the earth Or that Church which begun at Hierusalem and thence diffused it self through the world But he never blames them for separating from the Universal Roman Head or Vicar but from the Church of Rome as a conspicuous combination of particular Churches Optatus and he do blame them for withdrawing as also from other Churches What if John of Constantinople in prosecution of his title of Universal Patriarch had concluded as you that none in the world are Christs members but his members nor of the Church but his subjects had not this been a notorious schism Tell us then what Church he had forsaken and answer your self But your last Caution in a parenthesis doth condemn your selves What I Must that Church that 's true be visible from Christs time then as Constantinople nor most other were never true Churches which is false so Rome it self was never a true Church which is false also Did you think that there was a Church at Rome in Christs time Sure you are not so ignorant By this Rule there should be no true Church but that at Jerusalem and those in Judaea But suppose you had said since the Apostles time This also had excluded most Churches on earth But if you mean the Universal Church we grant you easily that it hath been visible ever since Christs time but not alway in one place or Country Is not the greater part of Christians in the world whom you schismatically unchurch a visible company Doubtless you know they are Yea the Abassines and many Churches that being out of the Roman Empire did never so much as submit to your Primacy of Order nor had you ever any thing to do with them more then to own them as Christians yet now are condemned by your Arrogancy because they will not begin in the end of the world to enter into a new Church which they nor their Fore-fathers had ever any dependance on It was a shrewd answer of an old woman that the Emperor of Habassia's Mother gave to Gonzalus Rodericus the Jesuite pressing her to be subject to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ or else she could not be subject to Christ Neque ego inquit illa neque mei sancto Petro obedientiam negamus in eadem nunc sumus fide in quae fuimus ab initio ea si recta non erat cur per tot aetates ac secula nemo repertus est qui nos errrantes commonerent i. e. We are in the same Belief as we were from the beginning If it were not right why did no man in so many ages warn us of our error till now Mark here a double Argument coucht against the Pope One from Tradition even Apostolical Tradition for Godignus himself saith that no man doubts but Ethiopia received the faith from the beginning even from the the Eunuch and St. Mathew The other is that sure that Pope that cannot in so many ages look after his flock no not so much as to send one man to tell them that they erred till about one thousand five hundred years after Christ was never intended by Christ to be the Universal Governour of the world What! will Christ set any on an Impossible work Or make it so necessary to people to obey one that they never so much as hear from But what said the Jesuite to the old woman Why he told her Non potuisse Romanum Pontificem qui totius Christi Ecclesiae pastor est praeteritis retro annis Doctores in Abassiam mittere eò quod Mahumetani omnia circumdarent nec ullum ad ipsos additum relinquerant Nunc vero aperta jam Maritima ad Aethiopiam via id praestare quod nequivit prius that is The Pope of Rome who is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ was not able in the years past to send Doctors into Habassia because the Mahomitans compassed all and left not any passage to them But now the seas are open he can do that which he could not before Liter Gonzal Roder. in Godign de Reb. Abass lib. 2. cap. 18. pag. 324. A fair answer As if Christ had set either the Pope or the Abassines an impossible task and appointed a Governour that for so many hundred years could not govern or the people must be so many hundred years no Christians though they believed in Christ till the Pope could send to them And how should these and all such Countries send Bishops to a General Council As your own Canus Loc. Theol. saith of the Jesuites so say I of your New Church Vocati estis ad secietatem Jesu Christi quae sine dubio societas cum Christi Ecclesia sit qui titulum sibi illum arrogant hi videant an Haereticorum more penes se Ecclesiam existere mentiantur i. e. You are called to the society of Jesus Christ which society being undoubtedly the Church of Christ let them see to it that arrogate this title to themselves whether they do not imitate hereticks by a Lying affirmation that the Church is only with them lib. 4. c. 2. fol. mihi 116. But we do not hence conclude that all that have lived and dyed in your profession have been no members of the Church because that your Church is guilty of Heresie and notoriously of Schism For we know that millions that live among you consent not to your usurpations Nay do not so much as understand your errors thereabout And some hold them but Notionally as uneffectual Opinions And every one is not a Heretick that holdeth a point that is judged Heretical and which is Heresie in another that holdeth it in another sort And there are errors called Heresies by most
which are not destructive to the Essentials of Christianity but only to some Integral part And there is a schism that doth not unchurch men as well as a schism that doth of which this is no place to treat But ad hominem me thinks your own writers put you hard to it who conclude as Bellarmine and many more do though Alphonsus à Castro and others be against it that Hereticks and Schismaticks are no members of the Church And Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 4. cap. 2. fol. 117. saith that that Hereticks are no parts of the Church is the common conclusion of all Divines not only of those that have written of late but of them also that by their Antiquity are esteemed the most Noble This is attested by Cyprian Augustine Gregory the two Councils of Lateran and Florence Rightly therefore did Pope Nicolas define that the Church is a collection of Catholicks If this be true it is an Article of faith And then Alphonsus à Cast and all of his mind are Hereticks and lost men And I pray you note what a case you are in Two Approved General Councils have determined that a Heretick is no member of the Church But multitudes of your own writers and Pope Adrian and many more of your Popes have judged that a Pope may be a Heretick and consequently no member of the Church And consequently judge what 's become of your Church when an Essential part of it is no part of the Church Your common shift which Canus ibid. and others fly to is that He must be a judged Heretick before he is dismembred But 1. Sure that is but for manifestation to men for before God he is the same if men never judge him 2. Where the case is notorious the offendor is ipso jure cut off 3. Then it is in the Popes Power to let whole millions of Hereticks to be still parts of the Church And so the world shall be Christians or no Christians as he please and why may he not let Turks and Infidels on the same grounds be parts of the Church For he may forbare to judge them if that will serve 4. Then all the Christians in the world that the Pope hath not yet judged and cast out are members of the Church And then millions and millions are of the Church that never were subjects of the Pope If you say It is enough that there is a General condemnation of all that are guilty as they are I answer then it is enough to cut off a Pope that there was a General condemnation against such as he 5. But if all this satisfie you not yet I told you before that two or three Councils and three Popes did all judge Pope Honorius guilty of Heresie and consequently both Popes and General Councils have judged that a Pope may be an Heretick therefore you have been judged Heretical in your Head which is an essential part of your Church And thus I have shewed you what is the schism of the Church of Rome which being but a part hath attempted to cut off all the rest and so hath made a new pretended Catholick Church As a part of the Old Church which consisteth of all Christians united in Christ we confess all those of you still to be a part that destroy not this Christianity But as you are new gathered to a Christ-Representative or Vicar General we deny you to be any Church of Christ If you be Church members or saved it must be as Christians but never as Papists For a Papist may be a Christian but not as a Papist And if yet you cannot see the Church that you separate from open your eyes and look into much of Europe and all over Asia almost where are any Christians look into Armenia Palestine Egypt Ethiopia and many other Countries and you shall find that you are but a smaller part of the Church If you will not believe what I have before proved of this hear what your own say Anton. Marinarins in the Council of Trent complaineth that the Church is shut up in the Corners of Europe and yet Domestick enemies arise that waste this portion shut up in a corner Sonnius Bishop of Antwerp in Demonstrat Relig. Christian lib. 2. Tract 5. c. 3. saith I pray you what room hath the Catholick Church now in the habitable world scarce three elnes long in comparison of that vastness which the Satanical Church doth possess If yet you boast that you have the same seat that formerly you had I answer so have the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and others whom you condemn And we say as Gregory Nazianz Orat. de land Athanasii It is a succession of Godliness that is properly to be esteemed a succession For he that professeth the same doctrine of faith is also partaker of the same throne But he that embraceth the contrary belief ought to be judged an adversary though he be in the throne This indeed hath the name of succession but the other hath the Thing it self and the Truth And he next addeth such words as utterly break your succession in pieces saying For he that breaketh in by force as abundance of Popes did is not to be esteemed a successor but rather he that suffereth force nor he that breaketh the Laws but he that is chosen in manner agreeable to the Laws nor he that holdeth contrary tenets but he that is endued with the same faith Unless any man will call him a Successor as we say a sickness succeedeth health or darkness succeedeth light and a strom succeeds a calm or madness or distraction succeedeth prudence Thus Nazianz pag. 377. We conclude therefore with one of your own Lyra Glos in Math. 16. Because many Princes and chief Priests or Popes and other inferiors have been found to Apostatize the Church consisteth in those persons in whom is the true knowledge and confession of Faith and Verity And so much to this empty Manuscript CHAP. XXXVI Detect 27. ANother of their Deceits is this To charge us with introducing New Articles of faith or points of Religion because we contradict the New Articles which they introduce and then they require us to prove our doctrines which are but the Negatives of theirs We receive no Doctrines of faith or worship but what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church These men bring in abundance of New ones and say without proof that they received them from the Apostles And because we refuse to receive their Novelties they call our Rejections of them the Doctrines of our Religion and feign us to be the Innovators And by this device it is in the Power of any Heretick to force the Church to take up such as these men call New points of faith If a Papist shall say that besides the Lords Prayer Christ gave his Disciples another Form or two or three or many or that he gave them ten New Commandments not mentioned in the Bible or that he oft descended after his Ascension and
conversed with them or that there are many more worlds of men besides this earth or that Christ instituted twenty Sacraments how should we deal with these men but hy denying their fictions as sinfull Novelty and rejecting them as corrupt additions to the Faith And were this any Novelty in us And should they bid us prove in the express words of Scripture or antiquity our Negative Propositions that Christ gave but one form of prayer that he did not oft descend that he gave no more Decalogues Sacraments c. Is it not a sufficient proof of any of these that they are not written and that no Tradition of them from the Apostles is proved and that they that hold the Affirmative and introduce the Novelty must prove and not we Our Articles of faith are the same and not increased nor any new ones added But the Papists come in with a new faith as large as all the Novelties in the Decretals and the Councils and these innovations of theirs we reject Now our Rejections do not increase the Articles of our faith no more then my beating a dog out of my house or keeping out an enemy or sweeping out the filth doth enlarge my house or increase my family They do not take all the Anathema and Rejections in their own Councils to be Canons or Articles of faith For example The Pope hath made it an Article of faith that no Scripture is to be interpreted but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers This wereject and make it no Article of our faith but an erroneous Novelty Do we hereby make a new Article because we reject a new one of theirs yea a part of the Oath of their Church made by Pope Pius after the Council of Trent 1. If this be an Article prove it if you can 2. If it be a Truth and no Novelty I pray you tell us which be Fathers and which not and help us to know certainly when we have all or the unanimous Consent And then tell us whether every man is not forsworn with you that interprets any text of Scripture before he have read all the Fathers or any text which six of them never expounded or any text which they do not unanimously agree on And yet though it be not our necessary task we can easily prove to you that this is a New Article of your devising 1. Because else no man must expound any Scripture at all before these Fathers were born For how could the Church before them have their unanimous consent And 2. Because that otherwise these Fathers themselves wanted an Article of faith unless it was an Article to them that they must expound no Scripture but by their own Consent 3. Because these Fathers do few of them expound all or half or the twentieth part of the Scripture 4. Because they took liberty to disagree among themselves and therefore do not unanimously consent in abundance of particular texts 5. Because they tell us that they are fallible and bid us not take it on their trust 6. Because the Apostles have left us no such rule or precept but much to the contrary 7. Your own Doctors for all their Oath do commonly charge the Fathers with error and misexpounding Scripture as I shewed before Canus and many others charge Cajetan a Cardinal and pillar in your Church with making it his practise to differ from the Fathers and choosing expositions purposely for the Novelty pro more suo as his custom And when he hath highly extolled Cajetan Loc. Theol. lib. 7. pag. 223. he adds that yet his doctrine was defiled with a Leprosie of errors by an affection and lust of Curiosity or confidence on his wit expounding Scripture as he list happily indeed for the most part but in some few places more acutely then happily because he regarded not antient Tradition and was not verst in the reading of the Fathers and would not learn from them the Mysteries of the sealed book And in another place he blames him that he alway followed the Hebrew and Greek text And many other Papists by him and others are blamed for the same faults Andradius and more of the later plead for it And yet these men are counted members of your Church that go against an Article of your new faith and Oath So Transubstantiation is one of your New Articles in that Oath Do we make a New one now if we reject it Or need we be put to prove the Negative And yet we can easily do it And Edm. Albertinus among many others hath done it unanswerably Another of your Articles is that it belongeth to your Holy Mother the Church to judge of the true sence of Scripture And you mean the Roman Church and that they must judge of it for all the Christian world Prove this to be the Antient doctrine if you can If we reject this Novelty are we Innovators or need we prove the Negative And yet we can do it and have oft done it at large Did Athanasius Basil Nazianzen Nyssen Augustine Hierom Chrysostome Epiphanius and the rest of the Fathers send to Rome for the sence of the Scriptures which they expound or did they procure the Popes Approbation before any of them published their Commentaries You know sure that they did not The like may be said of all the rest of your New Articles and Practises We stand our ground Some of your Novelties we reject as trifles some as smaller errors and some as greater but still we keep to our antient faith of which the Scripture is a full and sufficient Rule as Vincentius Lirinens ubi supra though we are glad of all helps to understand it we say with Tertullian de carne Christi cap. 6. Nihil de eo constat quia Scriptura non exhibet Non probant quia non Scriptum est His qui insuper argumentantur nos resistemus CHAP. XXXVII Detect 28. ANother of their Deceits is this They make advantage of our charitable Judgement of them and of their uncharitable judgement of us and all other Christians to affright and entice people to their sect They say that we cannor be saved nor any that are not of the Roman Church But we say that a Papist may be saved They say that we want abundance of the Articles of faith that are of necessity to salvation We say that the Papists hold all that is necessary to salvation Luther saith that the Kernel of true faith is yet in the Church of Rome therefore say they Let Protestants take the shell And hence they make the simple people believe that even according to our own Confessions their Church and way is safer then ours I have answered this formerly in my Safe Religion but yet shall here once more shew you the nakedness of this Deceit 1. The Papists denying the faith and salvation of all other Christians doth no whit invalidate our faith nor shake our salvation Our Religion doth not cease to be true when ever a peevish
as gross as common even an abuse of Cyprians words l. 1. Ep. 3. where Cyprian speaks for the necessity of obeying One in the Church meaning a particular Church as the whole scope of his Epistle testifieth And this man would make them simple believe that he speaks of the Universal Church His Reasons proceed thus First p. 128. c. he tells us that the invisible God thinks meet to Govern the world by visible men Answ And who denies that Christ also governeth his Church by men But he concludeth hence Num alia ratione c. Shall we believe that Christ doth govern his Church in another way then God governeth the whole world Answ Reader doth not this man give up the cause of the Pope and say as much against it fundamentally as a Protestant Saith Boverins We must not believe that Christ doth govern the Church in another way then God doth govern the world But saith common sense and experience God doth not govern the whole world by any one or two or ten Universal Vice-monarch Therefore Christ doth not Govern the Church by any one Universal Vice-monarch His next Reason is Because Christ was a visible Monarch once on earth himself And if the Church had need of a visible Monarch then it hath need of it still Answ 1. Here the Reader may see that it is to no less then to be Christs successor or a Vice-christ that the Pope pretendeth And then the Reason if it were of any worth would as well prove that there must be one on earth still that may give the Holy Ghost immediately and make Articles of Faith de novo and Laws for the Church with promise of Salvation and may appoint new Offices and orders in the whole Church c. And why not one also to live without sin and to die for our sins and rise again and be our Saviour And why not one to give us his own body and blood in the Sacrament 2. Christ himself doth oppose himself to all terrestrial inhabitans saying One is your Master even Christ And what then why Be not ye called Masters But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant And Be not ye called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ and all ye are Brethren Mat. 23. 8. 9 10 11 12. where most evidently he shews that neither Peter or any of his own Disciples were to be called Masters as Christ was nor was any such to be on earth and so no Vice-christ yea that all his Apostles being Brethren were not to be Masters one to another but servants so that here is a plain bar put in against any of Peters Mastership or Headship of the Universal Church 3. We do on these and many other Reasons deny your consequence It follows not that we must still have a Christ on earth because we once had 4. Christ hath chosen another Vicar though invisible as Tertullian calls him and that is the Holy Ghost whom he sent to make such supply as was necessary by various gifts proportioned to the several states and members of the Church 5. If Christ would have left a Vice-christ upon earth which should have been an Essential part even the Head of his Church he would doubtless have plainly expressed it in Scripture and described his Office and Power and given him directions to exercise it and us directions how to know which is he and to obey him But there is not a word of any such matter in the Scripture nor Antiquity when yet it is a point if true of such unspeakable importance 6. You might at well feign that if it were then necessary to have twelve or thirteen Apostles it is so still and if then it was necessary to have the gift of tongues and miracles it is so still which yet the Pope himself is void of 7. It is not enough for your silly wit to say its fit that Christ have a Successor therefore he hath one but let him that claimeth so high an honour as to be the Vice-christ produce his Commission and prove his claim if he will be believed 8. Christ is still the visible Head of his Church seen in Heaven and as much seen over all the world except Judea and Egypt as ever he was When he was on earth he was not visible at Rome Spain Asia c. He that is Emperor of the Turkish Monarchy perhaps was never personally an hundred miles from Constantinople The King of Spain is no visible Monarch in the West-Indies And if all the world except Judea might be without a Present Christ then why that may not as well as the rest you must give him an account if you will tie him to be here resident 9. And yet if the Pope would usurp no more Power then Christ exercised visibly on earth it would not be all so bad as it is or hath been He would not then divide inheritances nor be a temporal Prince nor wear a Triple Crown nor keep so glorious a Court and Retinue nor depose Princes nor deny them tribute nor exempt his Prelates from it nor from their judgement Seats nor absolve their Subjects from their fidelity c. nor trouble the world as now he doth He would not exercise the power of putting any to death much less would he set up Inquisitions to burn poor people for reading the Scriptures or no being of his mind Pag. 133. He makes Christ the visible Pope while he was on earth and tells us that Promulgating the Gospel sending Apostles instituting Sacraments c. were Pontificalia munera Papal Offices Answ And indeed was Christ a Pope and is the Pope a Christ Jesus I know and Peter and Paul I know but this Vice-christ I know not If indeed the Vice-christ have power to do these Papal works to promulgate a new Gospel to send out Apostles to institute Sacraments c. as Christ did let us but know which be the Popes Sacraments and which be Christs which be the Popes Apostles and which be Christs and which is the Popes Gospel and which is Christs and we shall use them accordingly The Law and Testimony will help us to distinguish them Pag. 134. He comes to prove that Christ hath a Successor and his first proof is from Mic. 2. Let the Reader peruse it and judge without any help of mine what proof there is that the Pope is a Vice-christ The next is in Hosea 1. which speaketh of the return of the Israelites from Captivity Let the Reader make his best on it for the Pope for I think it not worth my labour to confute the Papists impudent perverting such Texts as these By the way he tells us as Card. Richlieu and the rest commonly do that its no dishonour to Christ to have a Deputy no more then for the King of England to have a Deputy or Vice-king in Ireland Answ 1. But our first question is Whether de facto such a thing be Prove that Christ hath Commissioned a
Vice-christ and we will not presume to say that he hath dishonoured himself 2. Thought it should not dishonour Christ it is such a transcendent honour to man as we will not believe that any man hath that proveth not his claim It was no dishonour to the Godhead to be united to the manhood of Christ in Personal union but if the Pope say that the Godhead is thus united to his manhood verily I will not believe him 3. Though we should not have presumed to question Christ if he had done it yet we must presume to tell the Pope that he is guilty of dishonouring Christ by his usurpation 1. Because he sets up himself as Vice christ without his Commission and takes that to himself that is Christs Prerogative God saith This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased Hear him And the Papists say of the Pope This is the Vice-christ Hear him 2. Because the Power of a King is more communicable then the Power of Christ it being such as is fit for one meer man as well as for another But the Power of Christ is such as no meer man is fit for The capacity of the Subject is Considerable as Necessary to the reception of the form of Power He that is God as well as Man is fit for an Universal Monarchy when he that is meer man is not From whence we argue thus If there was never such a thing by Gods institution as a meer man to be the Christ or Universal Head of the Church then there is no such thing to be imagined now But there never was such a thing Therefore there is no such Christ that was the visible Head was God and Man when the Pope is so we will believe in him as his Successor 4. It would ruine the Church to have built on so sandy a foundation and to have laid so much work on one that is so unable to perform it Doubtless common reason tells us that if God made any one man the Monarch of the whole world especially leaving his Commission as obscure as the Popes is were it any and should not give him a divine or supra-humane strength to execute it it would be the confusion of the world I am not well acquainted with the Power of Angels but I hope without dishonouring them I may suspect that the due managing of such an Universal Monarchy is above their abilities At least I am confident it is an honour that their Modesty and Reverence of Christ will not permit them to own as the Pope doth If this Vice-christ be not a false Christ he may apply that of Heb. 1. Being made so much better then Angels as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name then they For unto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art the Successor of Christ thou art the Universal Head of the Church Whether the Pope will be called the Vice-son of God the Vice-saviour and say Let all the Angels worship him sit thou on my right hand c. I leave to his modesty to consider But I must profess here to the Reader that though my modesty and consciousness of my weakness hath made me so suspicious lest I understand not the Apocalips as to suspend my judgement whether the Pope be the Antichrist the Beast c. yet the reading of their serious immodest arguings to prove the Pope to be the Vice-christ on Earth doth exceedingly more increase my suspicion that he is The Antichrist For to be Peters Successor as a first Apostle is a contemptible thing in these men eyes This is not it that they plead for Bellarmine ubi supr expresly tells us that the Pope succeeds not Peter as an Apostle No it is as a Vice-christ to the whole Church as Boverius here professedly maintaineth And this they make the Foundation of their Catholick Church and the acknowledgement of it Essential to every member of it Which I even tremble to read and think of Next Boverius comes to his proofs from the New-Testament And those are the same that I have answered as Bellarmines in my Safe Religion and are an hundred times answered by our writers and therefore the Reader may excuse me if I put him to no long trouble about them The first is the old Tues Petrus in hanc Petram c. Answ 1. He doth not say Thou art Christ or the Vice-christ or my Successor or the Universal Monarch of the Church No such words as these 2. It is Christ himself her that is called the Rock and not Peter q. d. Thy name is Peter who confessest me in allusion to which I tell thee that I whom thou hast confessed am Petra the Rock upon which I will build me a Church which the gates of Hell shall not prevail against As the Apostle saith of the spiritual Rock 1 Cor. 10. That Rock was Christ So may I of this 3. But if it had been spoken of Peter it had been no more then is spoken of the other Apostles on whom as on a Foundation the Church is said to be built Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone Eph. 2. 20. But what need we more if we put not out our eyes then to find in all the New Testament that Peter was never called or taken for a Vice-christ by the Apostles unless Secundum quid as every Embassador of Christ is that speaks his message in his stead 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. and that he never is said to exercise any Universal Government over the rest of the Apostles nor so much as give them a Law or Convent them before him or send them out or do any more in Ruling them then they in Ruling him nor so much as Paul did in rebuking him to his face for disorderly walking c. Gal. 2. Yea when Paul calls them carnall that sided with Peter though but in the same over-valuing way as others did of Apollos and Paul saying I am of Paul and I am of Apollo and I am of Cephas 1 Cor. 1. 12. He saith to them that said I am of Christ Is Christ divided as shewing that he was the common Universal Head and Master of them all But when he mentioneth meer men he hath no such word He saith not Is Peter divided But implying all in one he saith Was Paul crucified for you or were yee baptized into the name of Paul And Who then is Paul and who is Apollo implying also Who is Peter but Ministers by whom ye believed as the Lord gave to every man 1 Cor. 3. 5. See 1 Cor. 4 6. Pag. 144. Boverius playes his game with Metaphors and Similitudes and saith The Church is Christs Kingdom an Army a Sheepfold a House a Ship or Noahs Ark and what 's a Kingdom without a visible King or an Army without a Visible General or a Flock without a visible Shepheard or a House without a Housholder or a Ship without a Pilot Answ 1. The whole earth is Gods Kingdom And
good sadness did God send John the twenty second alias the twenty third to extinguish Heresies with all those Abominations and all that Infidelity that was charged on him by a General Council And was John the thirteenth a Vice christ to extinguish Heresies by all that diabolical villany that he was deposed for by a Council 3. And for calling Councils they have learnt more wit since Constance and Basil have let them know what Councils mean to do by them Unless they can pack up forty or fifty or what if it were an hundred or two hundred as they did at Trent to say their lesson as it was brought to them from Rome and to call themselves a General Council for folks to laugh at them Is this all that we must have a Vice-Christ for How many General Councils did the Pope call for six hundred years after Christ Tell us without Lying and let us see why he was created The seventh Reason is That the Divine Institution of Christ and the plain Scripture about Peters Primacy may take place Answ 1. Where shall a man that hath eyes find your pretended institution The blind may sooner find it by the half 2. Primacy and Monarchy are not all one And Bellarmine can tell you that its one thing to be the first Apostle and another thing to be the Vice-christ to the Church Universal Peter was none such 3. No nor was he properly any more the Bishop of Rome then of many another place Antioch claims the inheritance by birth-right as Peters first supposed seat and Jerusalem before them both Well Reader thou seest now how Babel is built and what is the strongest stuff that the learned Spaniards had to assault Prince Charls with For verily I have not bawkt their strength And were it not for the loss of precious time to you and me I would quickly thus shew you the vanity of abundance more of their most applauded writings CHAP. XLIII Detect 34. ANother of their Devices is to take nothing as Evidence from Scripture but the Letters or express words They will not endure to hear of consequences no nor Synonimal expressions Bellarmine himself saith de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. Convenit inter nos adversarios ex solo literali sensu peti de bere argumenta efficacia nam eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur certum est sensum esse spiritus sancti But this may admit a fair interpretation It was Cardinal Peronius in his Reply against King James that is judged the deviser of this Deceit but Gonterius and Veronius the Jesuites have perfected it I shall say but little of it because it is already detected and refelled by Paul Ferrius 1618. and Isaaccus Chorinus 1623. and Nic. Vedelius 1628. at large Yea Vedelius shews cap. 6. p. 50. c. that it was hatcht in Germany by the Lutherans for the defending of Consubstantiation and from them borrowed by the Revolter Perron For our parts the cunning Sophisters shall find us very Reasonable with them in this point but if they be faln out with Reason it self there 's no way to please them but by turning bruits And we will not buy their favour at those rates Our judgement in this point I shall lay down distinctly though briefly as followeth 1. The Holy Scripture is the Doctrine Testament and Law of Christ And we shall add nothing to it nor take ought from it The use of it as a doctrine is to inform us of the will of God in the points there written The use of it as a Testament is to signifie to us the last will of our Lord concerning our duty and Salvation The use of it as a Law is to appoint us our Duty and Reward or Punishment and to be the Rule of our obedience and in a sort the Rule by which we shall be judged 2. All Laws are made to Reasonable creatures and suppose the use of Reason for the understanding them To use Reason about the Law is not to add to the Law 3. The subject must have this use of Reason to discern the sence of the Law that he may obey it And the judge must Rationally pass the sentence by it 4. This is the Application of the Law to the fact and person And though the fact and person be not in the Law yet the Application of the Law to the fact and person is no addition to it Otherwise to use any such thing would be to add to it 5. As the fact is distinct from the Law so must the sentence of the Judge be which results from both 6. To speak the same sence or thing in equipollent terms is not to add to the Law in matter or sence 7. Yet we maintain the Scripture sufficiency in suo genere in terms and sence So that we shall confess that equipollent words are only Holy Scripture as to sence but not as to the terms 8. But there is no Law but may many wayes be broken and no Doctrine but may be divers wayes opposed And therefore though we yield that nothing but the express words of God are the Scripture for terms and sence yet many thousand words may be against Scripture that be not there expresly forbidden in terms 9. The Law of Nature is Gods Law and the Light of Nature is his Revelation And therefore that which the Light of Nature seeth immediately in Nature or that which it seeth from Scripture and Nature compared together and soundly concludeth from these premises is truly a revelation from God 10. The Conclusion followeth the more debile of the Premises in point of evidence or certainty to us Where Scripture is the more debile there the conclusion is of Scripture faith but where the fact or Proposition from the Light of Nature is more debile there the conclusion is of Natural Evidence But in both of Divine discovery For there is no Truth and Light but from God the Father of Lights This is our judgement herein Now for the Papists you may see their folly thus 1. If nothing but the bare words of a Law may be heard in Tryals then all Laws in the world are void and vain For the subjects be not all named in them nor the fact-named And what then have witnesses and jurors and judges to do The Promise saith He that believeth shall be saved But it doth not say that Bellarmine or Veronius believeth Doth it follow that therefore they may make no use of it for the comforting of their souls in the hopes of Salvation The Threatning saith that he that believeth not is condemned But it saith not that such or such a man believeth not should they not therefore fear the threatning 2. By this trick they would condemn Christ himself also as adding to the Law in judgement He will say to them I was hungry and ye fed me not c. But where said the Scripture so that such or such a man fed not Christ It needs not Christ knows
Natural existence For where is it when called how long have they sate But this none will affirm Not in Moral existence For there is no such thing pretended nor possible I confess the Common wealth is not dissolved at the death of the Prince because a Successor being determined of by Law as in hereditary Government there is one hath presently right to the place though he want solemn admittance or if elective yet Rex non moritur both because the successor hath an Intentional Moral being in the Fundamental Law and the Intention of the Electors conjunctly and they presently make an actual choice or else the power so far as is necessary for execution falls in the mean time into the hands of some Trustees of the Republick while they are electing and the soveraign is in fieri Or if it be in some dissolvable body whose actual Session is intermitted yet they are still in Moral being and ready to assemble and the Soveraignty for so much as is of ordinary exercise even over the Universal body is in the mean time in the hands of some other Assembly who therefore may be said to partake of the Soveraignty But none of this is so in the present case Here is no General Council ordinarily in natural being and therefore in the vacancy not in Moral being There is none that pretendeth to be in Moral being For the Council of Trent which was the last pretended General Council is dissolved and the Pope would not take it well if any shall call another without him and no time is appointed for it The Decennial Council determined of at Constance is an empty name and that Decree did but serve to prove that really General Councils are not the Supream Governors of the Church For no one obeyeth them in that And whether ever the Pope or any one else will call a General Council again we cannot tell So that now there is none nor we know not whether there ever will be But further Argum. 2. That which is the Head or form of the Catholick Church or any way Necessary to its Being or Unity hath ever been found in it or at least within this thousand years or at least in the primitive purer ages or sometime at least But a true General Council is not always in being nor ever was within this thousand years no nor in the purer ages nor ever at all therefore it is no Head of the Church nor necessary to its unity The Major will not be denyed The proof of any branch of the Minor may serve turn much more of all 1. That a General Council hath not been this forty years in being all men will confess If the Church have been Headless forty years or wanted any thing Necessary to its Being or Unity then was it so long no Church or many Catholick Churches which are known untruths 2. If the Church have had any General Council within this thousand years it was either that of Trent that of Canstance Basil Florence the Laterane c. But none of these were such For 1. there were no Bishops from the most of the Christian world I have told you before how few at Trent did the most egregious parts of their work few more then forty The Churches of Syria Armenia Ethiopia and the most of the Christian world were never so much as fairly invited to be there If at Florence the Patriarch of Constantinople and two or three Greeks more were present what 's that to all the Churches of the Greek Profession through the world besides all others The ancient Councils called General contained All the Bishops that could and would come For all were to be there and not one Bishop chosen by two hundred or by a Prince instead of two hundred But at these later Councils were neither all nor so much as any Delegates though but chosen by hundreds to represent them from most of the Churches of the world Besides the packing and fore-resolutions of the Popes that ruled all and many other Arguments that nullifie these pretended General Councils I say not that all of them were useless but none of them were any more like to Oecumenical or Universal then Italy and its few servants are like to all the Christian world And that the Ancient Councils were not General I mean the four first or any like them I easily prove 1. From the Original of them and the Mandates and the Presidents and Ratifications and Executions It was the Roman Emperors that called them and that sent their Mandates to the Lieutenants and other secular Officers to see to the execution and to the Bishops to be there It was the Roman Emperors that by themselves or their Lieutenants were present to Rule them all according to the proportion of secular interest It was the same Powers that Ratified them and what they ratified went for currant and their Ratification was sought by the Bishops to that end It was the same Power that banished them that obeyed not and compelled men to submit to them Now let any man of Reason tell me what Power Constantine Theodosius Martian or any Roman Emperor had to summon the Bishops that were subjects in the Dominions of all other Princes through the world What Authority had they out of their own Dominion 2. Yea de facto the case is known 1. That they did not summon the Bishops of other Princes Dominions 2. That those Bishops at least no considerable number were there What Mandates or Invitations were sent to all the Churches of India Ethiopia Persia or the parts of Parthia Armenia Ireland Scotland c. that were out of the Roman Power Whoever those one or two were that Eusebius calls Bishops of Persis Parthia Armenia it 's a plain case that there were no due Representatives of all or any of these Churches there that were without the verge of the Empire No Brittish Irish that is then Scottish Bishops were there nor any from abundance other Churches And the other Councils after that at Nice make less pretense to such a thing So that it is most evident that General Councils then were but of the Bishops of the Empire or the Roman world unless a Bishop or two sometime might drop in that lived next them And was the Church no wider then the Empire Let Baronius himself be judge that tells you of the Churches planted by the primitive Preachers in India Persia and many other parts of the world Let Godignus be judge that confesseth the Ethiopians had the Gospel since the Apostles days and I pray in what age were they Papists Let Raynerius be judge that saith the Churches of Armenia and others planted by the Apostles were not subject to the Church of Rome Let the Antiquities of Brittain and Ireland be evidence But the case is undenyable All this noyse then of General Councils comes but from a supposition that the Roman world was the whole Christian world A small mistake We home-bred Rusticks may shortly be
is impossible to most of the world as is before shewed and were it possible it would be so tedious and laborious a course that its ridiculous in most to mention such Appeals Argum. 9. The Soveraign or Head of the Church as of every Body Politick hath power to deprive and denude any other of their power The Pope or General Council hath not power to do so therefore they are not of the Head or Soveraigns of the Church The Major is a known principle in polity He that giveth power can take it away And it 's confessed by the Opponents in this case The Minor I prove 1. Because else it would be in the power of the Pope or Council whether Christ shall have any Ministry and Church or not They may at least make havock of it at pleasure But that 's false 2. As is before said we receive not our power from them therefore they cannot take it from us 3. The Holy Ghost doth make us Over-seers of the flock Act. 20. 28. and lay a Necessity on us and denounce a woe against us if we preach not the Gospel and hath no where given us leave to give over his work if the Pope or a Council shall forbid us 4. And they can shew no Commission from Christ that giveth them such a power Arg. 10. If it were the form or Essence of the Church to have a humane visible Head then our Relation to such a head would be essential to our Membership or Christianity But the Consequence is false therefore so is the Antecedent The falseness of the consequent is apparent 1. In that it cruelly and ungroundedly unchristeneth all that do not believe in such a visible Head That is the greatest part by far of the Christians in the world And 2. By the ensuing argument And the necessity of the consequence is evident of it self Argum. 11. If such a visible Head were essential to the Church and so to our Christianity then should we all be Baptized into the Pope or a General Council as truly and necessarily as we are baptized into the Church But we neither are nor ought to be so baptized into the Pope or a General Council therefore they are not essential to the Church or our Christianity The Major viz. the Consequence is clear and not denyed by the Papists who affirm that Baptism engageth the baptized to the Pope He that is united to the body is united to the head he that is listed into the Army is listed to and under the General He that is entred into the Common-wealth is engaged to the Soveraign thereof But that we are not baptized to the Pope or a General Council is proved 1. Because neither the form of Baptism nor any word in Scripture doth affirm such a thing 2. No persons in Scripture times were so baptized Men were baptized before there was a Pope at Rome or a General Council And afterward none were baptized to them at least for many hundred years otherwise then as they were entred into the particular Church of Rome who were Inhabitants there 3. Never any was baptized to Peter or Paul or any of the Apostles saith Paul 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul They must be baptized into the name of no visible Head but him that was crucified for them 4. The Apostle fully resolveth all the doubt 1 Cor. 12. describing the body into which we are baptized ver 13. And he entitleth it from the head Christ vers 12. but acknowledgeth no other head either co-equal with Christ or subordinate The highest of the other members are called by Paul but eyes and hands and thus Apostles Prophets Teachers Miracles gifts of healing helps Governments are only said to be set in the Church as eyes and hands in the body but not over the Church as the Head or Soveraign Power ver 17 18 19 28 29. so that though he that is baptized into the Church is baptized into an Organical body and related to the Pastors as to hands and eyes yet not as to a head nor as to a representative body neither And me thinks neither Pope nor Council should pretend to be more then Apostles Prophets and Teachers and Governments If the form of baptism had but delivered down the authority of the Pope or a Council as it did the authority and name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Tradition would have been a tolerable Argument for them though Scripture had been silent But when the Baptismal Tradition it self is silent and it is a doctrine so monstruously strange to the Primitive Church that all the baptized are baptized to the Pope or a General Council I know no remedy but they must both put up their pretenses Argum. 12. The Essence of the Church into which they were baptized was part of the doctrine which the Catechumeni were taught and all at age should learn before their baptism The Soveraignty or Headship of Pope or Council was no part of the Doctrine which by the Primitive Church the Catechumeni were taught and ought to learn before their baptism Therefore the Soveraignty or Headship of Pope or Council was not then taken to be of the Essence of the Church The Major is evident 1. In that the Catholick Church was in the Creed and it's essentials there briefly expressed in those terms Holy Catholick Church and Communion of Saints 2. In that Church History fully acquainteth us that it was the practice of the Catethists and other Teachers to open the Creed to them before they baptized them and therein the Article of the Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints The Minor is proved by an induction of all the Records of those times which in gross may now suffice according to our present intended brevity to be mentioned There is no one Writer of many hundred years no not Origen Tertullian Irenaeus or any other that purposely recite the Churches belief which the Catechumeni were taught nor Cyril or John Hierosol or any other who open those Articles to the Catechumens that ever once mention the Doctrine of the Headship of the Pope or Council when they open the Article of the Catholick Church nor yet at any other time If they affirm that they did let them prove it if they can Argum. 13. As it is high Treason in a Republick to deny the Soveraign and to be cut off from him is to be cut off from the Common-wealth so it would be a damning unchristening sin to deny the Headship of the Pope or General Council if they were indeed the Head of the Church But it is no such damning unchristening sin Therefore they are not the Head of the Church The Major is plain from the Nature of Soveraignty The Minor is certainly proved 1. Because it is never mentioned in Scripture nor any ancient Writer for many hundred years as a state of Apostasie nor as a damning sin nor as any sin to deny
Faith c. so then you see there is but one Lord of the Church therefore the Pope or Council is not Lord in name or deed And Apostles Prophets Pastors and Doctors are the member contradisting guished from this One Lord and whose diversity is purposely mentioned they being the matter or parcels that must have their unity in some other but not the Church to be united in them Here is then no mention among all these Ones of one earthly Head whether Pope or Council not of One Apostle that was the Head of the rest If such a thing had ever come into the Apostles mind he would sure have mentioned it on such occasions as these and not have quite forgotten it yea and contradict it so evidently 1 Cor. 6. 15 17. Our bodies are the members of Christ not of the Pope and he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit not he that is joined to the Pope Gal. 3. 28. We are all one in Christ Jesus not in an earthly Head Many and many times doth the Apostle exhort them to be of one mind and acord and take heed of schism and maintain peace and he reproveth their divisions at large yet doth he never mention such a sin as dividing from an earthly Head nor ever once direct them to a Pope or General Council as the Center of their unity or the necessary means of curing divisions Peter himself exhorteth them to be all of one mind 1 Pet. 3. 8. but never to be all united in him as their head The Apostle Paul is punctual in describing the Officers of the Church and the peoples duty to them But he never describeth a Pope or any earthly Head of that Church nor ever telleth the people of their duty to such And if such a supposed fundamental should be quite forgotten by men that belieived it and taught others that which was necessary to be believed it were incredibly strange That Paul writing to the Romans should never mind them of the honour of their Sea or their duty to their supereminent Prelate was his forgetfulness or unbelief And surely he would never have so sharply reproved them of Corinth for contentions in saying I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas and I of Christ if he had thought they must have been united in Cephas without once telling them of such a means of union and reconciliation He saith Is Christ divided as much as to say you must be all united in him but he saith not Is Cephas divided but plainly makes the exalters of Cephas a party that was guilty of division and Chap. 3. 3 4 5. tells them plainly that this shewed that they were carnal And speaking of all others in his own person and Apollos saith Who then is Paul or who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believed They had not then learned to answer Why Cephas is the Head of the Church And 1 Cor. 46. He speaks as if it were purposely to a Papist All these things brethren I have in a figure transferred to my self and to Apollo for your sakes that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written that no one of you be puffed up for one against another What not for Peter no not for Peter himself And doubtless Paul did not believe his supremacy when he so presumed to reprove him to his face Gal. 2. So 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. there is mention of our being all one bread and one body but that 's because we are all partakers of that one body of Christ and not because we are united in the Pope or any other Moreover when the Disciples strove who should be greatest Christ expresly rebuketh such thoughts and instead of granting any of them that desire he denyeth it to them all Mat. 22. 25 26. Luke 22. 26. The Kings of the Gentiles rule over them and are called gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so Bellarmine indeed can merrily hence gather that there must be one appointed to be the greatest because Christ saith He that will be Greatest let him be the servant of all This is to make good their charge against the Scripture that it is a nose of Wax by their presumptuons abuse of it as some men would prove the Apostacy of the Saints by their own Apostatizing when yet they prove it not though they ruine themselves Did not Christ by these words reprehend their seeking of a Supremacy And yet doth he grant it Oh but it is only Tyranny that Christ forbiddeth them Answ That which Christ acknowledgeth in the Kings of the Nations without reprehension that is it which he denyeth to his Disciples But it is not Tyranny but Dominion which Christ thus acknowledgeth in and alloweth to the Kings of the Nations therefore it is not Tyranny but Dominion which he forbiddeth to his Disciples That which Christ here speaketh of the Kings of the Nations is somewhat common to all Kings and so as Kings But Tyranny was not common to all Kings nor to them as Kings therefore it is not Tyranny that he speaks of Moreover its plain that it is a Greatness in Desire and Affectation that is the subject of Christs speech and not an allowed supremacy and that he forbids this Supremacy in the following words Let him be the servant of all q. d. I allow in my Kingdom to the Preachers of the Gospel no other Greatness or superiority above others but what consisteth in holiness and humility and doing good and so in disclaiming of Ruling Greatness In Luke 9. there 's mention of him that was least c. It follows not thence that one was appointed to be the lowest And if the will of Christ were known to them that one should be the Supream and this was Peter what need they strive any further about it or why doth he not rebuke them for resisting their Supream Again I say that I cannot see how it can stand with the wisdom or goodness of Christ the Law-giver of his Church or the perfection of his Laws or how it can be any way probable that he should be wholly silent of so great a point as the Headship and Center of the Churches Unity never giving us either the Name or Titles of such a Head nor the seat of his Empire nor appointing him his work nor directing him how to do it when he hath the greatest work in the world to do as these men suppose and such as surpasseth the strength of man yea of a thousand men never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurrent difficulties nor once giving us any of his power nor telling us of his prerogative nor telling us what officers he shall appoint under him and how nor once telling any man of his duty to obey him never telling us any thing of the succession of this Soveraign in whom it shall reside nor once telling us historically of the exercise of
any of his power I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ or his Apostles even when there was so great occasion when Peter was among them when there was striving for supremacy when the Churches were lamentably contending about the preheminence of their teachers and some were for one and some for another and some for Cephas himself and when so many heresies arose and hazzarded the Churches as among the Corinthians Galathians and others there did This is a thing so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdom and love of Christ that I must say for my part it surpasseth my belief Especially as is said when also so much is said against the Supremacy contended for All this I speak of any earthly Head whether Pope or Council Object But say the Papists you can allow Princes to be the Heads of the Church why then not a Pope Answ We acknowledge Princes and Pastors over parts of the Church but not over the Church Universal Every Corporation may call the Major or Bayliff a subordinate Head of that Corporation but not of the Kingdom Object There may be a Prorex a Viceking and why not then a Vicarious Head of the Catholick Church Answ 1. Because a Kingdom is not so big as all the world or all that is and may be Christian 2. Because a King having Dominion hath power of doing all that by others that he cannot do himself But a Pastor being a Minister hath no such power given him but must do his work himself 3. Because the work of the Ministry requires far more labour and attendance So that it is an utter Imopssibility that any man should be able to do the work of a supream Ruler of all the Christian world yea or the hundreth part of it as it must be done 4. And lastly because Christ hath made no such Prorex or Vice-head and none can have it without his commission Object But the Civil power hath been exercised by an Emperour over more then all the Christian world And why then may not the Ecclesiastical Answ 1. It s notoriously false that ever Emperour had so extensive a Dominion 2. The Gospel must be preached over all the world and therefore we must consider the possible future extent of the Church and not only the present existent state 3. There are many millions of Christians mixt in the Dominions of Infidel Princes among other Religions which makes the Government of them the more difficult 4. I shewed before from the nature of the work many other difficulties which make a difference Object Monarchy is the best Government therefore the Church must have it Answ The Monarchy of God is best but among men it is according to the state of the Rulers and subject One way is better in some cases and another in others 2. For one man to be Monarch of all the Christian world is not best when by taking a thousand times more upon him then he can do he will ruine instead of ruling well 3. You may as well say An Universal Civil Monarch over all the world is best therefore so it must be but when will you prove that But if I mistake not in my conjecture it is the thing that the Jesuites have lately got into their heads that the Pope must have the Universal Soveraignty Ecclesiastical and Civil that so an Universal peace may be in the world Obj. There was but One High Priest before Christ Answ 1. No more there was but one Temple Will you therefore have no more Nor but one civil Monarch in that Church Would you have no more I partly believe it 2. It was easie for one to Rule so small a Nation as Judaea in comparison of all the world 3. Prove you the Institution of your Supremacy as we can prove the Institution of Aarons Priesthood and the taking of it down again and we will yield all 4. That Priesthood was a Type of Christ the Eternal Priest and is ended in him as the Epistle to the Hebrews shews at large Object There is a Monarchy among Angels and Devils Answ 1. It s a hard shift when you must go to another world for your pattern But for your Argument fetcht from Hell I will leave it with you but for that from Heaven I say there 's no proof of it And if there were till you can prove that our work and fitness for it is the same as Angels and that the Lord hath appointed the same form here you have said nothing But because this Question is largely handled by abundance of our Learned Writers I shall say no more to it here but conclude that by this which is already said in brief it is manifest that The Catholick Church of Christ is not one Visible Political Body as joined to any One Universal Visible Head or Soveraign besides Christ If any being driven from this hold shall say that yet there are several Patriarcks that Govern the several Provinces of the Christian world though there be no head but Christ I answer 1. If there be no earthly Head and Center of unity then I have the main cause These Patriarcks may and do at this day unreconcilably disagree among themselves This therefore will not serve for a unity 2. When as is aforesaid you have well proved the Institution of these Patriarcks and how many they be and who and the power of Princes to make new ones and not to forbear it and to pull down the old ones and when you have answered the foregoing Arguments as many of them as extend to Patriarchal power also as well as Unversal Headship then we shall take this further into consideration In the mean time I supersede as having done that which I think necessary to take off men from inclining to Rome and reproaching of Churches upon the erroneous Conceit of the Nature and unity of the Catholick Church as if it were One as under One Earthly Visible Head CHAP. IV. Opening the true Grounds on which the Churches Unity and Peace must be sought and the means that must be used to attain so much as is here to be expected Quest BUT if this be not the way of the Churches Unity which is and what should we desire and endeavour for the attaining it For the distractions of the Church are so great through our divisions that it makes us still apt to suspect that we are out of the way Though it be a great work to answer this question rightly and a hundred a thousand times greater to answer it satisfactorily that is to satisfie prejudiced incapable men with a right answer yet I shall attempt it by casting in my thoughts or to speak more confidently by declaring so much as I am certain is the will of God concerning this weighty thing And here I shall first lay down those grounds upon which we must proceed if we will do our duty for the union of the Church 2. I shall tell you what