preach the Gospel to every creature nor were they successors to them in their Apostleship for that particular office ceased with the first Apostles So that the truth is this conceit of succession is but a vain conceit though it be much magnified by H. T. and other Romanists for want of solid proof of their several doctrins out of Scripture or primitive antiquity I go on to the next Article ARTIC III. Popish Church visibility not necessary Such visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church SECT 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God hath had not onely a continued but also a visible Succession from Christ to this time c. which we prove thus 1. A Society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers preaching baptizing and administring Sacraments must of necessity be always visible But the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministere Therefore the Church of Christ must of necessity be always visible The Major is proved by evident reason because those are all outward and sensible actions which are inconsistent with an invisible society of actors The Minor is proved by Scripture Go ye teaching all Nations baptizing them c. And Behold I am with you all days c. St. Matth. 28. v. 20. He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints Ephes 4. 11 12. Answ THe Tenet and the Conclusion of the Argument differ the Tenet asserting what hath been the Conclusion what of necessity must be the Tenet having for its Subject the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of God the Conclusion the Church of Christ indefinite and both Tenet and Conclusion is granted but not in this Author's and other Romanists sense It is granted there hath been a Succession but not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith meaning the now Roman from Christ and his Apostles to this time which H. T. in the former Article makes the Definition of Succession And visibility of each particular Church is granted but not of the Catholick as Catholick which as such is to be believed not seen And this visibility it is granted to be of some at some times not in the same splendor or conspicuity at all times nor to all persons But Protestants deny it visible always to all in so glorious and conspicuous an estate as Bellarmine asserts when he saith in his Book de Eccles Milit. cap. 2. That the Church is an Assembly of men so visible and palpable as is the Assembly of the People of Rome or the Kingdom of France or the Common-wealth of the Venetians so that we might grant his Tenet and Conclusion were it not that fraudulently there is more intended than is expressed which is needfull to be discovered For answer to it as it is the Major is granted if it be understood of visibility simply but if meant of such a conspicuous visibility as the Romanists assert it is to be denied In the Minor it is to be observed 1. That a distinction is made between exterior Consecration and Ordination which I judge to be done that thereby may be implied the distinction of Bishops who are consecrated not ordained from Presbyters whom they ordain not consecrate to have been always in the Church of Christ which is not right 2. That it is asserted that the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers which is because he holds a true Church hath always such Ministers But as I said before that is not true no not in the Church of Rome in the vacancy of the See which hath been sometimes long and therefore it is not necessary to the being of a true Church that always the exterior Consecration and Ordination be continued and if it may be intermitted one two or ten years and yet the Church a true Church it may be an hundred and therefore the Minor is not to be granted if meant of exterior Consecration and Ordination of Bishops distinct from Presbyters and such a perpetuity as is without the least intermission nor do any of the Texts prove it For the Precept Matth. 28. 19 20. proves onely it ought to be not that it shall be and the Promise if it do prove that a Succession shall be yet it doth not prove such a Succession as shall have exterior Consecration and Ordination but such assistance in Preaching and Baptizing as shall uphold and prosper them in that Work nor is this assured to any one place but indefinitely to any persons in any place where this Work shall be continued And the other place Ephes 4. 11 12. proves not a certainty of the event which is asserted in the Minor but if the Gift be meant of Institution of what ouâ—ht to be it notes onely a certainty of Duty if of Donation of Abilities it notes not an exterior Consecration and Ordination but an act to be immediately from Christ himself or by his Spirit and so doth not prove a futurity of such Succession by outward Consecration and Ordination as H. T. brings it for Nevertheless this Author doth disadvantage his own party by this argâ—ing For 1. by this arguing he plainly makes the marks of the Church by which it is visible Preaching Baptizing and administring Sacraments which doth by good consequence infer that the Protestants do rightly make the Preaching of the Word and the administring of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church which will make well for the Protestants by whom these are observed but ill for the Ministers of the Roman Church chiefly the Bishops of Rome who neither preach nor baptize nor administer Sacraments but do other acts of other kindes Nor to speak truth is almost any of their Preaching the Preaching of the Gospel but the Rites of the Roman Church extolling the Virgin Mary and other Saints excellency little of the Gospel or if any part of it it is likely the History of the Gospel in an historical fashion little of the mystery but in stead thereof such Doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin merit of good works are preached as do overthrow the Gospel And for Baptizing though Bellarmine tells us lib. 2. de bonis oper in partic cap. 17. that at Rome the old Custome is not abolished of Baptizing the Catechumeni at Easter but among the Papists chiefly in the City of Rome there is no year in which many catechized persons are not baptized at Easter yet the truth is there is
God Acts 20. 26 27. and elsewhere Ergo. 10. If there were many Saints and Martyrs acknowledged even by the Romanists to be such who did not hold communion with the Bishop of Rome so as to own him to be supreme visible head of the whole church but did oppose him and lived and died in that opposition and yet were in the church of God then they who hold not communion with the See of Rome may be the true church of God But the antecedent is true in Cyprian Augustine and many more opposing the Bishop of Rome about rebaptization appeals from Africa keeping Easter therefore either they must be unsainted or else it must be yielded that persons who are not now in communion with the See of Rome may be true churches of God I need not insist any longer in proving the falsity of a tenet so palpably absurd and demonstrated to be so by Bishop Mortan in his Grand Imposture of the Roman Church and by others elsewhere Let 's view H. T. his proof SECT IV. The succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church THat saith he is the onely true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other is the true church of God For proof of the major he alledgeth Isa 59. 21. 60. 1 3 11. 62. 6. Ezech. 3. 26. Dan. 7. 13 14. Matth. 28. 20. John 14 16. Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. Answ The succession he means is expressed p. 45. to be a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith This succession may be either in the same place or some place or other indefinite and it may be said to be continued without the least interruption for the smallest space of time or so continued that in each age or century there hath been such a succession though with some intermission The succession in the profession of the same faith may be either universal in every point or limited to fundamentals The succession may be said to be continued either so conspicuously as that there is an Assembly of that people in each age which any Christians in any part of the world did or might know as they do the Commonwealth of the Venetians or Kingdom of France oâ— as heretofore the Roman Commonwealth was known or else obscurely so as to be known onely to themselves and some near neighbors The proof of this succession may be conceived to be out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments extant expressing persons and their faith or else it may be conjectured from some more obscure intimations This Author I conceive from many passages following understands his major here thus That is the onely true Church of God which has had in the same place a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time without interruption any notable time in any age of a number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith not onely in fundamentals but in other points also so conspicuously that all Christians did or might know it as the Roman Empire French Kingdom or Venetian Republique may be known and this to be proved out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments expressing the persons and their faith For such a succession this Author would have necessary to a true church which he imagines may be proved to be in the Roman church and no other But in this sense his Proposition is most false and no whit proved out of the Texts he produceth and nullifies the Roman church it self which he indeavours so much to magnifie as to make it to be the onely true church of God In opposition thereto I say 1. There may be a true church of God where there are no Bishops or Priests at all Which I prove 1. From Acts 14. 23. where it is said that Barnabas and Paul after they had gathered the churches they returned to them and ordained Elders in every Church which supposeth they were churches sometime afore they had Elders ordained for them therefore it follows there may be a true church without Bishops Priests or Elders sith those churches were such afore they had them 2. From the definition of a true church That is a true church which hath the definition of a true church H. T. confesseth often this Proposition to be true But a number of believers in Christ who have no Elders or Priests or Bishops hath the definition of a true church Ergo The minor is proved from the received definitions Bellarm. Tom. 2. Controv. l. de Eccles milit c. 1. Ecclesia est evocatio sive caetus vocatorum the church is the company of the called out and other Authors speak conformably But there may be a caâ—ling out or a company of persons called out though they have no Bishops or Priests therefore they may be a ture church of God 3. That company which hath the essential parts of a true church is a true church of God But a number of believers professing the faith of Christ hath the essential parts of a true church They are the matter of a church in that they are men the form is faith or the profession of it no other thing can be rightly assigned to be essential as constitutive of a true church their governours order special gifts and other things tending to their well-being are common accidents which may be or not be and yet the church remain a true church Therefore a number of believers professing the true faith of Christ without Bishops is a true church of God 2. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters whom H. T. terms Priests For 1. There are many Fathers and popish Writers who make them but one Order at first Lumbard senâ—ent l. 4. distinct 24. Apud vcteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt The Antients took Bishops and Priests for the same therefore with them there were churches in which were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters 2. Where there were two Orders yet they were not so necessary but that the church may be without them otherwise in the vacancy of the Episcopal See which hath in Rome it self been sometimes some years together often many moneths and days the church should cease to be a true church of God for then it would follow that in such vacancies the Roman church did cease to be 3. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a profession of the same faith in every point for then the Roman church should not be a true church
in Paul's days in which it is clear from Rom. 14. 2. that one believed he might eat all things another who was weak did eat herbs Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike In after Ages the differences in the Roman church it self if reckoned would make a large catalogue 4. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that the company and their profession be so visible as that they may be discerned as the Roman Senate was or the Venetian Republique and French Kingdom are For then the disciples which were assembled the doors being shut for fear of the Jews John 20. 19. had not been a true church of God nor the woman in the wilderness Revel 12. 14. nor those that wand red in dens and caves of the earth in desarts and mountains Heb. 11. 38. then the Saints in persecution should not be blessed as Christ saith Matth. 5. 10. but cursed as ceasing to be the true church of God 5. It is not necessary to the bring of a true church that there should be in it a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith for then the first company of such professors though called out of the world should not be a true church of God for want of succession 6. Much less is it necessary that there should be a succession in the same place For then when Christ removed the candlestick that is the church out of it's place as he threatens Revel 2. 5. though believers should come to dwell there a thousand years after they should not be a true church because of the interruption of succession in that place the church at Jerusalem after the persecution had not been a true church if the Apostles had been scattered as well as the rest Acts 8. 1 2. Doth a church persecuted and driveâ— out of a place cease to be a church because they and their successors are removed out of their dwellings Suppose the place wasted and destroyed shall that destroy the being of the church which was there before 7. Much less is it necessary that there should be a continuance without any notable interruption in each age For there may be many hinderances of elections of Bishops and ordinations of Priests there may be scatterings of the Laicks as was at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. and yet the being and verity of the church continue 8. If a church must be judged no true church because no Writings or Monuments have kept the catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christ till this time a church shall be condemned as no true church for want of Writings and Monuments or because they are now lost by reason of the inundation of barbarism and barbarous people who spoil Learning and Arts which yet Popish Writers acknowledge to have happened in the ninth Age tearmed by Genebrard Chron. l. 4. the unhappy age for want of learned Writers and H. T. himself p. 25. saith In this tenth Age or Century I find no General Council nor yet provinciaâ— in which any controversie of moment was decided SECT V. None of the Texts alledged by H. T. prove a necessity of such a succession as he imagines to the being of a true Church AS for the Texts he alledgeth they are all so impertinently alledged that it 's likely had he not presumed he should meet with very credulous Readers he would not have mentioned them or at least he would have shewed how he proves his Proposition from them it being necessary to do so if he had a mind to instruct and not impose on his Readers The first Text Isa 59. 21. is no promise of such a succession in any visible church as H. T. speaks of but of a continuance of Gods Word and Spirit with the persons there meant which seem to be peculiarly the Jews by the Apostles alledging Rom. 11. 26. However they are onely the Elect who can be there meant sith the promise is made good to none other none other have the Spirit of God not departing from them not any whole visible church among the Gentiles from whom the Spirit of God may depart In the three next Texts Isa 60. 1 3 11. Isa 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 26. the very words apply the promises to Hieruâ—alem and the people of Israel so that if they speak of any continued succession in any visible church in all Ages it must be the Jewish which it is certain hath had no such succession but is broken off from the true Olive to this day and therefore cannot be meant of them in H. T. his sense till they be reingrassed The next Dan. 7. 13 14. speaks not of the continued succession which H. T. imagines of every true visible church but of the duration of Christs dominion which shall not pass away to another that is there is no kingdom which shall succeed to it as there did to the former Monarchies nor shall it be destroyed as they were but shall be continued to Christ without any succession So that this Text mentions not H. T. his succession but excludes succession of any other to Christs dominion Matth. 28. 20. intimates a succession to the end of the world of teachers and so doth Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. but not in every true visible church nor so conspicuous as that all may know and discern the church as men discern the assembly of the people of Rome nor so apparent as that there may be produced a catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christs time till now Much less doth John 14. 16. prove such a succession it being onely a promise of the Spirits abiding with the Apostles for ever which is no promise to the Bishop of Rome or any other visible church now SECT VI. The succession pretended to be in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary BUâ— H. T. contenting himself to have set down these Texts leaves the Reader to extract what he can out of them and passeth on to the proof of his minor That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time which according to his meaning is as if he had said The Church either in Rome or Italy or Spain or France or Germany or Poland or any other part of the world which hath owned the Pope and his doctrine and been subject to his rule and no other has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith with the now Bishop of Rome so conspicuous as that there may be a catalogue of such produced out of good records and no other can do so So that then if he proves his Minor he must prove 1. That church to have this succession continued 2. That no other hath Which he takes on him to do by a catalogue of the Roman churches
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
no right Baptism almost throughout the Churches under the Papacy there being nothing but watering of Infants with some frivolous Ceremonies no immersion or plunging into the Water after Profession of Faith as was in the primitive times and is the onely Baptism Christ appointed Infant-sprinkling perfusion or dipping being meer Innovations begun after the Apostles ages and being onely by unwritten tradition as their own learned men confess conveyed to the Church not instituted by Christ himself And for administring the Lords Supper he that reades their Missals or Sees their Mass may easily discern there is not that done by them which Christ appointed but such a change there is in it from Christs institution as that it cannot be termed a Sacrament of Christ but a meer ridiculous or abominable device of men more like a Play than a religious service 2. When they say that the Church hath always exterior Consecration and Ordination of Ministers they necessarily put themselves upon it to prove that it hath been so in the Roman Church which they can never prove to have been always in the Roman Bishops much less in their Priests the Records of their Consecrations and Ordinations being in many respects either none or very doubtfull at best but humane testimony which is fallible and if these were certain yet their own Canons make many things necessary to their Sacraments specially that sottish conceit of the Trent Council that the Minister of Sacraments must intend to do what the Church doth without which there is a nullity in what is done and yet it is impossible to be proved and so many things according to their Canons nullifie their Ordinations as Simony and other irregularities of which nevertheless their own Writers accuse a great number of their Bishops and Priests and sometimes one Pope hath made void the Acts of another and in despite hath cut off his fingers which did ordain Priests as Platina relates in the life of Stephan the sixth concerning the usage of Pope Formosus besides this the Ordination of their Priests is to sacrifice for quick and dead which is no part of the Ministerial Office which Christ required Matth. 28. 19 20. which being considered if this be the note whereby the true Church must be proved no Church in the World hath less proof for its truth than the Roman but the Exceptions will be so many against their exterior Ordination and Consecration as will by their own Canons and arguings prove the Roman Church to be no true visible Church at all and so this Argument will be retorted on H. T. Let us go on to his second Argument onely taking notice that he useth the term Ministers which other Papists do deride in the Protestants SECT II. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5 14. Psal 18. with us 19. 4. prove not such a Church-visibility as H. T. asserts nor the words of Ireneus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Augustin A Light saith H. T. always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid must needs be always visible But the Church of Christ is a Light always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid therefore the Church must needs be always visible The Major is manifest by the very terms The Minor is proved by Scripture The Mountain of the House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains Isai 2. 2. You are the Light of the World a City seated on a Hill cannot be hid St Matth. 5. 14. He hath put his Tabernacle his Church in the Sun Psal 18. 4. Answ THough the Conclusion might be granted in some sense yet in the sense meant by the Romanists it is denied and in the Argument the Minor is to be denied and to the proof of it it is denied that the Texts produced prove it Not the first For though the Prophecies Is 2. 2 3. be meant of Christ and the times of the Messias yet whether by the Mountain be meant Mount Sion properly or the Church or Christ or the Apostles it is certain that it is meant of that time wherein the Gospel was at first preached to which sense Hierome expounds it and the exaltation of the mountain of the Lords house is in respect of the first promulging of the Gospel in respect of which neither at first nor now is Rome exalted above the Hills and therefore it is not meant of every particular Church visible nor of such conspicuity in government and outward appearance as the Romanists maintain The second Text Matth. 5. 14. is particularly meant of the Apostles and such Preachers of the Gospel as continued that Work with them or after them and doth not foretell what shall be but declares what they were in existence or duty rather and their conspiracy is in respect of the Preaching of the Gospel But this is not spoken of every particular or the whole Church militant at all times as if it were so visible as that every Christian might know where to address themselves to them and have resolution from them in their doubts The other Text is less to the purpose speaking of a Tabernacle for the Sun not a Tabernacle in the Sun the Suns Tabernacle not Gods put in the Heavens not on earth as Hierom reades according to the Hebrew although the Septuagint and Vulgar reade as H. T. and Augustin in his allegorical way expound it of the Church But it is frivolous upon Augustin's conceit in his Enarration on the Psalms to infer a Tenet from a place that hath quite another grammatical sense which is onely argumentative As for the sayings of Fathers the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. advers Hoeres cap. 45. are not that every true Church of Christ hath such a continued Succession and so visible as that every Christian may discern where to repair to it but onely in opposition to heretical Teachers tells us God hath set other Teachers in the Church than those he there opposeth Origen's words Hom. 3. on Matthew shew what was in his time not what must of necessity be and are meant of brightness of doctrine or truth not of outward glory in a conspicuous rule and state like some flourishing Empire Cyprian's words de unit Eccles are less to the purpose being not concerning the visibility but the unity of the Church but in neither for the Romanists purpose The words are thus Cut off the River from the Fountain and being cut off it will be dry so also the Church cloathed with the light of the Lord spreads its beams through the whole World yet it is one light which is every where diffused and yet the unity of the body not separated Chrysostom's words Hom. 3. on Isai 6. are that the Church is more rooted than the Heaven and then adds let the Greeks learn the power of truth how it is easier that the Sun should be extinguished than that the Church should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
universal Church profess that Tradition is against the Papal Monarchy and other Points depending on it they cast Tradition behinde their backs 4. They cry up the Fathers and when we bring their judgements against the substance of Popery they sometime vilifie or accuse them as erroneous and sometime tell us that Fathers as well as Scripture must be no otherwise understood than their Church expoundeth them 5. They plead for and appeal to Councils and though we easily prove that none of them were universal yet such as they were they call them all Reprobate which were not approved by their Pope let the number of Bishops there be never so great And those that were approved if they speak against them they reject also either with lying shifts denying the approbation or saying the acts are not de fide or not conciliariter facta or the sense must be given by their present Church or one such contemptible shift or other 6. At least one would think they should stand to the judgement of the Pope which yet they will not for shame forbids them to own the Doctrine of those Popes that were Hereticks or Infidels and by Councils so judged And others they are forced to disown because they contradict their Predecessours And at Rome the Cardinals are the Pope while he that hath the name is oft made light of And how infallible he is judged by the French and the Venetians how Sixtus the fifth was valued by the Spaniards and by Bellarmine is commonly known 7. But all this is nothing to their renunciation of humanity even of the common senses and reason of the world When the matter is brought to the Decision of their eys and taste and feeling whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine and yet all Italy Spain Austria Bavaria c. cannot resolve it yea generally unless some latent Protestant do pass their judgement against their senses and the senses of all sound men in the World and that not in a matter beyond the reach of sense as whether Christ be there spiritually but in a matter belonging to sense if any thing belong to it as whether Bread be Bread c. Kings and Nobles Prelates and Priests do all give their judgement that all their senses are deceived And is it possible for these men than to know any thing or any controversie between us and them to be decided If we say that the Sun is light or that the Pope is a man and Scripture legible or that there are the Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in the World they may as well concur in a denial of all this or any thing else that sense should judge of If they tell us that Scripture requireth them to contradict all their senses in this point I answer 1. Not that Scripture before mentioned that calleth it Bread after the Consecration thrice in the three next Verses 2. And how know they that there is such a Scripture if all their senses be so fallible If the certainty of sense be not supposed a little Learning or Wit might satisfie them that Faith can have no certainty But is it not a most dreadfull judgement of God that Princes and Nations Learned men and some that in their way are consciencious should be given over to so much inhumanity and to make a Religion of this brutishness and worse and to persecute those with Fire and Sword that are not so far forsaken by God and by their reason and that they should so sollicitously labour the perversion of States and Kingdoms for the promoting of stupidity or stark madness 8. And if we go from their Principles to their Ends or Ways we shall soon see that they are also against the Unity of the Church while they pretend this as their chiefest Argument to draw men to their way They set up a corrupted Faction and condemn the far greater part of the Church and will have no unity with any but those of their own Faction and Subjection and fix this as an essential part of their Religion creating thereby an impossibility of universal concord 9. They also contradict the Experience of many thousand Saints asserting that they are all void of the Love of God and saving Grace till they become subject to the Pope of Rome when as the Souls of these Believers have Experience of the Love of God within them and feel that Grace that proveth their Justification I wonder what kinde of thing it is that is called Love or Holiness in a Papist which Protestants and other Christians have not and what is the difference 10. They are most notorious Enemies to Charity condemning most of the Christian World to Hell for being out of their subjection 11. They are notorious Enemies to Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity and avoiding Heresie They celebrate their Worship in a Language not understood by the vulgar Worshippers They hinder the People from Reading the holy Scriptures which the ancient Fathers exhorted men and women to as an ordinary thing The quality of their Priests and People testifie this 12. They oppose the Purity of divine Worship setting up a multitude of humane Inventions in stead thereof and idolatrously for no less can be said of it adoring a piece of consecrated Bread as their God 13. They are Opposers of Holiness both by the foresaid enmity to Knowledge Charity and purity of Worship and by many unholy Doctrines and by deluding Souls with an outside historical way of Religion never required by the Lord consisting in a multitude of Ceremonies and worshiping of Angels and the Souls of Saints and Images and Crosses c. Let Experience speak how much the Life of Holiness is promoted by them 14. They are Enemies to common Honesty teaching the Doctrines of Equivocations and Mental Reservations and making many hainous sins venial and many of the most odious sins to be Duties as killing Kings that are excommunicated by the Pope taking Oaths with the foresaid Reservations and breaking them c. For the Jesuits Doctrine Montaltus the Jansenist and many of the French Clergy have pretty well opened it and the Pope himself hath lately been fain to publish a condemnation of their Apology And yet the power and interest of the Jesuits and their followers among them is not altogether unknown to the World 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and Government if there be any such in the World as their Doctrine and Practise of killing and deposing excommunicate Princes breaking Oaths c. shews Bellarmine that will go a middle way gives the Pope power in ordine ad spiritualia and indirectly to dispose of Kingdoms and tells us that it is unlawfull to tolerate heretical Kings that propagate their Heresie that is the ancient Faith How well Doctor Heylin hath vindicated their Council of Laterane in this whose Decrees stand as a Monument of the horrid treasonable Doctrine of the Papists I shall if God will hereafter manifest In the mean time let any
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
passage in his Epistle to the Reader in which he saith but not truly It is agreed by all parties that the Church founded in Christs blood was the onely mistris of Divine Faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two For this is not true of the church but of Christ his Apostles and their preaching and writings And therefore it is not true which he thence infers that the controversies of the Church are the most important doubtless of all others or that on the notion and eviction of her authority all other points essentially depend for their knowledge and decision which in effect is as if he had said Were there not a Pope and his council the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God and to decide any controversies in Religion which I count little better than blasphemy nor doth he well to begin with that point were it that he intended to have cleared truth he should first as Bellarmine and some others have done have examined the points of the Scriptures sufficiency and the needlesness of unwritten Traditions and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference that thereby the Reader might have discerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God sith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith which they hold as H. T. himself urgeth p. 45. Succession in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles continued unto this time is it by which the Church is known and therefore we must first know whether the Roman Faith be the same with that which Christ and his Apostles taught before we can know the truth of their succession and of their Church But H. T. after Becanus and others conceives it best for their design to forestall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church which being oncâ— setled in mens minds no marvel if they swallow down such gross Doctrines as Transubstantiation half Communion Invocation and Worship of Saints deceased Angels Reliques Images Crucifixes and the rest of their errors and abuses wherein any that reads the Scriptures may see how far they are gone from the Primitive saith taught by Christ and his Apostles nevertheless having premonished the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice I shall examine his Book in the order he hath chosen SECT III. The Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd ARticle 1. saith H. T. Our Tenet is That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the onely true Church of God Answ By the Sâ—e of Rome he means the Roman Bishop or Pope and the Communion he means is in the same Tenets which they hold according to the Trent Canons and Pius the fourth his Bull with subjection to the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ In which sense the Tenet is so palpably false and so extremely uncharitable that it is a marvel that any that hath the understanding of a man should imbrace it or the charity of a Christian should brook it For 1. If the Church now in communion with the See of Rome be the onely true Church of God then that Church onely hath eternal life for onely the true Church of God hath eternal life Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is their own determination Concil Lateran 4. Can. 2. and elsewhere But that Church which is not in communion with the See of Rome hath eternal life Ergo it is the true Church of God The Minor is proved thus That Church which believes in Jesus Christ hath eternal life But other Churches besides those now in communion with the See of Rome believe in Jesus Christ Ergo. The Major is plain from John 3. 16 18 36. 17. 3. 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11 12. Mark 16. 16. in which it is expresly said that he that believeth on Christ without any mention of Peter or the Pope hath eternal life The Minor is proved by their profession and other evidences of their reality in believing which if any deny to prove true faith in them he may as well deny there are any believers in Christ in the world 2. If there be no true Churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then there is some other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ given among men by which we must be saved and there is salvation in some other besides him for men have salvation in that name by which they are the true church of God and if we be the true church of God by communion with the Pope we have salvation by the Pope But this is most false and Antichristian to ascribe salvation to any other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ as being expresly contradictory to Peter's own words Act. 4. 12. There is no salvation in any other neither is there any name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ not Peter or the Bishop of Rome 3. If no churches be true churches of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ died for no other churches but them For Christ died for his church Ephes 5. 25. it is not said he gave himself for them who are not his church But sure it is very uncharitable to say that Christ died for no other than those that own the Pope and contrary to the Scripture that God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. therefore it is false and uncharitable to exclude all but Romanists out of the church of God 4. If none be the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are members of Christ in Christ the sons of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the true church of God onely are members of Christ in Christ the children of God Ephes 23. But it is false that none are members of Christ in Christ or children of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the Apostle tels the Galatians Gal. 3. 26 27. that they were all the sons of God by â—aith in Christ Jesus that as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ v. 28 that they were all one in Christ Jesus without any requiring of communion with the See of Rome 5. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ is present with none by his Spirit and protection but such as are in that communion For such as are not the true Church of God Christ is not present with them by his Spirit and protection Rom. 8. 9. Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in you If any man have not
the spirit of Christ the same is none of his ver 14 As many as are led by the spirit of God they are the sons of God 1 Cor. 6. 19. Know ye not that your body is the temple of the holy Ghost which ye have of God and ye are not your own 2 Cor. 6. 16. For ye are the temple of the living God as God hath said that I will dwell in them and walk amidst them and I will be their God and they shall be my people Revel 2. 1. Christ walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks But Christ is present by his Spirit and protection with other Churches and persons than such as are in communion with the See of Rome even all that believe in Christ and are the sons of God as is apparent in that they call Jesus the Lord which none can do but by the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. they cry Abba Father and thereby shew they have the spirit of adoption Gal. 4 6. Can any have the face to say that the millions of christian Greeks and others in persecution who servently invocated God in the Name of Christ have not the spirit of Christ nor are his because they are not in communion with the Roman See yea is there not more evidence of Christs Spirit among them than is in the Roman church in which there is so much uncleanness and so little of holiness that even H. T. to prove its holiness is fain to have recourse to some supposed Saints many hundreds of years since by reason of the late scarcity 6. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are the house of God but they sith the house of God is the church of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. But that is false for persons not in communion with the See of Rome may be built on Christ a spiritual house 1 Pet. 2. 5. Otherwise besides the foundation which is laid to wit Jesus Christ it were necessary there should be another foundation on which they should be built to wit Peter and his Successors But Paul saith 1 Cor. 3 11. No man can lay any other foundation to build upon a spiritual house to God but that which is laid Jesus Christ and Peter himself 1 Pet. 2. 4. tels us Christ is the living stone on which they are built and ver 6. alledgeth the Scripture saying Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone elect precious and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed therefore all that believe in Christ though they be not in communion with the See of Rome are a spiritual house and a true church of God which is confirmed by the words of the Apostle Eph. 2. 19 20 21. where he saith of the Ephesians that they were of the houshold of God and were built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit And Ephes 4. 4. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling 5 One Lord one faith one Baptism 6 One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ 13 For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Greeks whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one spirit V. 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular From whence may be gathered that communion with Christ by his Spirit Faith and Baptism without any communion with the See of Rome is sufficient to prove persons to be the house of God and the body of Christ and consequently the true church of God For that which was sufficient to make the Ephesians and Corinthians the house of God and body of Christ is sufficient now to make English or other people a church of God there being no more required thereto now than was then and the Apostle saith Galat. 3. 28 29. For ye are all one in Christ Jesus If ye be Christs then are ye Abraâ—ams seed and heirs according to the promise Col. 3. 11. Where there is neither Greâ—k nor Jew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian Scythian bond nor free but Christ is all and in all But then there was no more required to the being of the true church or house of God or body but communion with Christ by his Spirit Faith and Baptism without communion with the See of Rome as the Texts alledged shew therefore this communion with Christ is sufficient to make us English a true church of God without communion with the See of Rome 7. If the first Apostolical churches were true churches afore either Peter was at Rome or any church there gathered then it is not necessary to the being of the true church of God now that persons be in communion with the See of Rome for there is no more required to the being of the true church of God now than was then and it could not then be required to be in communion with the See of Rome when there was no Bishop nor church there But there were Apostolical true churches of God at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere afore either Peter was at Rome or any church there gathered as the History of the new Testament shews therefore it is not necessary to the being of the true church of God to be in communion with the See of Rome 8. If there be none true churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then the churches in India and elsewhere so remote from Rome that they never heard of the Bishop or See of Rome nor were required communion with it should be excluded from the church of Christ though they hold the true faith because they do not that which being of meer positive institution they are unavoidably ignorant of and consequently should be damned But this is too absurd sith it imputes to God tyranny in requiring that which cannot be done and cruelty in damning for not doing it Ergo. 9. If to be in communion with the See of Rome be necessary to the being of the true church then were the Apostles and Fathers who in their Writings and Creeds never required this of the believers to constitute them a true church of God very unfaithfull or defective in their Tradition sith they did not require or teach this as necessary to the being of a true church of God as may be seen in their Writings and creeds But this is false as being contrary to their protestations of their integrity in not shunning to declare the whole counsel of
chief Pastors Councils Nations converted and publique Professors of her Faith But his catalogue proves not that which it is brought for For 1. many hundreds of years there hath been no one of the Roman Popes or very few who have been Pastors at all in the church of God they have been Statesmen have meddled with the civil affairs of many kingdoms disturbed the Empire and many Kingdoms advanced their base sons who are tearmed their nephews and their kindred made wars with christian Princes but have not preached the Gospel nor expounded the Scriptures to the people though even the Council of Treâ—t decree Sessâ—â— de reform c. 1. Sess 23. de reform c. 1. that they ought to be resident because they ought to feed their flock with the Word with Sacraments with Prayers and good Works which is the onely feeding which can denominate men pastors of the church of God But the Popes have for a long time shewed themselves neither to have skill nor will thus to feed the flock by preaching the Gospel but use to stay the flock of Christ by their Bulls Excommunications and Inquisitions 2. Of those he reckons up p. 32. from the year 1300. five or six of them cannot be termed the Roman churches Pastors but hireâ—ings which forsook it they being absent from Rome and inhabiting Avignon in France many hundred miles from Rome seventy years together 3. Some of them who are reckoned in the catalogue could not be Pastors at their entry one to wit Benedict the ninth being a boy almost ten years old as Baronius terms him Ann. 1033. num 6. Another John the thirteenth a lad eighteen years old at most as Baronius Ann. 955. num 2. 3. reckons when they first were Popes And if a great many of their own best Writers in their times do not bely them there was one of the Popes a woman and sate some years as Pope 4. Their succession is a very uncertain thing For 1. It is certain that Jesus Christ was never Pastor of the Roman church as Bishop there seated and it is very audaciously if not blasphemously done by H. T. to reckon him as chief Pastor of the Roman church and to make Peter and others as Successors to him in his pastoral Office as if it were ceased in his own Person and transferred to another as his Successor Nor is it likely that Peter was ever at Rome or Bishop there notwithstanding some of the Ancients by uncertain tradition have conceived he was For neither were the Apostles settled any where as Bishops of one place nor were they to be it being against their commission and peculiar work of planting churches in many places And Peter being the Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and his being many years in the parts about Judea of which the Scripture makes express mention it is very improbable that he was at Rome at all certainly not so as to sit there as Bishop so many years as some Writers do write of him And it is more likely if any where he was Bishop of Antioch where it is certain he was Gal. 2. 11. and as good authority there is of his being Bishop there as of his being Bishop of Rome and therefore the succession to Peter was rather to be there than at Rome nor is there any proof of translation of Peter's See from Antioch to Rome 2. Concerning the succession after Peter there is so much uncertainty as may shew how miserable a people they must needs be who have no better proof for their church than such uncertain succession For 1. There is no certainty but difference among their own Writers who was next after whether Linus or Clemens or whether both together and the like concerning the order of Cletus Anacletus Clemens as may be seen in Platina and Onuphrius and others 2. It is manifest that the succession hath been through dissention about the election sometimes a great while interrupted as Baronius confesseth Ann. 853. num 63. It hath fallen out that the See of Rome hath been void above two years and five moneths the election being delayed through contention 3. There have been many Schisms very near thirty in which there have been two or three Popes at once one opposing cursing and condemning the other and no clear certainty who was the right Pope Nations and Princes being divided some adhering to one some to another 4. A great part of their succession even by the confession of their own Writers is of Monsters as they term them more truly to be termed devils incarnate rather than men so abominably wicked that hell hath not worse in it not worthy of the name of Christians much less of Pastors of the church of God not worse surely in any church I think not the like for wickedness any where so that the succession of such Pastors is fitter to prove the Roman party a Synagogue of Satan the very seat of Antichrist than the onely true church of God Methinks no man that thinks well of Christ should imagine he would trust the Government of the Universal church with such men but rather if he intended to commit that care to any one have chosen a better race than the Popes have been to manage it 5. Their succession is also by their own Writers said to be with such wicked practices of poysoning predecessors corrupting Cardinals power of notorious whores dealing with the devil Simony and bribes fightings and bloodshed as proves them Successors to Nero rather than to Peter So that if a man would draw an Argument to prove the Roman church to be the Mother of barlots and abominations of the earth as Rome is stiled Rev. 17. 5. by the confession of their own Writers the story of the succession of the Popes and their lives might convince one that is not bewitched with their sorceries that such hath been for many hundred years together the Church of Rome 6. It is also false that those he calls cheif Pastors have had a continued succession in the profession of the same Faith with the now Roman sith it is not denied that Pope Liberius joyning with the Arians and subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius as Hierom in his Chronicle and Catalogue of writers in that of Fortunatianus testifies did as Bellarmin acknowledgeth l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. by interpretation if not expresly consent to the Arian heresie and Pope Honorius the first in the sixth Synod at Constantinople Act. 12. 13. Pope Agatho being President was condemned as a Monothelite by hundreds of Bishops and after by other Synods besides what is charged on sundry other Popes even by Popish writers as Anastasius John the 22. c. As for H. T. his Catalogue of Councils Nations converted and publick Professors of the Romish Faith it proves much less that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the
same Faith with the now Roman Church from Christ and his Apostles to this time For 1. According to his own allegation the agreement of profession is never in any age entirely the same in points of Faith afore the sixteenth Century and the Trent Council In all the ages before the most he can produce is that after the five or sixth first Centuries some in each age held some of the points now held by the Papists but denied by Protestants the most we can find in the first ages is some agreement in rites and some priviledges of the Roman Bishop taken either from forged writings imposed on the first Popes or some sayings of Fathers misinterpreted 2. He confesseth sundry ages to wit the second and third produced no Councils and that he finds no general council nor yet provincial in the tenth age in which any controversie of moment was decided 3. Of those Councils he doth produce there is no one general Council alleged in the four first Centuries which was held at Rome or did acknowledge subjection to the Bishop of Rome as now they require and they being all or most of them of the Greek Church which did and doth yet deny such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. means it is falsly said that they prove his continued succession in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome 4. For the Nations converted and Christian professors in his Catalogue there were few of them Romans or converted by any from Rome or had any acquaintance with the Roman Church or Bishops and therefore to make them witnesses of a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the profession of the same Faith continued from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is extreme impudence and vanity nevertheless let 's view his Catalogue SECT VII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years IN the first age he alledgeth Christ and St. Peter the Apostle Linus Cletus Clemens and the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem St. Peter presiding Act. 15. as a general Council and then he recites eleven Roman Bishops from the year 100 and having said somewhat for Peters presiding and the translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome he names some Catholick professors to the year 100. and the spreading of the Church over all those Countries to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles and some others as France Spain England and some Catholick professors to the year 200. with a falsly so called Canon of the Apostles approved in the sixâ—h General Synod Answ That all this is little to his purpose appears by considering 1 That it is manifestly false which he supposeth 1. That because Christ is the chief Pastor of the Catholick Church rightly so termed and the Roman Church hath arrogantly usurped the title of the Catholick Church and the Pope is Bishop of that See therefore the Pope must be successour to Christ in such a peculiar manner as no other Bishop or Pastor is and that the title of Vicar of Christ belongs to him peculiarly which is the title blasphemously ascribed to him by flattering Romanists 2. That Christ hath a successor in his Pastoral office though the Scripture ascribe to Christ because of his living for ever an office which passeth not to any other as Aarons did Heb. 7. 24. 3. That Peter is successor to Christ in the Pastoral office he had and no other Apostle or Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though if there were any that could challenge succession to Christ or Peter it should be rather the Bishop of Jerusalem the mother Church if any where Christ Preached and as the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession offered himself being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. and Peter was Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and Paul when he went to see him which Romanists make an acknowledgement of superiority went to Jerusalem Gal. 1. 17. not to Rome and if he were President in the Council Act. 15. as H. T. imagins it was at Hierusalem not at Rome 4. It is false that either Christ or Peter or the Catholick Professors he names in the first and second ages held the same profession of Faith with the now Roman Church in the points wherein the Protestants who hold the Doctrine of the Church of England do dissent from them 2. That if all were granted H. T. which he saith about the succession in the two first ages yet it doth not amount to the proof of so much as one of the twenty eight Articles he holds in his Manual or the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed to have been held by any of them not the Popes supremacy transubstantiation invocation of Saints deceased half communion worshipping of Images c. For Peter might be President at the Council at Jerusalem he might translate his chair from Antioch to Rome it might be decreed lawful to appeal from other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome chief honour might be given to the Bishop of Rome yet neither Peter nor the Bishop of Rome the head visible Monarch or Ruler over the Apostles and the whole Church mention might be made of oblation and sacrifice yet the masse no properly so called sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead There 's not a word in any of Christs or John Baptists or Peters or Pauls or James or Johns or Judes Sermons or writings to prove any of the points of Popery but enough to the contrary Nor is there any of the rest of the Martyrs or Confessors alledged of the two first ages of whom he is able to produce any one sentence of theirs which may demonstrate their acknowledging of any one of the points now held by the Romanists which are by the Protestants forenamed contradicted which will appear by considering the frivolousness of what H. T. here produceth Peter saith he defined Act. 15. 7 8 9 10. That the Jewish ceremonies were not to be imposed on the Gentiles therefore he had the premacy over the Apostles and the whole Church as if the defining in a Council or Colledge did prove superiority By the same reason it might be proved that James had the premacy sith he spake least and according to his sentence was the decree Paphnutius in the Nicene Council as Sozomeâ—â—l 1. hist c. 22. relates when the Council was about to forbid Priests the use of wives defined the contrary and the Nicene Council approved it was he therefore the primate over the other Bishops in the Council as in consequence it is which H. T. adds Hicrom saith Peter was Prince and Author of the decree therefore he had the primacy that is the supreme headship over the Apostles and whole Church though being Prince and Author of the decree imports no more but to give sentence first according to which the decree was
framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
men which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests against Gods allowance and the practice of former ages The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches who though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants As for the Nations converted Scots French the Martyrs of Africa which he mentions it is not shewed that either they were converted by any from Rome or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years within which he included his Demonstration which were better than the later though not without their corruptions I proceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following SECT IX The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in the sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Ages is shewed H. T. in his catalogue from the year of Christ 500. reckons up thirteen chief Pastors one general Council the second Constantinopolitan Pope Vigilius prefiding Fathers 165. An. Dom 553. against Anthimius and Theodore but Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 1. de concil c. 19. that Eutychius of Constantinople was President there though Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople As for that which Bellarmine cites out of Zonaras in the life of Justinian he cites it maimedly For Zonaras said not that onely Vigilius was Prince of the Bishops who were present but with him Eutychius of Constantinople and Apollinaris of Alexandria What H. T. mentions of the definitions of the council is nothing against the protestants nor for the Papacy That which he allegeth out of the third council of Carthage is disorderly placed in the sixth age it being held as is said in the year 397. and is of doubtfull credit sith it mentions Pope Boniface as then living though he sat not according to Onuphrius till the year 419. but it matters not what it was sith it was but a provincial Synod and of the canons cited by H. T. the first is onely about a point not of Faith concerning the celebrating the Mass Fasting the other which terms the Apocryphal books as canonical may be expounded according to Hierom's distinction that they are canonical to form manners not to inform faith Yet this may be observed by the way that the six and twentieth Canon of the third Council of Carthage which was authorized by the sixth general council holden at Constantinople in Trullo as it is alleged by Gratian in the Decrees dist 99. de primatibus and by Pope Pelagius approved denies to any the title of Chief Priest or Prince of Priests but alows onely this Title Bishop of the first See whereupon the Gloss saith that even the Bishop of Rome was not to be called the Universal Bishop The determination of the Council of Mileris about Childrens Baptism is disorderly placed in the sixth age being said to be held in the year 402. and being no general council about a point not gainsaid by most protestants is impertinent to prove a succession of assertors of the Roman Doctrine opposite to the protestants That which he allegeth out of the Caesar Augustan Council which decreed that Virgins should not be vailed till after forty years probation makes against the Papists who in the Trent council allow it sooner and practise the vasting of them afore they are twenty years old That which he adds of Pope John the first his Decree that Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it because it is written See thou offer not thy holocausts in every place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. shews the Popes ignorance or Judaism who applies this to the Mass which was meant of Jewish sacrificing in the Levitical Law and makes the Mass to be an offering of an holocaust and every place consecrated by a bishop the place that God chooseth and also the vanity of this Scribler who puts in his catalogue such an impertinent testimony to prove a succession of the assertors of the Roman faith which I scarce think any sober papist would make any part of his faith against protestants nor do I think the papists in England would be content to be tied to that Law In that which he adds of Catholick Professors to the year 600. he doth not shew that they acknowledged the bishop of Rome's supremacy or the now Roman faith Yea Columbanus in this age and after Aidanus Colmannus and others lived and died in opposition to the Romans about Easter That Austin the Monk converted England is onely true of some part of it and it is true also that he did in many things pervert them and it is said he was an instigator of the murder of many British Christians better than himself but that either he or Pope Gregory that sent him held the same supremacy of the pope which now popes claim or the now Roman faith opposite to the protestants cannot be shewed On the contrary it is manifest enough that Gregory the great refused the Title of Universal Bishop as profane and sacrilegious and accounted the assumer of it to be a fore-runner of Antichrist lib 4. epist 32 34 36 38 39. lib. 6. epist 30. he allowed not Worship of Images in his Epistle to Serenus bishop of Marseiles he allowed priests wives nor did tie men to follow the order of the Roman church which shews the popes then not to have been altogether so bad as in the next age In which and throughout the rest of his Catalogue he can hardly shew a Pope that lived either the life of a Christian or did the Office of a pastour of the church of God if any sure not many but in stead of Christian pastours a generation of men of an ambitious and luxurious spirit contending with Emperours and Bishops for worldly greatness persecuting godly Christians living in pomp riot and all kinde of wickedness are set down as chief pastours of the universal church In the seventh age he reckons up nineteen Popes whom he terms chief Pastors of them the second is Boniface the third who obtained of Phocas the Emperor who by treason had gotten the Empire slaying his Lord Mauritius and his children the title of universal Bishop detested before by Gregory the great as profane and sacrilegious and Honorius the first is the fifth condemned in the third Constantinopolitan Council in which H. T. saith there were Fathers two hundred eighty nine Pope Agatho presiding Anno Domini 680. against the Monothelites and that in it were condemned Sergius Paulus Petrus Cyrus and Theodore who most impiously taught but one
will and operation to be in Christ But this Author deceitfully conceals it that the same Council in the thirteenth action did solemnly condemn Honorius the Pope of old Rome as a Monothelite together with the rest and again in the Greek edition the first Chapter and that Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the sixth Council doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite and Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor inserted in the eighth action of the sixth Synod which was also done in the second Nicene Council termed the seventh synod in the last action As for that which H. T. adds of the definitions of the sixth Council against Priests marriage not giving grapes mingling water and wine adoration of the Crosse consideration in him that binds and looseth invocating Saints it is not worth while to insist on the examination thereof partly because some of the definitions serve not the purpose for though it be granted that there ought to be a particular knowledge of the sin of him that is to be absolved by his confession of it yet is not thereby the necessity of Popish auricular confession proved or the Priests power judicially and authoritatively to absolve and remit sins established partly because they are not all points of faith but either of disciplin as about the marriage of men in orders or of Ceremonies as about the mingling of water and wine in the Eucharist and partly because it is doubtful whether those Canons are truely ascribed to that Council there being some reasons tending to the contrary and partly because if they were their determinations there is little reason to ascribe any authority to them after the first six hundred years barbarism and many corruptions being gotten into the Christian Churches and the simplicity of the Christian profession very much changed into contentions about Bishops Sees Ecclesiastical priviledges humane ceremonies and such like abuses yet were all granted which he allegeth of the councils definitions neither the now Roman supremacy nor faith is proved nor from the Catholick professors as he terms them or Nations converted are either of them avouched in that age In the eighth Century things grew worse In it H. T. reckons thirteen Popes among whom there 's not a man of whom their own writers relate any thing that belongs to the Pastors of the Church of Christ to wit the Preaching of the Gospel but their intermedling with the business of the Empire and Kingdoms making Kings monks contentions about images in Churches enlarging their dominions building walls making decrees about shaven crowns and such like toyes ... Two Popes Zacharias and Stephen the second can hardly be acquitted from being sinfully instrumental in the deposing of Childerick King of France and the traiterous usurpation of Pepin As for the second Nicene Council in which H. T. saith were three hundred and fifty Fathers Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 787. against image breakers in which were decreed for images in Temples and the veneration and worship of the Saints Reliques Images and the Council of Sens about traditions though these things are but a few of the Popish doctrins yet we grant that then the Popes had gotten to such heighth as to justle Emperors and that the Churches in Communion with the Papacy were in that age and the following so corrupt as that traditions of men and decrees of Bishops were more regarded than the written Word and that thereby placing of images in Temples and their worship got into the Christian Churches to the promoting of that Idolatry in the Roman Church which hath made her the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth yet this was not done without opposition not only in the Greek Empire but also in the Western Charles the great calling a Council at Frankford which condemned the second Nicene Council And for the Catholick Professors such as venerable Bede and others though they were tainted with the superstitions of those times about monkery and ceremonies and ecclesiastical dignities and orders yet that they held the now Roman faith cannot be demonstrated nor that the Nations mentioned to be converted were converted to it And for the miracles mentioned there is no credit to be given to them many such tales having been made or such miracles counterfieted in those dayes for deceiving the ignorant people nor were they done in such manner and to such purposes as the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were by which the Gospel was confirmed In the nineteenth age H. T. reckons up eighteen Popes omitting the mention of one of them as a woman though a great number of Popish writers set her down as Pope and relate the story of her sitting in the chair some years till she travailed with child in procession But if that were not true yet the things related by themselves of Formosus Stephanus Romanus shew cruelty and wickedness in the Popes of that age one hating and undoing what another had done and thereby shewing that they were rather of Cadmus than St. Peters race And for the fourth Constantinopolitan Council Fathers one hundred and one Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 869. against Photius and for the Pope and images and against temporal Princes medling in the election of Bishops it is an argument that the Roman Bishops were gotten then by many wicked practices to a great heighth of unjust power And the deposition of Photius for reproving the Emperor together with his opposition of the Pope whose works extant do shew him to have been of more worth for learning than any Pope in that age and the Epistle of Ulderick Bishop of Auspurg to Pope Nicolas the first in which he rebukes the wickedness of Popes in denying marriage to the Clergy do prove that the doctrin and tyranny of the Popes of Rome did not freely pass without controul even in that age which by the confession of Genebrard himself Chron. l. 4. was an unhappy age for want of any writer of worth in the Latin Church As for the Catholick professors mentioned by H. T. in this age that they were all of the Roman church or professed her faith is not shewed not that the Nations converted were either converted by the Roman Bishops or owned their now claimed supremacy or professed faith H. T. saith the Russians were converted by a Priest sent by the Emperor Basilius and therefore had their conversion from the Greek church whom they followed and with whom they now hold communion not acknowledging the Bishop of Romes supremacy to this day and therefore that instance is manifestly against H. T. his purpose In the tenth age are reckoned twenty six Popes whereof there 's scarce any that may be termed a Christian much less a chief Pastor of the Christian churches Their own stories tell us of some of them that got the Popedome by means of Mororia a notorious whore others by cruel practises one to wit Sylvester the second by the help of the Devil
their usurpations of power The third Lateran Council saith H. T. Fathers three hundred for reformation Pope Alexander the third presiding Anno Domini 1179. condemned Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons who taught the Apostles were lay men that lay men and women might consecrate and preach that clergy men ought to have no possessions or properties that oaths were unlawful in all cases that Priests and Magistrates by mortal sin fell from their dignity and were not to be obeyed c. His tenents were here defined against and he himself anathematized But suppose all this were true that he so taught and that the Pope with his council condemned him what is this to prove H. T. his minor that a council in that age professed the same faith with the now Roman against the Protestants Are the contrary tenents any of the Articles which in his Manual of Controversies H. T. defends against the Protestants do the Protestant churches in their confessions avow the same which he here saith the council ascribed to Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons but to shew the ignorance of this scribler the person who was Merchant of Lyons in France was Petrus Waldus from whom his followers were termed Waldenses whom I find to have been condemned in some council at Rome about that time but in the Lateran council 1179. I find other decrees about Priests continency the number of horses clergy men might have in their visitations and the exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the judgement of Laicks which it seems were the great business of reformation As for the Waldenses there is no cause to believe adversaries in their accusations of them especially such ignorant and malicious men as the Friers and Monks of former and later times have been Besides the experience which after ages yeilded about their belying Wicklef Hus and others our own times yeild many examples of Papists falsly reporting the tenents of Protestants Though Bellarmin be more ingenuous in setting down the Protestants doctrin than many other writers yet there 's scarce a controversie wherein he doth not deal deceitfully in representing the Protestants doctrin or their arguments and answers But the writings professions apologies put forth by Balthasar Lydius in Latin shew that the opinions of the Waldenses were not such as the Papists represent them and the words of Reinerius an inquisitor and enemy to them in his book of inquisition concerning them doth more truely acquaint us what they were which are thus that whereas all other sects by the immanity of their blasphemies against God do make men abhor them this of the Lyonists the same with the Waldenses hath a great shew of godliness because they live justly before men and do believe all things well of God and all the articles which are contained in the Creed only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate And now we have more full knowledge of them by Mr. Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont As for the Catholick professors H. T. adds in this age though Bernardus Abbas commonly called St. Bernard be reckoned as a professor of the new Roman faith and it is not denied that he was superstitious in some points yet he freely noted divers corruptions then arising as the feast of the Virgin Maries conception which tended to uphold the conceit of her freedom from sin Ep. 174. ad can Lugd. the opinion of merits serm 1. de annunt of justification by works cant serm 22. ep 190. of freewill de grat lib. arb of keeping the law cant ser 50 of seven Sacraments ser 1. de Caena Domini of uncertainty of Salvation ep 107. and the Popes greatness in temporalities l. 2. confid ad Eugen. And for Hildegardis the Nunne her speeches and prophecies shewed her dislike of the proceedings of the clergy even of the Popes Noribertus and some others were noted for their superstitious waies of Monkery Thomas Becket of Canterbury for his obstinacy against his Prince Henry the second whom he traiterously opposed to uphold the wickedness of the clergy and others named whether they were of good or bad note it is of little moment sith it s not denied there were too many then infected with the Roman errors and superstitions Nor is it of much advantage that Nicolas the Monke after Pope converted the Pomeranians and Norwegians that Pope being bad enough and the conversion if to Romish superstition rather than Christian faith little crediting the Romish Church SECT XI The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the thirteenth and fourteenth ages is shewed IN the thirteenth century are set down seventeen Popes as chief Pastors of whom the first is Gelasius the second who was first in the former age but I imagin though it be not noted in the Errata for Honorius the third who was a bloody Bishop as others before him setting up Emperor against Emperor cruel Friers against the godly Waldenses besides other wicked acts he did The like were Gregory the ninth in whose time the bloody factions of Guelphs and Gibellius happened and Innocent the fourth whom Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln withstood contemning his excommunication and being dead was such a terror to this wicked Pope as to hasten his death Nicolas the third whom H. T. makes the converter of the Pomeranians and Norwegians raised the quarrel between Peter of Arragon and Charles of France for Sicily whence grew the massacre of the French called the Sicilian Vespers and the last and worst of them Boniface the eighth is said to have entred like a Fox reigned like a Lyon died like a dog H. T. adds two general Councils the fourth Lateran council Fathers 1285. Pope Innocent the third presiding Anno 1215. And tells us that this Council desined that the universal Church of the faithful is one out of which no man is saved Which definition we approve and thereby the doctrin of the Protestants is confirmed who teach that the Catholick Church we believe is the invisible Church of true believers and that the Catholick Church is not only the Roman Church and those who subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome and profess the same faith with the now Roman Church but all the believers who believe the doctrin of the Gospel taught by Christ and his Apostles though they neither know nor own the Roman Church in the things therein held against the Protestants nor acknowledge any superiority of the Bishop of Rome are members of the Catholick Church and that it is not the Church of Rome which is falsly called Catholick out of which none can be saved but the universal Church of the faithful in which who ever is by true faith in Christ he may be saved though he disclaims the Bishop of Rome as Antichrist and the faction or party joyning with him as the Synagogue of Satan and consequently that it is not as H. T. saith in his Epistle to the Reader the most important controversie to know the notion and
Catholicks and owned as children of the church yet do not profess the now Roman faith of the Popes supremacy which H T. and the Jesuited party among Papists the Popes flatterers ascribe to him As for the presence of the Greeks in the Council of Florence it was of a few needy ones driven out or brought low by the Turks who yielded to that in the Council for some relief to them in their low estate which the Greek churches after would not own nor do yet to this day And therefore that which H. T. hath done in setting down the Popes and Councils of this Age is done deceitfully concealing the true state of things and so he hath done of Catholick Professors mentioning some of small worth but leaving out Gerson Picus Mirandulanus and some others though in communion with the Roman church and men of more abilities and repute than many of those he sets down because Gerson held that the Church might be without a Pope in his book de auferibilitate Papae and he and others differ'd in some other points from the now Roman tenets As for the Nations converted which he mentions they are names of people said to be in Africa but whether there be such people or are converted or what numbers of them have been converted is known onely by the vain-glorious Writings of some popish Writers of that sort who for the extolling of the Papacy either feign that which is not or it is likely make a Mountain of a Mole-hill such conversions as they boast of being not known to other people though sailing into and trading in all parts of the known world H. T. adds his catalogue of chief Pastors in the sixteenth Age and half the seventeenth to 1654. and sets down two and twenty Popes as chief Pastors of the Church Of them are Julius the second a Warriour Leo the tenth who to maintain his Luxury and for his sister Magdalen's Dowry set Indulgences to sale himself venting his infidelity to Cardinal Bembus as if he counted the Gospel a profitable Fable Paul the third an incestuous father of a Sodomitical son whom he cocker'd full of cruelty and craft sending an Army with Farnesius to destroy the Protestants in Germany Julius the third that created his Ganymede Innocentius a boy Cardinal and had for his Nuntio at Venice John Casa Arch-bishop of Benevent who in a book praised Sodomy Paul the fourth hated by the Romans for his cruelty Pius the fourth that made the new creed of the Roman church Pius the fifth that excommunicated Queen Elizabeth Gregory the thirteenth that set up Stukely to get Ireland for his base son Sixtus the fifth that animated the Spaniard in the Expedition against England 1588. praised James Clement the Frier who murdered Henry the third King of France Gregory the fourteenth who cursed Henry the fourth of France Clement the eighth who afore he absolved him proudly lasheth his Embassadour with a Rod Paul the fifth who had the Title of Vicedeus given him and not disclaimed who interdicted the Venetians for not obeying his Monitory to revoke their Laws about Ecclesiasticks and to release two Ecclesiastick prisoners one a poysoner another that committed uncleanness in a Temple and did forbid the taking the Oath of Allegeance in England by Papists without doing any thing against some of the priests privy to the Gunpowder Treason to shew their detestation of it Among them all there is not one that their own stories do relate to have been a diligent preacher of the Gospel but politicians medling with the affairs of the Kingdoms and Empires of the World and so no Successors to our Lord Christ or Peter the Apostle but their memories are to be abhorred specially by us English as the pests of mankinde H. T. mentions two general Councils the last Lateran Council Pope Julius the second and Leo the tenth presiding 1512. I finde not the certain number of Fathers it was a general Council But Bellarmine lib. 2. de concil auth cap. 13. saith Some doubt whether it were truly general and there was reason sith it was called by a Faction adhering to Julius the second to establish his tyranny in opposition to another party gathered in France to establish the pragmatick Sanction But what did this Council define The soul of man immortal and that there be as many humane souls as bodies anathematizing all such as obstinately defend or hold the contrary in the communion of the Church of Rome Sess 8. A point which a Council of Philosophers might have decided However it intimates there were that did then hold or teach the contrary in the communion of the church of Rome and that Pope John the two and twentieth his Doctrine was not quite extinguished but this Council is of little account among a great party of the Papists themselves It is the other Council the Council of Trent Pope Paul the third and Pius the fourth presiding against Martin Luther and his fellow Protestants Anno 1546. of which he saith The definitions are conformable to those of all precedent general Councils for us and against Sectaries as our Adversaries know and cannot deny But this is most false it being by Bishop Jewel and many other learned Protestants averred and proved that the Decrees of that Council in many points about the Popes power half communion transubstantiation worshiping Images and other points are contrary to the Councils and Fathers for the first five hundred years at least And for this Council not onely Sleidan but also Frier Paul a man greatly honoured by the Venetian Senate for his learning prudence and integrity in his History of the Trent Council hath shewed that it was nothing but a meer packed and fraudulent conventicle of a crue of prelates most of them Italians some meerly titular and the Popes pensioners and parasites few of them who had any knowledge in the Scripture or Divinity but canonists courtiers and school-men who understood not the Protestants Doctrine in the great point of justification by faith carried on by Paul the third Julius the third Pius the fourth and their Legates to cheat the World by innumerable artifices not onely hindring the freedom of speech of the Protestants in the Council but also of some of the popish Bishops when they endeavoured to recover the right of Bishops taken away from them by the Popes in so much that not onely the Protestants have protested against it but also the French Kings by their Embassadours and Parliaments and it is not owned by the French popish churches unto this day and the vanity and impiety of its Decrees hath been detected by Kemnitius Calvin and innumerable learned protestants besides what may be gathered from the contrary Writings of persons who were there as Catharinus Soto Vega and others in so much that if men were not blinded with prejudice and faction they would easily discern that Council to have been a corrupt Synod justly to be detested As for the catholick professours he mentions
their profession adds but little credit to their cause For what advantage is it to prove the truth of the Roman Tridentin Doctrine that it was professed by Catharina a woman or Ignatius Loyola a lame Souldier the hypocritical Deviser of the Order of Jesuits the Incendiaries of the Christian States and corrupters of Christian Nobility and people by their abominable Devices in resolving cases of conscience sutably to the lusts of men rather than the will of God as is shewed in the late book of the Mystery of Jesuitism or by Edmund Campian a bold talkative calumniator and a traiterous zelot for the Popes tyranny or by William Allen an English Fugitive who wrote seditious books to apologize for Stanley's Treachery and to provoke Queen Elizabeth's Subjects to Rebellion against so good a Prince And for the great multitudes converted in Italy Spain Germany India Japonia China by Priests and Religious of the Roman Church and likewise some considerable persons of the English Nation even in the heat of Persecution they are short of that which was undertaken of the conversion of Nations The conversions in the West Indies have been by horrid cruelties of the Spaniards depopulating many countreys in which were millions of people to get their Treasure not to the faith of Christ but to the Roman yoak and superstitions against their will which hath made Christian Religion-odious and the Name of God to be blasphemed Those of China and Japonia are fictions or so obscure as that they are not considerable The conversions in Spain France Germany Polonia have been by fire and faggot the bloody Inquisition persecutions Massacres and such like arguments fetcht from Hell The hot persecution of Papists here in England is as all know that know England a meer fiction some mulcts and restraints have been put on popish persons but none put to death meerly for being Papists but for that which the Law made Treason being forced to it by their incessant traiterous practices and yet these also are executed sparingly The conversions to Popery in England have been by various artifices upon various inducements whereof none of them is evidence from the canonical Scripture of the truth of popish Doctrine they dare not stick to it without help of unwritten tradition and the Popes or his Councils explication which they must receive though contrary to the exposition of their own most learned and judicious Writers in their Commentaries but the devices which they use are calumniating Protestant Writers mis-representing their Doctrine forging Writings of the Ancients purging out of them such passages as make against them which do take effect by the levity of some prejudice discontent or some such like ill affection of others And though Campian after his vain-glorious manner boasted of turning ten thousand in one year to the Popish party and the popish Priests do boast of their success as when Musket was reported to have converted Dr. King Bishop of London and Weston reported to the Earl of Warwick unknown his conversion to Popery when the Earl knew it to be false yet as upon trial there was little cause for Campian's glorying and the reports of Musket's and Fisher's success heretofore so I hope however in the time of the Wars they have mudded the Waters in England and intangled some in their Nets the Waters being settled they will be less able to deceive and souls which are now caught by them will by Gods blessing escape them However there is great cause to say that those who are caught by popish Priests and joyn to the church of Rome as now it is are for want of receiving the love of the truth that they might be saved given over to believe Lyes and are in danger to be damned as the Apostle foretold 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. What he adds of multitudes of provincial Councils omitted all estaâ—lishing the Roman tenets over the whole World it is because they are no where to be found but the emptiness of this his Catalogue is a sure eviction that there is not consent of Nations or Ages on behalf of the Papists SECT XIII In which the Close of H. T. is retorted ANd for his close I thus retort it Now let any rational and disinteressed man be judge whether the Fathers of the first Councils for five or six hundred years were true Protestants or Roman Catholicks that is whether they have taught and defined Protestant or Roman catholick Doctrines and doubtless when he hath well read their Writings he will say not Roman Catholiks but true Protestants and so by consequence all Ages and countreys which have received and approved them for Orthodox by humbly submitting to their Decrees to wit all Ages since Christ's time who with his holy Apostles and the orthodox Fathers and Councils for many hundred years taught Doctrine contrary the now Roman Tridentin faith Therefore let no Papist or Sectary such as H. T. is who like as the Donatists excluded all from the Church who were not of Donatus his party so he â—xcludes all from the Church of God who are not of the Bishop of Rome's party and thereby shews himself a Schismatick divided from the Catholick Church delude himself and his ignorant and credulous followers with a pretence to Council seeing there is no one to be found for them speaking of General and Oecumenical Councils for the first five or six hundred years which were the best which hath defined and taught their positive Doctrines but all have more or less condemned all or some of them according to the occasions then emergent and in particular that which Dr. John Rainold in his Conference with Hart cap. 9. divis 4. said stands yet good that all Christian Churches except the crue of the Italian Faction have and do condemn the Popes usurped Sovereignty over the whole Church of Christ and that no Council did give him that visible Moâ—archy be now usurps and the Jesuited party now ascribe to him till the last Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth 1512. After which it was opposed by the University of Paris and the French church and even in the Trent council there was a party which strugled against it in right of Bishops though they were overborn by the Romish devices and the multitude of Italians Even at this day the Jesuits have not brought all the Papists under the Popes girdle which makes the Pope cautelous how he determins controversies among his own party least the condemned party appeal from him to a council and the oppressed Kingdom set up a Patriarch of its own So that I may say it is an impossible task for this Scribler H. T. or any of his party to make a true catalogue of chief Pastors or Councils or approved Doctors in all ages for the Popes supremacy transubstantiation communion under one kind worshiping of images invocation and worshiping of deceased Saints and their reliques but a better catalogue may be made of more godly persons with whom their Popes
for this one thousand years are not to be compared their own writers being Judges who have opposed these doctrins of the now Romanists as hath been shewed by many learned men to the eternal confusion of Popish novelties then this Author hath here or any Popish writer elsewhere hath made to prove a succession of Pastors Councils Professors and Nations avouching the present Roman opinions which were never so avouched or enjoyned as now they are in Pope Pius the fourth his new Creed till about one hundred years ago And to this insolent demand where was your Church before Luther Protestants may reply to Papists where was your church which believed as you now do before Boniface the third Gregory the seventh Innocent the third and Leo the tenth The speeches of the Fathers for the churches continued succession do none of them prove the major of H. T. his Syllogism that is the only true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time meaning it of local personal succession of which H. T. means it but only of succession in holding the same doctrin Nor do any of them prove H. T. his minor that the church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time for they were all dead above a thousand years afore this time All that can be proved is that in case of heresies or Schisms they made use of the succession in the Roman church which was then less tainted then some others to repress them yet so as that they alleged a succession in other churches as well as it but none ever as this Author held it necessary that all churches should own the Bishop of Romes supremacy or the Roman churches communion how corrupt soever they should prove only while they continued uncorrupt in the faith they held communion with them and so should we if they would embrace the primitive purity of doctrine and worship which Peter and Paul and other Apostles first taught in the churches of Christ of which that at Rome though not the first yet was one of the most famous and till their declining of great esteem SECT XIV H. T. hath not solved the Protestants objection H. T. takes upon him to solve objections against the Churches continued succession and saith thus Obj. Elias complained that he was left alone 3 King 19. therefore the church then failed Answ He spake figuratively for God himself told him in the same Chapter ver 18. that he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was who had not howed their knees to Baal and in the Kingdom of Juda there was then publick profession of the true religion in Hierusalem paralip 22. 14 15. so that consequence is false To which I reply this author shews himself deceitful in setting down our tenet and argument and slighty in his answer For the tenet of the Protestants is not that the Church hath failed and that there is no continued succession of men in the visible Church who have held forth the truth against Popish innovations But that sometimes they have been by persecution so obscured as that however they have been discernable among themselves yet not so to adversaries and to others of their brethren at a farther distance nor perhaps have they been so conspicuous as that a catalogue might be made of the succession of Pastors and people in the same place in every age but oft-times they have been so dispersed as to be in one age or time in one Country and another time in another and that the monuments of their being and doctrine have been in part lost and in part obscured by inundations of barbarous nations persecutions of Popes and Popish Princes and their knowledge and profession hath been sometimes larger sometimes less and still misreported by adversaries Nevertheless that is though they have been in such obscurity they have been true Churches of Christ and notwithstanding we cannot prove such a succession in any one City or Country of Pastors and people in every thing agreeing with us yet we may be a true Church as long as we hold the true faith once delivered to the Saints and now upon record in the holy Scriptures though we submit not to the Pope as chief Pastor nor own the now Roman doctrin in the articles required in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth to be professed over and above the ancient Creeds In a word this we assert that the defect of a catalogue such as H. T. requires and the obscurity of professors nullifies not the verity of the Protestant Churches And this is proved by the objection thus If there were a true Church in Israel in Elias his days which was so hidden as that Elias knew them not and so could make no catalogue of them then there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned But so it was as appears by Elias his complaint and Gods answer 1 King 19. 10 14 18. Ergo there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned Now what doth he answer that Elias spake figuratively because God said there were seven thousand non-Baalites left in Israel and that there was a Church in Juâ—ah then and therefore the consequence false But to shew the slightiness of this shifter for I cannot term him rightly a respondent 1. He tells us not what figure he used nor in what words nor what sense the speech bears according to that figure nor how it serves for his purpose to avoid the objection I do not conceive what figure of speech he or any man can imagin in that speech I am left alone unless he meant Ironically I am left alone that is not left alone which were a frantick conceit or an Hyperbole or a Synecdoche of a part for the whole one for many but such an Hyperbole or Synecdoche would make the speech non-sense I that is a few or many are left alone For this were non-sense and self contradicting and contrary to the intent of the speech I being in the first person and that doubled few or many in the third to say few or many are left alone when alone excludes few many any more then one to say they seek my life that is of few or many when my notes only him that spake to wit Elias and no other to say I have been jealous that is a few or many have been jealous besides the citation Rom. 11. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the occasion end of the speech and answer of God shew such an exposition would be the conceit of a man extreme shallow or impudent And his reason is as ridiculous God himself told Elias in the same chapter ver 18. that
he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was therefore Elias spake figuratively when he complained he was left alone 3 Kings 19. Nay the contrary follows that he did not speak figuratively because God corrects him and shews his mistake in saying he was left alone that is there were no more besides himself left 2. But yet if it were granted that the speech is figurative and the meaning as H. T. would have it it no whit avoids our objection that the Church of God though consisting of seven thousand yet were so obsâ—ure that they appeared so few to Elias as that he took himself to be left alone As for the other exception of the Kingdom of Juda it takes not away the objection as the Protestants frame it but as H. T. frames it it is not our objection and so though the consequence be false yet it hurts not us who gather not hence the failing of the Church but the obscurity of it and that there may be a true Church which is so hidden that it is not discerned at some times no not by such an eminent Prophet as Elias and so though we cannot shew our Church in every age before Luther yet there might be then and we may be now a true Church for all that The next objection he brings is that though Arian heresie infected the whole world Ergo c. and answers you mistake the fury of that lasted not full fouâ— years viz. from the council of Ariminum to the death of Constantine and that only in the Eastern Churches the Western feeling little or nothing by it St. Augustin answers the Donatists objecting the same that even the canonical Scriptures have this custome that the word seems to be addressed to all when it reaches home only to some few Epist 48. To which I reply If the Arian fury lasted but four years and in the Eastern Churches only yet it might have been more than one hundred and then the succession had ceased and the Eastern Churches then were so obscure that a catalogue of professors could not be given though there were doubtless then true Churches in the East But it is false which H. T. writes that the Western felt little or nothing by the Arian fury for in Italy the Arians prevailed so far as to bring Liberius Bishop of Rome to subscribe to the council of Ariminum Nor do I know how the words of Augustin yeild any thing in answer to the objection that in the time of the Arian prevalency the Church was so obscured that the whole world seemed to be Arians therefore the Churches succession may be so interrupted or obscured at least as that a catalogue of it's pastors and professors at all times cannot be framed For suppose the meaning of the speech should be that the words concerning the number of Arians seem to be addressed to all when they reach home only to some few yet if the words shew the number so great as that the other part of the Church were obscured so as not to be discerned they serve to prove there may be Churches which are so hidden as that a catalogue cannot be framed But the objection is further pressed thus Object St. Hierom says the whole world groan'd and admired to see it self become Arian in his book against Luciferius To which H. T. saith Answ If she wondred she knew not when it was done if she groaned she approved it not being done therefore the major part were still Catholick To which I reply if H. T. did not presume he should meet with silly readers he would not have thus frivolously inferred from those words which were delivered to shew the Arians to be the greater part that the major part was still Catholick For who knows not that the expression is Rhetorical and the meaning this that Arians prevailed so much that the whole world that is all the churches of the East and West were so infected that they were burdened with Arians as a man that groans under a burden and that on such a sudden as that the accident was as it were a wonder now from such Catachrestical metaphors to infer as if they were proper that while the world was Arian it knew not it was done or approved it not is all one as to say when they were Arians they knew not nor liked Arian doctrine that is while they were Arians they were not Arians which is to make Hieroms speech self-contradicting But H. T. adds Let St. Hierom answer for himself The Bishops saith he against Luciferius that did the fact of Ariminum were deluded viz. by the new Creed there made which might have born a good sense few defending the fact and some lamenting it And St. Augustin tells us that the church then appeared in her most constant members Athanasius and others ep 48. To which I reply It is true that when they came to see their error they did lament it yet were for the time Arians and though Athanasius did not yeild to subscribe to it yet Liberlus Bishop of Rome did And I believe H. T. his fellow Papists will not allow his speech that the decree made at Ariminum might have born a good sense It is added by H. T. thus Obj. The church will fail in the time of Antichrist according to that unless there come a revolt first c. 2 Thes 2. 3. Answ No she will not she shall then suffer great persecution Apoc. 20. 8. and therefore shall be to suffer many will revolt all shall not I reply that if the revolt be of so many and the persecution so great as that they shall be dispersed and obscured so as not to appear it is sufficient to prove the succession to be then either so interrupted as not to be or so obscured as not to be discerned by enemies or brethren further off and so as that the making a catalogue of Pastors and professors in that age cannot be expected justly from the churches in after ages which is enough for our purpose to shew that the defect of such a catalogue shews not the nullity of the Protestant churches nor is with any justice or reason such a catalogue of Pastors and professors in all ages required of them by Papists Yet however this Author conceives his fellows the Rhemists Annot. on 2 Thes 2. 3. think the Apostasie shall be so great as that Antichrist shall pull down generally all kind of religious worship saving that which must be done to himself alone nor is that Apoc. 20. 8. to the contrary For neither is it certain that time is the time of Antichrists reign nor if it were doth it appear that the thing done is afore the end of that reign But H. T. adds Obj. What if men would not persevere how then you hold freewill I hope Answ With St. Augustine to the Donatists as if the holy Ghost were ignorant what would be the freewill of men which yet foreseeing he foretold that the church
and the souls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull nor that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto nor their Relicks to be worshipped nor that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God always a Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them honour and veneration is to be given nor that the power of Indulgences such as the Pope grants was left by Christ in the Church nor that the use thereof is most wholesome to Christ's people nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church nor the Mother and Mistress of all Churches nor that true obedience is to be vowed and sworn to the Bishop of Rome nor that he is the Successor of Peter nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the first five hundred years for they held not these points Papists pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years is very idle because were it true as it is most false that those Fathers were Papists yet could not that suffice to prove them a continued Succession of sixteen hundred years Secondly because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed then our modern Papists can now do and they have not protested on their salvation that it was the very same with the now popish Doctrine nor that they received it from them by word of mouth and so from age to age and finally because if our Tenets in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years then it is wholly impossible they should be for Papists and against us But our Doctrines in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years Therefore it is impossible that the Fathers of the first five hundred years should be for Papists and against us The Major is manifest of it self The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of those Fathers as also by what shall be cited out of them in the following dispute 2. By the ingenuous confessions of our Adversaries Cardinal Cusanus in his second Book of Catholick Concord cap. 13. saith The Pope is not the universal Bishop but the first above or among others Cardinal Bessarion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist We reade that these two onely Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel Cardinal Cajetan tract de Indulg cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the beginning of Indulgences there is no authority of the Scripture or ancient Fathers Greek or Latin that brings it to our knowledge Durand in lib. 4. sent dist 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be said of certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Rochester Assert Luth. confes art 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was very little mention or none at all among the ancient as the Greeks to this day believe it not which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine lib. 5. de Just cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteousness and for avoiding of vain-glory it is most sure and safe to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part 2. Th. qu. 80. art 12. qu 3. The custome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church Georg. Cass in his Defence of his Book entituled De officio pii viri saith The use of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the ministring of this Sacrament is both of the institution of Christ and observed by the custome of the whole Church for above a thousand years and unto this day of the Eastern Churches And although the use of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the most learned of those times never taught that it was necessary so to be observed Tonstal Bishop of Durhom de verit corp sanguinis p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist Polydor Virgil. de invent rer l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expurgatorius put them out had these words By the testimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worship of images for fear of Idolatry Cassand consult tit de imag It is verily manifest out of Augustin writing on Psal 113. that in his age the use of Images in Churches was not Claudius Espencaeus a Bishop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apostles by reason of the want of others Priests were married Greg. de Val. tom 4. disp 9. punct 5. sect 9. with others confesseth that in the most ancient times of the Church and after the Apostles death Priests had their wives Harding in his answer to Jewel on the third Article Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary when the faith was in learning And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people for cause of their further instruction who being of late converted to the faith and of Painims made Christians had need in all things to be taught John Hart in his Epistle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower In truth I think that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend of the other Whereupon I gather as a certain conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes is unreasonable and improbable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly much less to depose them or give away their Kingdoms that is no part of his commission He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himself taking no such title on him nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Disciples Bishop Jewels challenge and performance is known Bishop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal besides many other books are extant by which it may be plainly discerned that Papists have not the Fathers of the first five hundred years for them and that even the learned writers of the Popish party have vented so much in their writings as yeilds an apology for Protestants in all or many of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists SECT III. Protestants have had a sufficient succession to aver their doctrin in the Latin Churches BUt I shall add a direct answer to H. T. his argument 1. By denying his syllogism to
be right as having these words added in the minor or tenets c. which were not in the Major whereby there is a fourth term which makes a syllogism naught 2. By denying his Major and as a reason of that denial I say agreement of doctrin with Christ and his Apostles in the main points of faith and worship though there be no Bishops nor Priests is sufficient to a true Church and such succession as H. T. requires is not necessary 3. To the Minor though Protestants have not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same faith or tenets the thirty nine Articles or any other set number of tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points yet they do agree with Christ and his Apostles in the doctrin of the Christian faith and the Christian worship and there hath been a succession in all ages hitherto of Christian professors holding the same points of faith in the fundamentals although sometimes more purely and conspicuously than at other times and they have opposed though not with the like success agreement or largeness in every age the Popish errors now avouched in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and the Trent Canons And for answer to the proofs of the Major I deny that the Major proceeds from the definition to the thing defined a continued number of Bishops Priâ—sts and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time being not the definition of the continued succession necessary to the being of the true Church of God as hath been proved before in the answer to the former Article Sect 4. 5. And to the proof of the Minor I answer that Protestants may have true succession from Christ and his Apostles and may be esteemed Christians and Catholicks though they differ in many material points as long as they hold the same fundamental points and Protestants opposing all or some of the chief points of Popery as they arose and were discovered to them though they did not discern all their errors nor relinquish all their practises or the communion of the Churches subject to the Bishop of Romes rule but they were truely Protestants however otherwise named while they did hold the same fundamental truths we hold and opposed as they appeared to them all or some of the Popish corrupt worship and errors which the Protestants now do And for proof of this we rightly name the Waldenses Hussites Wicklevists Albigenses Puritan Waldenses Beringarians Grecians of whom writers testifie they excepted against the Popes supremacy purgatory half communion transubstantiation setting up and worship of Images propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse for quick and dead invocation and worship of Angels and Saints deceased seven Sacraments with other errors of the now Romanists and yet in the chief points of Christian faith and worship did agree with the now Protestants as may be gathered from the confessions and writings of their own either extant or acknowledged in the histories and writings of their adversaries such as were Rainerius Aeneas Sylvius Cochlaeus and others See Samuel Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont the first book by which their confessions and treatises are brought to light agreeing with Protestants What H. T. brings against this is either falsly ascribed to them by the calumnies of their adversaries whose recitals of their opinions to the worst sense no man hath reason to believe especially considering their works extant do refute them and it hath been often complained of that they have been misinterpreted and misreported or else if true is insufficient to invalidate our allegation of them H. T. tells us the Waldenses held the real presence that the Apostles were lay men that all Magistrates fell from their dignity by any mortal sin that it is not lawful to swear in any case c. Illiricus in Catalog Waldens Confes Bohem. a. 1. and Waldo an unlearned Merchant of Lyons lived but in the year 1160. Answ Sure he was not altogether unlearned of whom it is said by some that have seen his doings yet remaining in old parchment monuments that it appeareth he was both able to declare and to translate the books of Scripture also did collect the Doctors minas upon the same Yet were he unlearned sure he had store of companions among the Romanists Friers Bishops and Popes of those times by one of whom a Bishop was condemned as an heretick for holding that there are Antipodes and Paul the second saith Platina pronounced them hereticks who should from thence forth mention the name of the Academy either in earnest or in jest The very decrees and Epistles of the Popes in their Canon law shew that few of them had any skill in the Scriptures or the original languages competent to divines and who so readeth their writings observingly shall find that the ablest of their schoolmen in those dayes were very ignorant of the Scripture sense and language Nor do I think the Popes and generality of Bishops and Priests and Preachers among the Romanists at this day are men of much learning in the holy Scriptures So that I presume Waldus as unlearned as he was was comparable to the Roman Clergy at that time in learning and for holiness of life by the relation even of Popish writers exceeding them as much as gold exceeds lead and therefore as likely to know the mind of God as any Pope or Bishop or Frier at that time Now clear it is by an ancient manuscript alledged by the Magdeburg cent 12. c. 8. that the Waldenses held that the Scripture is the only rale in the Articles of faith fathers and councils no otherwise to be received then as they agree with the Scriptures that the Scriptures are to be read by all sorts of men that there are two Sacraments of the Church that the Lords supper is appointed by Christ and to be received by all sorts in both kinds that Masses were impious and that it was a madness to say Masses for the dead purgatory to be a figment the invocation and worship of dead Saints to be idolatry the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon that the Pope hath not the supremacy of all the Churches of Christ marriage of Priests to be lawful with sundry more which are agreeable to Protestant tenets against Papists which is confirmed because much to the same purpose Aeneas Sylvius in his Bohemian history writes of their opinions Nor is it likely they held what they are said by H. T. to have held For it appears by the dispute between them and one Dr. Austin set down by Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments at the year 1179. out of Orthuinus de gratiis that their opinion was that Christ is one and the same with his natural body in the Sacrament which he is at the right hand of his Father but not after the same
existence of his body For the existence of his body in heaven is personal and local there to be apprehended by the faith and spirit of men In the Sacrament the existence of his body is not personal or local to be apprehended or received of our bodies after a personal or corporal manner but after a Sacramental manner that is where our bodies receive the sign and our spirit the thing signified And Illyric cat test verit tells us that it is said to be their opinion that the transubstantiation is not made in the hand of the conficient but in the mouth of him that receives it worthily And though he sets down the words of Rainerius as they were yet he conceives the things objected were calumnies As for what is brought out of the Bâ—hemian confession Anno 1535 it speaks of their tenet then but not what those in Gallia held in and about the time of Waldus who from him were termed Waldenses It is probable they might say the Apostles were lay men not ordained or tradesmen as Peter was a fisher Paul a tentmaker not thereby derogating from the Apostles function when they were made Apostles but endeavouring to abate the arrogance of the Bishops and Priests who appropriated to themselves the title of the clergy which Peter 1 Pet. 5. 3. gave to all the flock of Christ and the power only to translate read expound and preach the Scriptures which the Waldenses held to be free to all men By Magistrates falling from their dignity by mortal sin its likely they meant Ecclesiastical whom they held God did suspend from the exercise of their function when they lived wickedly they being not to receive and so not to consecrate as I find it in Illyric catal or perhaps they meant it that Magistrates were not to be obeyed in their wicked commands or as it is most probable they meant it it was just with God they should fall from their dignity and that he by his providence did so order it not that men might depose them as Papists have taught nor that ipso facto they cease to be Magistrates The same thing also H. T. saith of the Wiclesians out of the council of Constance and imputes to them and to the Hussites from the council of Constance that all things came to pass by fatal necessity misunderstanding necessity of event by reason of Gods decree for fatal stoick necessity and that all the works of the predestinate are vertues which arose from their doctrine that they could not fall from the faith as if thereby they must hold that then they could not sin That the Waldenses held it not lawful to swear at all is not so likely as that they held the frequency of swearing unlawful which is made the occasion of their denying swearing to be lawful by Rainerias himself in Illyr catal or perhaps they rejected monkish vows and oaths of canonical obedience and many other oaths imposed on men together with swearing by the Mass Cross Rod on a Book But if they held all swearing unlawful they held what Sixtus Seneâ—siâ— lib. 6. Biblioth Annot. 26. saith is conceived to have been held by many Fathers Origen Athanasius Epiphanius Hilarius Ambrosius Chromatius Hieronimus Chrysostomus Theophylactus Oecumenius Euthymius whom he excuseth and endeavours to acquit from error and so do others the Waldenses Wiclevists c. as Birkbck in cent 14. doth Wicleff out of his Latin exposition of the second Commandment That the Hussites held Mass transubstantiation and seven Sacraments with the now Romanists I find not in Mr. Fox nor doth H. T. tell me where I may find it in him that the Hussites or Wicleff held all the works of the predestinate to be vertues or that all things come to pass by fatal necessity meaning of a concatenation of two causes antecedent to Gods decree and binding him is no more to be believed because the council of Constance condemned them then that Wicleff held that God was to obey the Devil because it was so charged on him from which his learned works yet remaining do free him And it is found that the clamorous Jesuits endeavor to fasten the like odious inferences on the doctrine of predestination taught by Calvin and other Protestants which being rightly understood infers them not What Bernard saith and Roger Hoveden of the Albigenses and Rainerius of the Catharists might be true of some of those that went under their name as the Gnosticks did of Christians and perhaps some Ranters or Quakers may do under the name of Protestants But the errors are contrary to the Waldenses Wiclevists Hussites confessions and writings yet remaining and Rainerius his own words that the Waldenses or Leonists did believe all things well of God and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed do acquit them and they seem to be the errors of some remnant of the Manichees But perhaps Bernard was mistaken in the charge on them as he was in the accusation of Petrus Abailardus and others The tenets that the universal Church meaning the Catholick Church which we believe in the Creed consisteth only of the predestinate that they cannot fall from the faith meaning totally or finally are the opinions of many learned Protestants and therefore the Hussites holding them may notwithstanding those opinions be reckoned for Protestants Nevertheless were it true that the Hussites and Wiclevists and Waldenses taught what H. T. saith of them yet we might alledge them as witnesses against the now Popish errors which they then declared against and a catalogue of Protestant successors continued from the Apostles in the naming them rightly formed SECT IV. The succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding H. T. his exceptions A Catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the Greek churches continued in the profession of the same faith with the Protestants against Popish errors is alleged by some learned Protestants Against which H. T. excepts 1. That they rejected the communion of the Protestants censur eccles orientalis Answ This doth not prove they professed not the same faith with Protestants against Papists For they might upon some differences upon which perhaps they disagree with the Romanists reject the communion of the Protestants and yet profess with Protestants the same faith and oppose the same Popish errors 2. Saith he they were at least seven or eight hundred years in the communion of the Roman Church as witness the first eight general councils all held in Greece and approved by the Popes of Rome Answ To speak exactly a general council is a black Swan there having never been any council so general but that there have wanted messengers from many Christian Churches in the world The four first councils of the Bishops of the Empire have gotten a great repute in the Christian Churches and have been accounted as the four Evangelists though the canons extant even of the first Nicene council have no such excellency in them as to deserve so
great an opinion Of the four later surely the two last lesse deserve the name the later Nicene council being affronted by the Carolin council about Images at Frankford and the eighth by another of the same place of better note by Michael the Emperor and Photius the learned Parriarch of Constantinople who sure acknowledged not the Popes Monarchy but lived and died in contest against them But neither the four first nor the four last did ever ascribe to the Pope of Rome the monarchy and supremacy which are now arrogated nor did they ever receive what they professed because they professed it nor doth the desire or acceptance much lesse the having the Popes approbation at all prove any authority over them in him it being a thing usual to seek approbation of men who have no authority over the seekers by reason of their esteem for prudence learning and other qualities and for the more ready receipt of what they seek to have approved But the councils determinations and that with Anathema to the gainsayers shewed that they judged themselves to have decisive power without the Pope though his consent also were added as useful for some purposes 3. Saith H. T. The first revolt was made by the Grecians denying the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Son they were united again to the Church of Rome in the council of Florence sess last Answ 1. The denying of the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son is shewed to be an error only in manner of speaking by Sir Richard Field of the Church third book ch 1. and other learned men 2. The revolt so long shews the Protestants had predecessors for many hundred years together in opposing the usurpations and errors of the Roman Popes and Churches 3. The reconciliation at Florence was but an imperfect thing by persons whose acts were not avowed afterwards nor did the union hold but was quickly dissolved 4. The council of Florence was a council not allowed by that at Basil as being only of a faction to avoid the questioning of Pope Eugenius See Platina in vita Eugenii 4. 4. Saith H. T. they held transubstantiation seven Sacraments unbloody sacrifice prayer to Saints and for the dead cens eccles orientalis c. 7 10 12 13 21. Answ The Grecians hold not any such transubstantiation as whereby the elements are abolished and cease to be that they were but whereby they become what they were not and the transubstantiation they hold is a change of the communicants into the being of Christ that is partakers of the divine nature as the Apostle means when he saith they are the body of Christ as Dr. Field proves out of Dam. scen Cyril and others in his third book of the Church ch 1. Bishop Jewel reply to Hardings answer art 10. Nor are the speeches of transubstantiation transelementation and such like terms used by the Greeks any other than lofty hyperbolical speeches such as the Apostle useth when he saith Christ was crucified among the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. which abound in Chrysostome Pseudo Dionysius Areopagita c. insomuch that Chrysostom sometimes expresseth the presence of Christ in the eucharist as if it were sensible the communicants touching Christs body seeing his blood having their mouths made red by it sucking his blood receiving him into our house with more of the like as may be seen in Chamier Panstr cath tom 4. lib. 11. c. 9. As for seven Sacraments the Greeks do not teach them to be so many and no more nor the unbloody sacrifice any otherwise then by it to mean a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ as Chrysostom in his hom on the tenth to the Hebrew expresseth it It cannot be proved that the Greeks use such prayer to Saints as the Papists do directing their prayers to them as hearers and by vertue of their merits helpers to them that call on them Neither do they pray for the dead shut up in purgatory which as I alleged out of Roffensis the Greeks do this day deny and there enduring punishment of sense for deliverance thence but commemorate the dead even the most holy martyrs and confessors and pray for their happy resurrection and acquittal in the last judgement As for the Egyptian Christians and Armenians what they hold is not so easie to know by reason of their remoteness from Europe nor what Succession they have had But this is manifest enough that they did never submit to the Bishop of Rome as their Head except what was done at Florence for which Michael Paleologus the Greek Emperour was abhorred by the Greeks and denied Burial and Isidor Arch-bishop of Kioâ—ia in Russta deposed and put to death or by some obscure persons whose acts the Churches never owned and yet there doth not appear sufficient reason to exclude them out of the Catholick Church notwithstanding such Errours as are imputed to them nor to question their Succession Nor is the Protestants pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years idle it being not false but most true and so proved by Jewel and others and the Answers of Harding and other Romanists proved insufficient that they were in the most material points Protestants that is held otherwise than the Romanists now do And though it prove not a Succession of sixteen hundred years continued yet it proves a Succession of so long continuance as will make void the popish claim of Succession as peculiar to them and with any considerate person so far take place as to justifie the Protestants opposition against the modern Papist's Errours and Innovations 'T is true those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed than Protestants can now do in those things which they delivered by word of mouth to them if they were heedfull intelligent and mindefull of what they heard But what they left in writing we may know as well as they And experience shews that oft times upon mistakes and sometimes voluntarily the sayings of men spoken yea sometimes their very Writings either by unskilfulness or negligence or fraud are mis-reported and therefore notwithstanding this reason of the acquaintance of those of the sixth Age with those of the fifth yet it may be that Protestants may know the minde of the Fathers in the fifth Age as well as those that lived in the sixth But that those of the sixth Age have protested on their salvation that the Doctrine taught by the Fathers in the fifth Age was the very same with their in every point or the Doctrine now taught by the Romanists was received from them by word of mouth and so from Age to Age is not true yet if they should we have no more cause to credit them than the Church had to believe the Millenaries and Quartodesimans because of Papias and others their report of John with whom they conversed SECT
V. The Romanists Doctrine as it is now was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by the learned Protestants H. T adds a third Argument to prove that his with other Romanists Doctrines in which they differ from Protestants and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years which he thinks to prove by that he hath cited and shall cite out of the Fathers and the confessions of his Adversaries and to that end cites some Speeches of Fulk Kemnitius Whitgrft Calvin Whitaker Peter Martyr Duditius Rainolds Jewel and then infers triumphantly therefore the Father of the first five hundred years are not for Protestants but for us therefore Protestants are utterly at a loss in the point of continued Succession Answ 1. WHat is before cited hath been shewed to be insufficient and so will what is after if God vouchsafe me time and strength to that end 2. Of the passages cited the two last are not to the purpose and they are maimedly and corruptly cited The Speeches as they are cited say not any thing of the popish Doctrin taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years but the uncertainty of finding out the truth by their sayings without the Scriptures And that the dealing of this Author may appear I shall set down the words as I finde them in Jewel's Apology part 4. cap. 22. divis 3. For where these men bid the holy Scriptures away as dumb and fruitless and procure us to come to God himself who speaks in the Church and in their Councils that is to say to believe their fancies and opinions this way finding out the truth is very uncertain and exceeding dangerous and in a manner a fantastical and mad way and by no means allowed of the holy Fathers Which Speech is a most true and savoury Speech yet not in the least intimating a diffidence of the Fathers of the first five hundred years being for the Papists the contrary to which Bishop Jewel shewed in his famous Challenge at Paul's Cross and his making it good against Harding but onely vindicating the holy Scriptures from the foul Speeches of Hosius Pighius and other Romanists and asserting the authority of the holy Scriptures The other passage which is cited out of Dr. Rainold's Conference in H. T. it is printed Confess cap. 5. divis 1. is as corruptly and maimedly cited the words being thus at large Indeed Vincentius Lirinensis preferreth this mark of truth the consent of the Fathers before the rest as having held when they failed Nevertheless he speaketh not of it neither as that it may serve for trial and decision of questions between us For what doth he acknowlege to be a point approved and such as we are bound to believe by this mark even that which the Fathers all with one consent have held written taught plainly commonly continually And who can avouch of any point in question that not one or two but all the Fathers held it nor onely held it but also wrote it nor onely wrote it but alotaught it not darkly but plainly not seldom but commonly not for a short season but continually which so great consent is partly so rare and so hard to be found partly so unsure though it might be found that himself to fashion it to some use and certainty is fain to limit and restrain it Which words were sound and are necessary but not spoken out of any distrust of his cause or imagination as if the Fathers of the first five hundred years were for the Papists For in that very conference he largely proves that not onely the Fathers of the first five hundred years but also the succeeding Councils and Fathers till the sixteenth Century did onely yield the Pope a Primacy among other Patriarchs but not a Supremacy over the whole Church and that Primacy that was given him was by custome of the Church for the honour of the Imperial City which was auserible not because of any grant of Christ which was irrevocable Duditius was one whom by Thranus his description of him Hist l. 96. towards the end Martyr's Speech respects onely the point of vows which is not a point of saith Whitaker's Speech is not of the Fathers of the first 500. years but of the ancient Church which might be after or onely in some part of that time The words of Calvin lib 3. instit cap. 5. parag 10. are not rightly alleged being not together as H. T. cites them but injuriously pieced out of Speeches that are distant one from another He doth not deny nor yet expresly say that it was a custome thirteen hundred years ago to pray for the dead but whereas it was objected by the Adversaries he urgeth that if it were so it was without Scripture that it came out of carnal affection that what we reade in the Ancients done therein was yielded to the common manner and ignorance of the vulgar he confesseth they were carried away into errour but faith not they were all of that time carried away into errour that same testimonies of the Ancients might be brought which overthrow all those prayers for the dead that their prayers for the dead were not without hesitancy that they were different from the popish in divers things The words of Whitgifts Defense pag. 473. are mis-cited being not as H. T. cites them All the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church too for the most part were spotted with the Doctrines of Free will Merit Invocation of Saints but thus How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church yea and the Latins also for the most part spotted with the Doctrines of Free-will of Merits Invocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this time The words of Kemnitius I finde not perhaps because the Edition is not named with the Page But this I finde in the third part of his Examen pag. 628. Francos Edit 1609. that he not onely asserted but also proved that in the Primitive Church unto two hundred years after Christ born the Doctrine of the Suffrages Patronages Intercessions Merits Aid Help and Invocation of Saints in Heaven was altogether unknown and the reason or account of the veneration of Saints was then far other as we have shewed than that which was brought in I have not Fulk's Retentives against Bristow's Motives by me which I imagine is the Book which H. T. cites under the Title of Riot Briston but his citing with an c. and so small a shred of the Authour makes me conceive that he wronged Fulk by that maimed citation however sith the confession is but of three Fathers and the Saints whether living or dead
and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the pâ—pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God
not fail but be in some place or other more or less conspicuous in greater or smaller numbers yet it is not proved that the church militant definite of this or that place shall not fail nor is there a word in Scripture to prove this the priviledge of the Roman church or those that are in communion with the See of Rome that they cannot fail nor erre in faith nor do the words of Fathers rightly understood prove it But Scripture and experience do plainly refute it What hath been alleged is examined the rest will be in its place I proceed to that which remains in this Article Object The Catholick succession was one succession for the first five centuries Answ You may as well tell me of a white blackmore a Catholick is not a Protestant nor a Catholick succession a Protestant succession Who ever heard of a Protestant Pope The Catholick church was always governed by a Pope in the first five centuries as now it is and hath defined our tenets and condemned yours as you have seen It is the very essence of a Protestant as a Protestant to protest against the Catholick church as Lutherans and you have done To this I reply To an objection of such moment as this is the answer is but meer trifling For he knows that we mean by catholick succession not that which he calls catholick succession to wit of Popes of Rome but that the teachers who are reputed catholick whether of the Greek or Latin churches who have succeeded one after another in the five first centuries of years from Christs incarnation according to the account now used taught not the doctrine now professed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or in the Tridentin canons but that in all or most of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists they taught the doctrine which Protestants now hold which hath been proved by Jewel and many other Protestant writers And in this sense it is no more absurdity to call a Protestant a catholick then to call a spade a sapde a straw a straw Protestants are truely Catholicks Papists are but falsly called Catholicks affecting the name as some that were of the Synagogue of Satan said they were Jews and were not but did lye Revel 3. 9. and impudently claiming that which they have no right to that they may be it as a stalking horse catch ignorant people who are taken with shews and confident talk being unable to sift out truth and discern it from pretences A Catholick succession is in true construction a Protestant succession and the Popes of Rome it self Protestant Popes teaching in such writings as remain not the now Papal doctrine but in the main the Protestant though by some of them excessively magnifying their See and promoting rites of mens invention way was made for the after corruptions of the Papacy The term Pope was in former times given to other Bishops Presbyters yea and Deacons too besides the Bishop of Rome though now the title is appropriated to him who deserves not the name of Papa or Father as it was heretofore used as an honourable title of the reverend and godly teachers and officers in the church of God nor any other way I know except it be in the sense in which an Italian said of Innocent the eighth Octo nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas Hunc merito poteris dicere Roma patrem Many of whose predecessors and successors have made it their work to advance their bastards rather then beget children to God by preaching the Gospel It is a notorious falshood that the catholick church was alwayes governed by a Pope in the first five centuries if he mean by Pope a Bishop of Rome It s manifest by many instances that the African and Asian churches were not governed by him in the second third fourth and fifth centuries sith they did oppose him as appears by the contentions between Victor and Polycrates and others That which we have seen in H. T. or Bellarmin or any other writer of the Popish party hath not yet made it so much as probable that the Catholick church hath now defined the now Roman tenets or condemned the Protestants nor is it of the essence of a Protestant as such to Protest against the Catholick church but against the errors and abominations of the now Roman party Nor hath H. T. or any other proved that the Protestant teachers protest against manifest revealed verities and the very fundamentals of the Christian faith however they do protest against the fundamentals of the new Popish faith the Popes monarchy transubstantiation c. H. T. adds St. Augustin St. Hierom and many others are divided in their opinions whether Linus or Clement immediately succeeded Peter Answ Be it so yet they all agreed in this that the succession was morally continued to which it is a thing indifferent whether Clement immediately succeeded him as he well might being his scholar or first Linus then Cletus and then Clement which is now the more common opinion of the church I reply what he means by morally continued I understand not nor know I any sense of that speech which serves to take away the force of the objection which is that if it be uncertain who succeeded Peter immediately then the tradition of the church unwritten or not written in the Bible is uncertain and that too in a main point which is fundamental with the Romanists the succession of their chief Pastors upon which the truth of their church and the rule of their faith depends and consequently the rule of the Romanists whereby to know what we are to believe hath a meer sandy foundation not being sufficient to build a divine and firm faith upon and the Protestants are no more to be blamed than the Romanists if they do not so exactly set down and prove their succession of Bishops as the Papists require sith the Papists themselves are deficient in their own catalogue and if the Protestants can prove their faith out of Scripture though they prove not such a succession as is demanded they may as well be concluded a true church as the Roman which answers the two first Articles of H. T. his Manual of controversies Besides the most ancient tradition they have to wit Irenaeus l. 3. adver haeres c. 3. saith that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and then delivered the Episcopacy of the church to be administred to Linus which was done in their life time and so Linus did not succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome for he was Bishop while Peter lived and so if Peter died Bishop of Rome there were more Bishops together and Irenaeus makes them successors of Paul as well as Peter nor were they successors to them as having the same office with them For they could not be Bishops of particular places fixed there as now the term is used it stood not with their commission which enjoyned them to go into all the world and to
but they are not meerly visible believers as some Reprobates are who profess faith which they have not But the true Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. contains onely such believers as have that faith which is true and that Election of God which with their faith are invisible and so are rightly denominated the invisible Church from that which is more excellent and the Reprobate have not ARTIC IV. One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith SECT I. Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality and then saith Unity being essentially presupposed to Universality I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Article Answ IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general that the contrary seems more true that one is not universal Unity not consistent with Universality it being in effect as if iâ— were said One is many or all yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up in respect of which it is certain that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place but is abstracted from it But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine Discipline and Faith by the words following Universality likewise is manifold as Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks shew as there is an universality of predication of essence and existence Now this Authour seems to mean universality of existence for time and place and his meaning is this that unity of Doctrine Discipline and Faith is essentially presupposed to universality of existence for time and place that is that Church which hath not the same Doctrine Faith and Discipline which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had is not the true Church of Christ and that which hath is the true Church of Christ Now these Propositions I grant if meant of Doctrine and Faith in the Fundamentals but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline or Doctrine and Faith in points not fundamental having learned from the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14. that some may build Hay and Stubble that is some errors upon the foundation Christ who yet may be saved which they could not be if they were not of the true Church of Christ or that is no true Church of Christ which consists of such In like manner the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome one did believe he might eat all things and another did eat herbs one esteemed one day above another others esteemed every day alike and yet God received them both and they were Gods servants v. 3 4 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement yea Schism and disorder is apparent from the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. 51. 6. 7. 11. 17 c. 14. 26. 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limitation which this Authour omits his Position is not true But let 's view what he writes SECT II. The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed Now saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated Answ HEre again this Authour deals sophistically putting the Roman church for the true church as if they were the same and not explaining what he means by the Roman church which may eitherâ— signifie the church that is in Rome which is the expression of the Apostle Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be which holds the Roman faith And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop and Priests and People dwelling at Rome hold or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul and some Ages after If it be meant in this this last sense the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian nor so much as the Hierosolymitan whence all churches received the faith if in the former sense the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scripture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers though I conceive it so meant by this Authour To be perfectly one is also ambiguous it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine Discipline and Faith or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main or points fundamental To be universal for time and place may be either meant thus that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place But this is contrary to sense it being known by it that they were born within a certain definite time at certain definite places not in all times and every place existent or that the faith which now the Romanists hold is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue But H. T. looks quite awry from this as will appear by viewing his dispute which is thus SECT III. Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed H. T. saith The argument for unity The church of Christ is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body one sold or flock therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ The Major is proved We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him Christ head over all the Church which is his body Ephes 1. 22 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor John 10. 16. I beseech you that you all speak one thing and that there be no Schisms among you but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement 1 Cor. 1. 10
The multitude of believers had one heart one soul Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church The Nicene Creed Ans 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity was the true church after he changeth it into this that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ By comparing of which it is apparent that this Author supposeth the true church the church of Rome and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or diverse names of the same thing which is supposed but not proved nor yeilded nor can be true as shall be shewed after 2. This Author pretends to demonstrate by this argument the church of Rome to be perfectly one which should have been his conclusion whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor though they belong to the middle term which should be the same in both premises nor is any proof brought for them here to wit that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth the visible or ministerial head of that church which is one body one fold or flock 4. That the Major might be for his purpose it should have been thus that church which is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial and no other is the church of Christ but such is the church of Rome ergo But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives which is against Logick rules and makes the syllogism naught as the very freshmen know But to it as it is now framed I answer If the words and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial be left out the Major is granted in this sense that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals and one flock by unity of one head and supreme Pastor But in H. T. his sense it is most false that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points or without any divisions in rites and disciplin and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth as Christs deputy and the churches visible head Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state but profession and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth or agreement in all points but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it as many as participate of one bread but for we all partake of one bread it being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some copies of the vulgar nam omnes as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin so that the meaning is this we do shew our selves one body one bread forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper The next text Ephes 1. 22 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head to wit Christ as H. T. rightly interprets it And the third text John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock as it should be read not one fold in respect of one Pastor which the very words ver 11. 14 15 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself who gave his life for them and no other and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor The next text 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms not that they are or must be if they be the true church but the text proves the contrary that they may be a true church though there be Schisms and difference of judgement among them The fifth Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so at which time they had also all things common which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times but not that the whole church shall be so still The last John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so and so will be accomplished but by the words ver 21 22 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory or if afore yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing for so Peter and Paul did not agree as Gal. 2. 11 12 13 14. it appears but of such unity in communion with God and aiming at his glory as is only in the elect by vertue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church but not an unity by agreement in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts but not one for his purpose SECT IV. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary H. T. adds The minor is made evident even to the weakest understanding by the present manifold Schisms and divisions which are now among Protestants and all other Sectaries as well in doctrine as government whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine all the world over even to the least Article or point of faith being all united to one supreme invisible head Christ Jesus and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head the Pope his Vicar on earth we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle I believe the holy Catholick church we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies God himself being the prime Author and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith Answ 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church but from the now Roman party who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tridentin council though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them
off from the unity of the Catholick church they own Christ their head and faith in him which is sufficient to save them and even by this Authors next argument enough to make them members of the Catholick church 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels Onuphrius reckons up thirty Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours Antipapes and all that have adhered to them Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception about the superiority of a council above the Pope about Priests marriages election of Popes investiture of Bishops have been so great and frequent and of long continuance as their own histories shew that they far exceed the Protestants divisions The divisions in this last age and some at this day to wit in and since the council of Trent between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius about certainty of salvation Pighius and others about inherent righteousness the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence not deriving their Episcopacy from the Pope the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council nor yet receiving the Trent council the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth about the vulgar translation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse though one in many places contradict the other as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations between Papists in Italy at Venice and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molâ—nists about Gods predeterminations efficacious and sufficient grace and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ the continuance of them the parties differing and their bitterness one to another then the Protestants divisions and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over even to the least article or point of faith is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars though the simple English Papists from whom the truth of these things is concealed are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so Nor doth that which H. T. here saith salve the matter and if it did the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves notwithstanding their divisions in respect of means for unity For 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false or that which Papists reject in Protestants If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope or the Pope with his Cardinals or a council it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church which according to their own Tridentin Catechism contains all believers from Adam to this day or that shall be hereafter and according to this Author p. 59. is coexistent with all times and spread or diffused over all places or if it be understood according to good sense it is most false For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities much less authorized thereto nor do Papists so look on them For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council or their Priests who only are to most the immediate proponents but rest in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church properly understood as in the Creed it is believed for it is invisible they never did together express their determination in all points of faith have varied in many nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had much less to the believers of this age Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities nor fit for such an authority as to be infallible Judge of controversies for to say the Catholick church is such is to say the university of believers is such of whom a great part are women a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. who tells us that God hath set some in the Church first Apostles then Prophets thirdly Teachers not the church to be teachers which is all one with proponents of revealed verities but teachers in the church and these are denied to be all the church when he saith ver 29. Are all teachers And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. where he saith let God he true and every man a lyar surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies yea should this be granted it would bring all confusion into the churches of God Nor can the speech have any good sense that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach that every man is to judge for himself not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears and receives yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes
be such disparities between a natural body and a mystical as are sufficient to shew the weakness of this arguing as namely that there are no parts vital in the mystical body besides the head as the heart liver and lungs are in the natural that some parts of the head it self may be cut off as the ears and nose and yet the being though not the integrity of the body continue that there are some parts that have not life as hair and nayles as some conceive that the parts receive not life from the head but the head and the rest from the soul yet â—ith the conclusion is true and the argument with its proof many wayes against the Popish tenets I grant it and observe 1. That the unity which is proved hence is not of the universal visible church the truth of which Papists and this Author go about to demonstrate by it's unity but of the mystical For in this mystical body the unity is spiritual by faith and the members have spiritual life from the head But in the Catholick church of which the disputes are according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl milit c. 10 c. are many dead members secret infidels so that this argument proves not the Catholick visible by it's unity but the Catholick invisible of true believers 2. This argument is not to prove the unity of the church by subjection to the Roman Bishop by which H. T. would demonstrate the unity of the church but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's spiritual life and motion which sure is Christ only and not the Bishop of Rome 3. This similitude if by head were meant the Pope cannot evince the purpose of this Author For there have been Schisms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party against another and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profession of the â—ame faith continued Whence it follows that Schism doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without heresie but only disorder distemper and disquiet it And therefore though it were granted as it is not that Protestants were Schismaticks in dividing from the See of Rome yet they might be united to the Catholick church and it 's being and conservation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued and until it be proved that Protestants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints which he can never do in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not united to the Catholick church SECT VI. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15 16. for time Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant agrees not to the now Roman church but better to the Protestants BUt H. T. proceeds thus To be universal for time and place is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places But the church of Christ from the time he hath founded it hath been coexistent with all time and shall be to the worlds end and hath and shall be spread over all nations therefore the church of Christ is universal or Catholick for time and place The Major is proved because the definition and the thing defined are convertible The Minor is proved by Scripture for time St. Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. St. John 14. 15 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20. Answ 1. The conclusion should have been the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ and the argument thus That church which is universal for time and place and no other is the church of Christ But the Roman Catholick church and no other is universal for time and place therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ But so the Major had not been true of any church existent in one age nor the Minor true of the present Roman church but it is contrary to all sense and histories which relate the occurrences of the world specially in the churches of Christ 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the conclusion is granted being thus understood that the church of Christ is not confined to Israel only but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation For some nations never were actually the church of Christ nor any church of Christ among them though there was no restraint by Christs command of preaching to them But if it be understood of actual coexistence with all times and all places so the Minor is not true nor the Major as I conceive the meaning of the term Catholick in the Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick church nor is that the definition of the church Catholick that it is actually coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places but it is termed Catholick because it is not confined to one Nation and comprehends all the believers of any Nation Jew or Gentile nor do the texts he brings prove any other universality For Matth. 28. 20. proves not such an universality as that there shall be no interval of time or particular place wherein the church shall not be existent But that Christ would be with them that preach the Gospel all dayes till the end of the world so as that they had liberty to preach the Gospel in every place and should finde his assistance while they did preach not that alwayes in each day there shall be a Church of Christ on earth much lesse that there shall be a church visible conspicuously to all in every Nation of the earth The like is the sense of Ephes 4. 12 13. which is that Christ hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith but this proves not there shall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age much lesse so conspicuously visible as that it may be known to all much more lesse in every place John 14. 15 16. is yet farther from the purpose as containing a peculiar promise to the Apostles if it be meant of any Church it is the invisible of true believers not of every or any meer visible Church wherein many have not the spirit of Christ at all much lesse abiding with them for ever The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there shall be in every age or time a Church on earth but that Christs dominion shall never end The texts Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. are thus meant that not only the Jews but also all Nations that is all other people by faith shall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews now this proves not that there shall be in every place on earth a Church of Christ But H. T. adds I resume the Argument and make it thus 1. That church which is not universal or
live c. he shall be excluded from life they are impudently appropriated to the Roman church For a few lines before Augustine declares whom he calls the catholick church that which is spread over the earth which is designed by the divine testimonies of holy Scriptures which beginning from Hierusalem increased in places in which the Apostles preached and have written the names of the same places in their Epistles and Acts and was spread over the other Nations So that clearly Augustine tells us it was not the Roman Church onely which he meant by the Catholick but also the Corinthian Ephesian Thessalonian and all the rest in the world And therefore it is apparent that neither this not any other Father understood by the Catholick Church the Roman onely and those who acknowledged the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy nor did they hold a necessity of union with it SECT VIII That it is non-sense or falshood to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered H. T. adds Object The Roman Catholick Church is a particular Church therefore it is not Catholick or Universal Answ I distinguish your Antecedent the Roman Church as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Church I grant as taken for the whole collection of Churches holding communion with the See of Rome I deny it For so it is an universal Church containing all particular Churches as all the parts are contained in the whole and in this acception also it is called the Roman church because the particular Roman church is the mother church and hath a power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest Object How can a church of one denomination be universal Answ I have told you already by the extent and latitude of her power which is over all So a particular man is called a General by reason of his power over all the Army I Reply Protestants do rightly object that the terming of the Roman church catholick is according to the right sense of words to speak contradictions to call that the whole which is not the whole but a part universal which is onely particular The Answer is by a Distinction which is meer non-sense The Church of Rome as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Câ—urch as taken for the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is universal But was ever such language used by any Apostle or Ancient to term the Church of Rome any other than the believers dwelling or being at Rome Did ever any of the first Ages term the congregation of Italy or the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome the Roman church Paul when he wrote to the Church of Rome wrote to all that were in Rome Rom. 1. 7. and Ignatius the Martyr when he wrote to the Church of Rome terms it the Church which is seated in a place of the Region of Romans and the old Councils termed the Bishop of Rome The Arch-bishop of old Rome to distinguish it from new Rome and a Roman Synod is always meant of a Synod in the City of Rome If the new-minted gibberish of these men be received then the Church of Millain of Paris of Toledo and the rest are all one with the Roman Church and the Bishop of Millain c. the Bishop of Rome Who would not think that man crazed that should talk or write so By this kinde of talk the Roman Church should not be one and the Corinthian another but the Roman church the Corinthian Ephesian and all and the Apostle writing to the Corinthian should write to the Roman Church charging the Corinthian with Schisms should charge the Roman But this new canting Language is fit for these Juglers who have by such terms bewitched silly Papists to receive their new Doctrine H. T. saith As the Roman church is the collection of all churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is an universal church containing all particular churches as all the parts are contained in the whole I reply Neither doth he shew any approved Authour for his speech nor what sort of parts other particular Churches are as they are contained in the Roman as the whole He will not make it an universal whole which is predicate or said on more churches in quid that is when the question is what the more churches are to say they are the Roman For then it were true to say the church of Naples is the Roman and so of other churches If any were asked who is in his wits What is the church of Naples Would he say It is the church of Rome Nor are other churches essential parts For then the Roman church should not be if the churches of Naples c. were not if they apostarize the church of Rome ceaseth to be Nor will it be said other churches are integral parts For then the church of Rome should be maimed and be but half a church if they revolted from the faith or obedience to the See or church of Rome What other parts he means I understand not nor do I think H. T. distinctly knows himself but that he is used to this unintelligible Jesuitical non-sense of Roman catholick church Sure before he made this the definition of catholick that it is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places according to which by terming the church of Rome catholick he should mean that the Roman church hath been in all places since Christ built this church and in every place of the world but both these are palpable Lies contrary to all Histories and sense nor in this sense should it be as a whole that hath parts but be the onely and an ubiquetary church But he gives two Reasons of this Title that it is the Mother Church and hath power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest I reply 1. that both these are manifestly false For the Roman Church is not the mother Church in any true sense It is a saying indeed that God is a believers Father and the Church his Mother But however the Ancients have used it yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it in any good sense true For the church is but a congregation of believers who are first such aâ—ore they are a church now then the sense must be the church that is believers are the mother of believers that is the church which is ridiculous It is true it is said Gal. 4. 26. The Jerusalem which is above is free which is the mother of us all but that is the Evangelical covenant v. 24. not the church Nor is there any thing done by the Church or upon the church from which in a meet resemblance the church may be termed the mother of believers They are the Preachers of the Gospel not the church who bring forth souls to
Christ If the term Mother Church be from hence that from it the Gospel went forth it can be meant of none but Jerusalem from whence the Gospel went into all the world not from the Roman church Nor is it true that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest no not according to the Papists own opinion which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power and that it belongs to his pastoral office now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office or that they are Pastors if they should they must make Women who are of the Church as well as Men Pastors and all the Believers who are the church Pastors as well as the Bishop aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction who are the Sheep who are to be fed and over whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope when enquiry is made which is the true church and when there is no Pope then there is no church and when the Pope is uncertain it is uncertain which is the church So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick the mother of churches having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches Nor is it true that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power not of right as shall be shewed art 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent and arrogant without any colour of right nor in possession For besides the Protestant churches the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore when unquestionably orthodox were ever subject to the Romish Bishop Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head is this a fit reason to term it catholick Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children Will any man call Julius Caesar because Dictator of Rome or the Roman Senate because Rulers all the Roman people or all the people of that Empire H. T. his instance is frivolous Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General yet not a general man or the universal Army and sutably if it were allowed that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridiculous non-sense or false H. T. adds Object You communicate not with us and many others therefore your communion is not catholick or universal Answ I grant the Antecedent but deny the Consequent For universal communion requires not communion with all particular sects or persons but onely with all true believers no A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Tit. 3. 10 11. Answ To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Christian churches though not with all particular sects And that the Protestant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions which agree with the Scripture Doctrine although Papists do clamorously term them such and destroy them as such and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero not to Peter whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks and greatest Hereticks that ever were I pass on to the next Article ARTIC V. The Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of Controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation but all this is a meer impudent and arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scripture or Antiquity SECT I. The deceit of H. T. is shewed in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of Controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope H. T. entitles his fifth Article thus The churches infallibility demonstrated and saith Our Tenet is that the Roman catholick church is the highest visible Judge of controversies and that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all points of faith having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation And six pages after p. 70. he saith thus Note here for your better understanding this whole Question that when we affirm the Church is infallible in things of faith by the word Church we understand not onely the Church diffused over all the World unanimously teaching whose Doctrine of Faith we hold to be infallible but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly oecumenical that is to say called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope whose Definitions of Faith we hold to be infallible Ans WE have here a most arrogant proud claim like that of the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2 3. I am God I sit in the seat of God there is no secret that they can hide from me For what is this less which is here ascribed to meer men often the worst of men than the prerogative of the Son of God surely it's more than Angels have Job 4. 18 But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet yet in his after note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good and his deceitful mockage of his unwary reader For 1. He deals like a sophister that after his arguments states the question 2. He doth so shift off this infallibility from one to another that he knows not well where to fix it Fain he would fasten it on the Pope as he doth in a manner at last and Hart more plainly confesseth with Rainold ch 7. divis 7. though it behove the Pope to use the advise of his brethren and therefore I spake of Confistories Courts and Councils yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true But then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church not of the Pope had appeared to be impertinent Therefore he doth not in plain words disclaim it's infallibility but saith When we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith by the word church we understand not only the church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible Wherein you may perceive 1. Egregious vanity in making the Roman church Catholick 2. The Church diffused over all the world teaching 3. Teaching unanimously which are all like a sick mans dreams of a golden mountain there having never been any such thing as this in the world nor ever is likely to be 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church infallible Judge of controversies propounding and defining points of faith having power from God to oblige all men under pain of
damnation to believe her which is meerly to delude silly Papists speaking of the churches power which they place in the Pope and so draw them into his net For I would ask this H. T. where or when the Catholick church diffused over the whole world distinct from an oecumenical council did teach much lesse teach unanimously or how they know it he will certainly say it hath been in councils or the Popes determinations Why then doth not this Author say plainly the infallibility and judgement of controversies is not in the Catholick church diffused over the world according to the meaning of the words which were indeed to say all believers were infallible but say he means not only which is as if he had said the Catholick church diffused over the world is infallible but not it only when he means it not to be infallible at all nor doth he deal better in placing it in a council For. 1. He supposeth such a council perfectly Oecumenical called out of the whole world as never was nor is likely ever to be 2. This council he will not have to be infallible without the Popes approbation 3. He placeth the words whose definitions of faith we hold to be infallible so as that a reader may conceive either he means the councils or the Popes definitions However it is certain he makes the council without the Pope not infallible so that the Pope hath the negative voice But indeed this Author or many of his fellows at least hold that if the Pope himself without a council define any point of faith it must be received yea Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Pontifice Romano c. 5. if the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues the church should be bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evil unless she would sin against conscience So that however the church be pretended it is the Pope who is intended who is masked under the name of the church but sometimes termed the Pastor of the Church as if the same person could be relative and correlative too Pastor and Church both And this one person as if all knowledge lay in his breast must be the Judge of all controversies of faith though perhaps an infidel in heart one of the greatest perverters of the faith of Christ in the world and the greatest offender and most justly accused of any in the world being notoriously and horribly vitious and maintain manifest sins not only erre in doubtful matters as Bellarmin would seem to limit his speech in his recognition even these monstrous sins of breaking oaths and leagues killing Kings allowing incestuous marriages making and worshipping of Images Yea though he be so unlearned as it is said of one as not to understand Grammer Pope Gregory the great himself understood not Greek Pope Zachary condemned Bishop Vigilius as an heretick for holding Antipodes though he be seldome a Divine for the most part a meer Canonist whose very decrees Breves and Bulls shew such grosse ignorance and pervertings of Scripture as a graduate in the English Universities would be ashamed of yet he must be Judge of controversies between the most learned Divines in the world and in the most weighty points of faith Surely were not Papists either very silly or very Atheistical or very much bewitched with the Romish sorceries they would never be so sottish as they are to trust to the Popes definitions in points of faith but of any other most suspect them especially considering how much respect to their own gain and greatnesse how little to the good of mens souls is in all their determinations No marvail though different parties appeal to the Pope yet neither stand to his sentence as of old have been seen in sundry points and as at this day in the late controversies between Jansenists and Molinists in France SECT II. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick churches infallibility BUt let us view the proofs that are brought by H. T. for his monstrous assertion of the Roman Catholick as he terms it churches judicature of controversies infallibility in her propositions and definitions of all points of faith and power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation where first he brings four arguments for her infallibility The first is thus No man by hearing or believing Christ can hear an errour in faith But every man by hearing the church hears Christ therefore no man by hearing the church can hear an errour in faith therefore she is infallible The Major must be granted otherwise you charge Christ to be the Author of damning lyes The Minor is proved he that beareth you the church heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me St. Luk. 10 16. The consequences are both unavoidable Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with the tenet which was that the Roman Catholick church is infallible but in the conclusion is no mention of the Roman church more then of any other church to wit the Hierosolymitan or Antiochian and so that which was to be proved is not proved 2. The Minor is denyed and in the proof from Luk. 10. 16. is with a shamelesse fraud foisted in the church it being certain that at that time there was no Catholick church diffused over the world much lesse Roman church at all to whom those words of Christ could be directed but by you are meant either the seventy Disciples or the twelve Apostles as comparing Luk. 10. 16. with Matth. 10. 40. makes it probable Nor doth Christ say he that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me in any case whatsoever for then the high Priests had heard Christ when they heard Judas who was one of the Apostles offer and promise to sell Christ for money and Peter when â—e denied Christ but then when the Apostles or seventy spake the words and message of Christ In which case I grant the church of Rome and Pope yea and Bishop of Jerusalem Corinth or any private Christian though but a woman are to be heard and are infallible So that this place is grossely abused for proof of the Catholick Roman Churches or oecumenical councils or Popes infallibility in their definitions of faith till it be proved that they define what Christ did before deliver SECT III. Matth. 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for H. T. his claim of the Roman church or Popes or oecumenical councils infallibility THe second argument is this No man can be damned for not believing an error in faith But every man shall be damned for not believing the church therefore no man can believe an error in faith by believing the church The Major is proved because otherwise God were a tyrant in damning us for not believing a lye which contradicts himself The Minor is as evident he that will not hear the church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican so Matth. 18. 18.
He that knoweth God heareth us and he that heareth us not is not of God in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures c. He that believeth not shall be condemned St. Mark 16. 16. Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with H. T. his tenet and so the proof is in the same manner faulty as in the first argument 2. The Minor is denied nor doth any one of the texts alleged prove it or any thing like it For 1. The text Matth. 18 17 or 18. is not as this Author cites it be that will not hear the Church as if it were an indefinite speech equipollent to this universal every man that will not hear the Church without which H. T. proves not his Minor but thus but and if he hear not the Church restraining it to the brother finning against his brother And first reproved singly 2. Before two or three witnesses 3. Of whom the Church hath been told 4. And he doth not obey the Church 2. The text speaks not at all of believing the Church in a point of faith but doing right to an injured brother For the phrase of sinning against a brother ver 15. can neither be meant of heresie or error in faith no nor sinfulnesse in life which is termed commonly though for the most part mistakingly a publick scandal or scandalous practise but only of a particular injury such as he against whom the sin was might forgive as is manifest from ver 21. and the parable following whereas to forgive heresies or errors in faith or publick scandalous practises is not in the power of a private brother 3. That by the Church is meant the Christian Church is not certain sith it is not as Matth. 16. 18. my Church but the Church nor if it were can it be understood either of the universal Church diffused over all the world sith it is impossible for every injured brother to tell his injury to it not of a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the world for either there never was such a Church or if ever there were it hath not been in many ages together H. T. confesseth p. 7. 25. the second third and tenth ages produced no councils Nor if there were in every age or every year could every injured brother addresse their complaints to them And the same may be said of the Pope sometimes there hath been none for some years together sometimes it hath been uncertain which was the true Pope sometimes by reason of persecutions and for other causes no accesse could be to him sometimes the wronged brother could not travel to him nor he hear his cause Nor is there any direction to go to his legate or any assurance that he can commit his power to another or that such a legate is infallible Undoubtedly by the Church Matth. 18. 17. must be meant such an assembly whether regularly formed or otherwise occasionally convening which is of near accesse and which is fit to hear the cause and to determin And I must confesse that I cannot deprehend that by the Church is meant the meer Ecclesiastical authority nor is here appointed that disciplin Ecclesiastical which is termed the power of the keyes to excommunicate hereticks and scandalous livers in the Church but a direction to a wronged brother how to deal in case of particular injuries the neglect of which the Apostle Paul blames so much in the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 4. Neither doth let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publican import excommunication out of the Church For it is said let him be to thee not to the Church as a heathen or a Publican nor is any power at all therein given to the Church to excommunicate all that the Church is to do is to injoyn what the injurious brother should do that excommunication which is here mentioned is appointed or permitted to the wronged brother Nor did the being a Publican exclude out of the Jewish assembly or service the Publican went up to the Temple to pray Luke 18. 10. Matthew a Publican was a Jew and had the priviledge of a Jew though a Publican nor was a heathen as such damned there were proselytes as Cornâ—lius who were heathens and yet were accepted with God only the publicans and heathens were such as the Jews would not have familiar arbitrary converse with as Luke 15. 2. 19. 7. Acts 11. 3. appears and therefore the speech can have no other sense but this If thy brother who wrongs thee will neither right thee after private rebuke nor after rebuke before two or three witnesses nor after the monition of the Church that is either that particular assembly of Christians to which ye are joyned or some other competent number of Christian brethren fit to hear such differences then mayst thou shun his society in such a manner as Jews are wont to shun heathens and publicans by not going in to them to eat or inviting them or other unnecessary society that so they may know how evil their dealing is and be ashamed and amended Which is nothing to that Ecclesiastical discipline or juridical excommunication which is at this day arrogantly claimed by Popes even over Emperours and by other Ecclesiastical prelates for breaking their Canons much lesse doth this text infer damnation to him that shall not hear the universal Church or Oecumenical council or Roman Pope The other text 1 John 4. 6. is lesse to H. T. his purpose For it speaks not a word of hearing the Catholick Roman Chuâ—ch or universal diffused over all the world or Oecumenical council or Roman Popâ— but of hearing the Apostles and other teachers of the Gospel opposite to false Prophâ—â—s ver 1. who denyed Jesus Christ to become in the flesh and of hearing them not in every thing but in the doctrine of Christs coming in the flesh And in like sort Marke 16 15 16. is a plain command to the Apostles not to the Bishop of Rome or an Oecumenical council or the universal Church for then the Pope should be â—ound to leave his See and the Bishops in a council to be non resident and go into all the world and the Apostles are bid preach not Popes decrees or councils Canons but the Gospel of Christ and the threatning of damnation is not to him that shall not believe the Popes decrees or the determinations of an Oecumenical council or universal Church but the Gospel of Christ which reacheth not them who deny the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation purgatory humane merits worshipping imagâ—â— not eating flesh in Lent Priests single life and such other innovations as neither Christ nor his Apostles taught but such as believe not the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ and salvation by him alone Whence it is apparent to any that are not resolved to shut their eyes against manifest light that none of these texts
I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Maâ—omâ—tan who deny such inâ—allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confesâ—edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal moâ—ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian nor to take on him to juâ—ge their cause but to remit them to their own Bishops 2. It appears by the fact of Cypriâ—n who opposed Stâ—phen Bishop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks as his Epistle to Pompeius shews and joyned with Firmiâ—â—anus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen and so involved in the same censure in which state he died without repentance for ought is known and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible or his judge or himself subject to him but counted Stephen an usurper over his brethren by reason of his imposing his decree on others and censure of dissenters And for the words in the Epistle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them To Peters chair and the principal Church infidelity or false faith cannot have access But to the Romans meaning not only the Bishop but the rest of the church and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or false faith whatsoever but those perfidious persons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian nor doth he say that perfidiousness could have access at no time but not at that time which he ascribes not to the priviledge of the place but their constancy in the faith heretofore praised by Paul and to the providence of Cornelius their Bishop and their own vigilancy as the words in the end of the Epistle shew Although I know there your fraternity to wit being fenced by your Providence and also wary enough by their own vigilancy cannot be taken with the poysons of hereticks nor deceived and that so much the magisteries and divine precepts prevail with them as the fear of God is in them yet our over abundance of carefulness or charity hath perswaded us to write these things to you being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epistle Marvailing enough when he observed by his letter that he was somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came and therefore doth earnestly press him to take courage and to withstand them Which being rightly understood the speeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman constancy and the inaccessibleness of perfidiousness to them appear only expressions of his confidence and good hopes not of any certainty that it would be so much less of any infallibility of their Bishop or church and this he did to engage them to withstand the schismaticks it being a great argument with persons to be constant to those who express their confiding in them and their expectation thereof And therefore he would have his Epistle read to the most flourishing Clergy there presiding with Cornelius and the most holy and most ample common people or Laity that if any contagion of poysoned speech and pestiferous sowing had crept in it might be all put off from the ears and breasts of the brethren and the entire and sincere love of good men might be cleansed from all filth of heretical detraction which shews that he conceived them liable to such contagion and pollution and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free All these things being considered it will appear that these passages of Cyprian are so far from proving the infallibility and supreme judicature and supremacy of the Pope and church of Rome which H. T. asserts that they prove the contrary The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worship of God this is the well-spring of truth the dwelling place of faith c. are true but nothing to the purpose it being a meer dream that the Româ—n and Catholick church are the same nor if they were do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith or supreme judicature in controversies of faith but the enjoying for themselves the true worship truth and faith The words of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed l. 3. c. 4 in apolog cont Ruffinum we subscribe to who profess our ready reception of what faith the Apostles commanded The words of Vincentius Lyrinensis adv hares c. 41. are thus not as H. T. cites them In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and studiously to be observed unto which they ought altogether to stick who will not be hereticks the first if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an universal council from all the Priests of the Catholick Church which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible much lesse that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible Nor are the words of Augustin which I finde not l. 4. de bapt c. 4 I know by Divine revelation that the spirit of truth teacheth it all truth if they be as H. T. cites them for his purpose For if by it he means the church it follows not he means the Roman church and if the spirit teach it all truth it cannot be meant of all truth simply nor at all times But I finde these words l. 4. de bapt contra Donat. c. 5. In vain some when they are overcome by reason object to us custome as if custome were greater then truth or that were not to be followed in spirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit This is plainly true that reason and truth is to be put before custome The words of Augustin epist 118. c. 5. are not fully set down by H. T. They are thus If the authority of divine Scripture prescribe which of these speaking about offering and fasting is to be donâ— it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read In like manner also if any of these things the whole Church through the world doth frequent For to dispute whether we are so to do is of most insolent madness Where 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture not in points of faith 2. Neither doth he count it madness to dispute against the use of the Roman church yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambrose to fast as they did at Millan when he was there and as they did at Rome when he was there Epist 86. ad Casul no nor to dispute against the whole church of one age but against the whole church in every age Other words of August cont epist fundam c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romanists for the asserting the authority of the church above the Scripture thus And I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it But the words are not thus rightly alleged For 1. The word Catholick is left out which shews he meant it not of the Roman onely and some words following seem to extend it to the church comprehending
the Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
them later than the time of Gregory the great even in the Roman Church and were opposed more or less at least some of them by a considerable party of the Church of Christ who were far better Christians than the Popes or Roman Clergy which condemned and persecuted them as Hereticks From which crime we are able to acquit our selves other ways than H. T. saith we can chiefly by shewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and first Churches after Christ's Ascension and the Orthodox Teachers in them as will appear in answer to his ninth Article It is a meer frontless impudence in him to charge us with any blasphemous evasion or excluding our selves from all possible assurance of faith or salvation and to arrogate to himself as if he had proved either The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther and after by Zuinglius and others continued hath been blessed by God notwithstanding the Persecutions of the Papal party and the Differences among Protestants And the Reformation sought in England since 1641. hath been blessed notwithstanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popish and Prelatical parties as the Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and first Preachers was notwithstanding the Persecutions Heresies and Schisms that followed it Notwithstanding what H. T. or any other Romanist have said the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible but may be proved and have been false and heretical which is in part proved by the Objections following SECT VII The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers H. T. saith thus Objections from Scripture and Reason solved Object All the Israelites adored the golden â—alf therefore the whole Church erred Answ Moses and the Levites did not who were many thousands Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both those Propositions are false TO which I reply that whereas the Romanists do allege to prove an universal Bishop over the whole Church who by himself or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controversies of faith Gods ordinance of one high Priest in Israel to whose judgement all must stand Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 4. c. doeth this Argument is retorted thus If Aaron and the People of Israel were not infallible then if there were such an universal Bishop over Christians as there was over the Israelites and such a Council as the Jewish Synedrium which were to be Judge of controversies as Romanists would have yet they might be fallible sith the Jewish high Priest and Council who were to be Judge of controversies were not infallible though they were as much privileged by Papists own arguings who infer their sovereign infallible Judicature of controversies which they ascribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewish high Priest and his Council But Aaron and the Jewish Council and Church were not infallible for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre as is manifest by the making the golden Calf and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto Now though Moses and the Levites did not erre yet the high Priest and the People did from whose privilege and not from Moses the civil Magistrate the infallible judicature of the Pope as universal Bishop and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht and therefore the Answer avoids not the Objection H. T. adds Object The Jews Council â—rred in condemning Christ Answ No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical for Christ himself was then Head of the Church on earth and the highest Authority was in him not in the Jews Council and if the Jews Church could erre it doth not follow that the Church of Christ can for it was built as St. Paul saith on better Promises I reply 1. This Answer which makes that Council not perfectly oâ—cumenical and therefore no wonder it erred plainly intimates that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical though it would be otherwise infallible yet in that case it may erre Whence it will follow unless the Papists can prove their Councils which they say are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical that is called out of the whole World they are not infallible Now certain it is that neither the Trent nor the Lateran Councils nor those of Constance Basil Florence nor any other Council for a thousand years last past have been so called yea sometimes one party hath kept a Council in opposition to another and Pope against Pope And from the Trent Council to which they adhere not onely the Greek and Asiatick and African Churches were wholly absent but also the French for a time and the Council consisted in effect of none but Italians and the Popes Hirelings some of whom were onely titular Bishops having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles and these by the plurality of Voices served the Popes ends but in nothing either seriously sought the truth or reformation of corruption as the History of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of Vâ—nice hath cleared to the World By which were it not that Papists are a sort of men that hood-wink themselves they might see how meer a cheat that Council was and how justly it was refused by the French Papists themselves unto this day 2 Though Christ were then Head of the Church yet he did not exercise Jurisdiction among the Jews not act but as Prophet to his Disciples he did not deny subjection to the Priests he was circumcised the eighth day as subject to the Law of Moses presented at the Temple with an Offering went up to the Feasts kept the Passover denied not the Authority of the high Priest yea directed the Leper to offer to the Priest for his cleansing as Moses bade him and John notes that the high Priest in that he was high Priest that year prophesied of Christ's death John 11. 51. which are sufficient proofs that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Priest and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Christ's being on earth But sure then they did erre and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations 3. It follows if the Jews Church could erre notwithstanding those passages in the Old Testament which the Papists bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence 4. St. Paul doth not say The Church of Christ was built on better Promises than the Church of the Jews but that the second Covenant was made a Law on better Promises than the first is said Heb. 8. 6. But those Promises are set down vers 10 11 12. of that Chapter of which there is none concerning any much less a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Bishop on earth oecumenical Council or Church of Christians above the Jewish high Priest and Council and therefore
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
and infallibility in matters of faith yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith and whatever was taught by any of them was stedfastly believed by all I reply H. T. saith in his Epistle to the reader that it is agreed by all parties that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood which was the onely Mâ—stris of divine faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two which if true then the Apostles were in that age to depend on their decrees But here he eats his words in the Epistle the Church was the sole Mistris of divine faith here the Church was to depend on the Apostles as on the first masters and proposers of faith How these hang together I understand not That which he saith here of the Apostles is very true understanding by masters not Lords but teachers The Church neither now nor in any age was Mistris of faith it is not the Church in right sense that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths but the learner It is the meer sophistry of Papists to term the Pope and Prelates the Church and to call a hundred or two of Bishops some of them meer titulars without any Diocesse such as never knew what the office of a Bishop was nor ever preached the Gospel to any people the Catholick Church The concession that the Apostles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance and infallibility in matters of faith proves that this was not Peters prerogative and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apostle then it descends not to any successors and so by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment Nor is infallibility to be sought from any but Christ and his Apostles doctrin who do still propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apostles then that at Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria or any other which the Apostles founded and therefore Ireneus Tertullian and such of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apostolick Churches for establishment against hereticks direct us to other Churches where the Apostles preached besides the Roman It is further objected the Church hath now no new revelations nor can â—he make now any new points of faith therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions H. T. Answers I grant the antecedent but deny the consequence for though she can make no new points yet she can explicate the old and render that clear which was before obscure and can define against new herefies I reply The grant of the antecedent is sufficient to prove that if the Church as it is termed teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apostles we are not bound to believe her definitions and consequently she must prove her definitions by Apostolical tradition and not only say they are Apostolical ere we are bound to believe them it being still to be heeded which Paul saith Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven or any man preach I may adde or believe any other Gospel then what was preached by Paul and received by the Galatians he is accursed and consequently each person is to examine and judge for himself whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apostles Gospel or no and if the Church can onely explicate the old then an heresie cannot be made by a council which was not before and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Constance were heresie after the council condemned it it was so before contrary to what Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Rom pontif c. 14. and it follows he that can best explicate the old and render it clear which was before obscure hath the best title to infallibility and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations then he must explicate by study and so not by prerogative of his chair but by ability in languages arts and other knowledge in which if he have lesse knowledge as certainly some if not all the Popes for a thousand years have had one of them as Alpâ—onsus a Castro saith not understanding Grammer and one of them being necessitated to substitute another to do divine offices for him by reason of his ignorance in literature there is lesse reason to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein Arias Montanus Vatablus and such other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Bishops if they be such as were in the Trent council of whom it is manifest by Frier Pauls history of that council that there were scarce any of them learned in the Scriptures especially in the main point of the Gospel concerning justification by faith then it is unjust to tye men to follow the Fathers who had lesse skill then others in interpreting Scripture as the learned of the Roman party do often shew in their writings then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining transubstantiation which was but an opinion before as Scotus and Tâ—nstal have asserted then it is monstrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practised to burn to death men women children old and young Bishops and Noblemen for not holding it then are the Popâ—s and Popish party guilty of shedding a sea of blood in England France Belgia Germany Italy Spain Poland and elsewhere for denying transubstantiation the Popes supremacy and such other new tenets as Popes have thrust on the Christian Churches then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in imposing on men a new Creed and Popish Doctors do ill in justifying it and not opposing it But is not this a mockery to say the Church may not do it and yet they do it and H. T. avoucheth it what else are their tenents of receiving the eucharist under one kinde of worshipping images of purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences service in an unknown tongue monastick vows with many more but new points of faith and is it not all one to make new points of faith as by authority onely without any agreeablenesse to the meaning of the words so to explicate the Scriptures as that they shall be wrested to maintain that which is not there taught and that condemned as heresie which is not contrary to them Rightly said Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. num 1. Tyranny may be established as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them and so doth the power of Rome set up the greatest tyranny that ever was in the world by usurping this vast power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their
the privilege of the person not the sanctity of the church 4. The sanctity of the now Roman Church is not proved by the holiness of persons in former Ages whereof many never were of Rome nor is it likely ever heard of it some of them opposed the Roman Church and some lived and died in a state of disclaiming of it and some kinde of excommunication from it and had they lived to see its pride and wickedness as now it is would no doubt have abhorred it with greatest detestation much less is it proved by the holiness of men dead one thousand or four hundred years especially when the holiness of those few is obscured by the almost universal ungodliness of their chief Bishops whom they account their visible Heads and essential parts of their Church and Clergy and Laity in Rome it self for a thousand years past which hath been so notorious as almost all their Historians and Preachers and Poets have described it so as that it may be conceived justly that Rome is and hath been a sink of all uncleanness There are verily saith Bellarm. lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 13. in the Catholick Church very many evil persons and some of their own Popes as Adrian the sixth have confessed by Cheregatus his Legate that abominations were committed in that holy See the infâ—â—â—ity passed from the Head to the Members from the Popes to the inferiour Prelates in so much that there hath been none that hath done good no not one Innumerable have been the complaints made by all sorts and sometimes by the Princes of the German Empire of their Grievances by the Popes and Court of Rome Nor do Travellers tell us of any Reformation considerable since the Trent Council their own Writers tell us there is no Excommunication for the common vices but onely some Penance which effects no change in the apprehension of Sir Edwin Sandys if it were not for a little formal abstinence in Lent there would be an universal Deluge of vice in Italy so that he who denieth the Roman Clergy and Church to be a most unholy and filthy People hath gotten a Whores forehead that cannot blush There are sins among Protestants but I never yet met with Writer or Traveller but would prefer London and other Protestant Towns as more free from impurity of body blasphemy cruelty treachery injustice Atheism and such other sins as are not to be named than Rome is where hath been permission of Whore-houses for Money by the Pope and the Whores and Bastards of Popes and Cardinals so notoriously domineer SECT III. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman Church BUt let us see what H. T. saith for their Holiness St. Augustine and his fellows who converted England when they were received into Canterbury saith Hollingshead part 1. pag. 100. began to follow the trade of the Apostles exercising themselves in continual prayer fasting watching and preaching despising all worldly things and living in all points according to the Doctrine which they taught St. Francis St. Benet and St. Dominick were all eminent for sanctity of life as the Magdeburgian Centurists confes cent 13. Col. 11. 79. But I never yet heard of any Protestant Saints in the World Answ What a foolish proof is this of his Minor that the Roman Church and no other is eminent for sanctity of life because Benedict and Austin the Monk a thousand years since Francis and Dominick five hundred years ago were suâ—h in his esteem and he hath heard of no Saints among Protestants As if there might be no Saints in the Greek church though he hear of no Protestant Saints or as if the Greek church now judged schismatick might not be as well proved or rather better to be eminent for sanctity of life for the holiness of Chrysostome Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen as the now Roman for the reputed holiness of Austin Benet Francis and Dominick But might there not be Protestant Saints which he hears not of Protestants are the same with Primitive Christians in their Religion or Articles of Faith and Worship and as such all the holy Apostles Martyrs Confessours which have been true Christians have been Protestant Saints as protesting against the Popish corruptions in Doctrine Discipline and Worship so all the holy men who have protested against them in all Ages have been Protestant Saints Thus Cyprian and Augustin who protested against the Popes usurpation about receiving Appeals from Africa Gregory the Great who protested against the usurpation of the Title and Power of an universal Bishop the Synod of Frankford which protested against Image-worship were Protestant Saints And for Waldus and the Waldenses that they were Protestants is manifest and Saints too their own Works shewed See Morland's History of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont even Rainerius their Adversary being Judge And for Wickliff Reginald Peacock Robert Grosthead Richardus Armachanus and many more their Lives were so exemplary as shamed their Adversaries and yet they were Protestants more or less against Popish Errours and Abuses It is true Protestants are not canonized Saints by Popes who use to canonize for Money or other respects some ignorant superstitious persons or else active Instruments for their party but the holiness of Protestants since Luther began the Reformation hath been such as hath caused even their Enemies to ascribe much excellency to their eminent Leaders Notwithstanding Bolseâ—k's Lye of which the wiser Papists are ashamed yet Florimundus Raymundus Papyrius Massonius and others acknowledged Calvin to have been a man eminent for strictness of life and industry in his pastoral work beyond any Papist they could name Melancthon is commended even by Papists for his holy peaceable and painfull conversation in the work of the Lord. The Lives of the chief Reformers shewed them to be such as had the Spirit of God dwelling in them Hooper and Bradford in England Patrick Hammilton and George Wiseheart in Scotland were men of exemplary godliness that I name not late men such as John Fox John Dod Richard Grenham and many more whose Lives and Works shewed them to have been men of holy conversation and of much acquaintance with God whom this Scribler and such like superstitious Papists who place holiness in observance of humane inventions rather than in Gods commands obeying the Pope rather than Christ and believing the lying Legends of Friers before the true reports of godly Preachers of the Gospel having prejudice against them condemn as Hereticks Yethet they that place holiness in following the Rules of Christ and not humane traditions do judge them to have been holy and blessed men such as have had not onely a form but also the power of godliness As for what H. T. saith out of Hollingshead of Austin and his followers it speaks only what they did at the beginning but it is certain that Austin did not so persevere but that he shewed much pride towards the British Bishops and
who are more justly to be accounted Protestants in respect of the doctrine they taught then Papists whom they falsly call Catholicks 3. It is not denied that Socrates l. 7. hist c. 17. mentions a miracle of Paul a Novatian Bishop and Augustin tract 13. on John and de unit Eccles c. 16. denies not that the Donatists alleged miracles and he calls them by contempt Mirabiliarios and judged that the Church was to be judged by Scripture and the miracles by the Church as Bellarm confesseth de notis Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. 4. Those that are said to be done by persons of the Catholick Church for the first five hundred years were not done by persons that held the now Romish doctrine or in confirmation of it or the verity of the now Roman Church 5. All the rest in all the ages following are of none or very small credit Gregory the great is himself judged by Romanists to have been too credulous of tales those Dialogues which are said to be his in which are related some of the miracles which the Papists rely on being either none of his or shewing too much credulity in him the rest of the miracles in the legends are so ridiculous fopperies as even discreet Papists themselves have discredited Dr. Rainold Conf. with Hart ch 8. divis 2. allegeth Canus as in general excepting against the reports of miracles even by grave ancient learned holy Fathers loc Theol. l. 11. c. 6. and particularly against Gregories Dialogues and Bedes history and the very Portesse as having uncertain forged false and frivolous things in them about Francis and Dominick and he shews that Pope Gelasius and a council of seventy Bishops with him condemned many false stories which were rehearsed in the Roman Portesses if Espencaeus Comment in 2. Epist ad Tim. c. 4. digress 21. be to be believed The two pretended miracles which this Author hath chosen for instance have nothing like divine miracles or truth The miracles of Christ and his Apostles were such as were done openly in the sight of all so as they could not be denied but even adversaries confessed them these were things only in private so as that there might be some device used to delude the sight or might be fancied to be so by some doating persons or might be by the illusion of Satan which is not improbable to have been used in them there being great cause to conceive that in those dayes of darknesse by seeming wonders apparitions visions prophecies Satan promoted the worship of Saints especially of the Virgin Mary the opinion of purgatory prayer for the dead worship of reliques by which Idolatry and superstition grew among Christians about and after the time of the second Nicenâ— Synod Nor is there any likelihood that the wounds of Francis should appear fifteen dayes afore death in which time he was likely covered and not after his death in which his body being naked they might have been more visible were not the time afore death more convenient for the imposture And the like may be said of the other tale What likelihood is there that a man should venture his life to steale two pieces of bread or little water cakes or that a Jew should buy one or do such an act before witnesses which would bring so much evil on him the thing seems more likely to have been a devised tale to pick a quarrel with the Jews as it was in those dayes usual for a pretence to get their goods as it had been done to the Templars Sure there was no justice to burn thirty eight for the fact of one much lesse to banish all Jews thence And why was nothing done to Paul Form either it was therefore a meeâ— fiction like one of those in Sir John Mandevils travailes or else a device to stiâ— up rage against the Jews that they might prey on their goods 6. Were it yeilded as it is not that there was truth in these relations yet the most that can be collected is that God would vindicate Francis from some ill opinions or reports of him not that he might be extolled as Horatius Turselin in his blasphemous Epigram did as if he were comparable with Christ or that either the Popes supremacy or the order of Friers or the verity of the doctrine of the Roman Church then much lesse the truth of the present Roman Church should be confirmed Nor if the other accident were true doth it follow that God would thereby confirm the opinion of transubstantiation but the verity of Christs being the Son of God and we may more justly answer concerning iâ— then Bellarmin doth concerning the miracle of the Novatian Bishop that it was done not to confirm the Novatian faith but Catholick baptism so the other was done not to confirm the Popish opinion of transubstantiation but the Christian doctrine of the man Christ his being the Son of God H. T. adds notwithstanding this confession of adversaries I will also all some Fathers of whose relations of miracles it is not worth while to consider whether they were true or not there being not one of them that proves this point that the Church which wants miracles is not the true Church or that the present Roman doctrine or Church are the true doctrine or Church That which Cyprian and Optatus relate if true did only vindicate the Lords Supper from contempt that of Gregory Thaumaturgus whether it were so or onely a report of which good men were sometimes too credulous it proves not the truth of the Roman Church but rather if any of the Greek Church which owned not the Popes supremacy nor their doctrines in that age Much less is that which he brings out of Chrysostom concerning the reliques of Babylas for his purpose sith it is expresly said to have proved against infidels that Christ was the Son of God and the Idols of the Gentiles were vain things which no more proves the truth of the Roman then of the Protestant Churches nor so much as of the Greek Churches who hold the same That of Ambrose concerning his brother Satyrus proves not transubstantiation but rather the contrary sith Satyrus adored not the Eucharist when he kept it and that he did keep him from drowning was but a conjecture nor is it proved that God by that accident approved his superstition though he might reward his faith and love of which that was a sign What Augustin l. 22. de civit Dei c. 8. writes of things done in his time are not undoubted sith some of them are related upon the report of one or more not very judicious who might enlarge things beyond truth espâ—cially when the custome was of reading the relations to the people and they were pressed in conscience to divulge them as there Augustin saith was done by him and it seemed so much for advantage of Christian Religion some of them might be by medicines working beyond expectation though attributed as the fashion is to that which was last
Heaven preach any other Gospel than that which is written he is to be held accursed Gal. 1. 8 9. And that Miracles are not necessary for proving our calling while we preach the Scripture-doctrine as Bellarmine scribles lib. 4. de not is Eccles cap. 14. But on the other side if Papists do not stick onely to Scripture nor will be tried by it it is necessary they should produce Miracles of their Popes and Prelates to verifie their claim or new Gospel of which they are altogether destiâ—â—te and have nothing to allege but a company of Fables concerning some foolish Friers such as Francis Dominick c. upon the report of silly superstitious Women and doting companions of them or some jugling tricks in corners done by cheating Priests and Jesuits which serve for no other purpose but to prove the Priests to be Knaves and their Popish Proselytes that believe them to be fools And we have cause to press them as in the next Objection Why do not then your Priests do Miracles we would be glad to see some of their doing To which H. T. saith Answ Because of your incredulity as our Saviour told she Jews St. Matth. 17. 19 Yet they do many in Gods appointed time and place as the Records of the Church will testifie though not to satisfie your sinfull curiosity See Francis a Sancta Clara in his Paralipomena who recounts many great and evident Miracles I reply if our incredulity be the onely reason of their not doing them among us yet me thinks they should do them in Italy and Spain where men have â—aith in them But except of a few tales of Philip Nerius Ignatius Loyala Francisca Teresa Isidore of Madrid an Husbandman and some other late canonized Saints long after their death sworn by some admirers of them or credulous receivers of reports concerning things of them not openly done and commonly known as the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were I hear of none The Paralipomena of Franciscus a Sancta Clara or Davenport who endeavoured to reconcile the nine and thirty Articles of the Church of England with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that is Light with Darkness a little afore these Wars I never saw nor do I expect to finde any thing from such a man but fraud and falshood who had the face to endeavour to draw the Articles purposely framed against the Popish Doctrine to a sense consistent with it What Justus Lipsius writ of the Miracles done by the Idol at Halles and Zichem Turselin of the Chapel at Lauretto and such like Relations there is no man that heeds the Scripture will give any credit to them but take them either as fictions or illusions of Satan to confirm men in the idolatrous Worship of the Virgin Mary and to promote the Priests gain which is a great part of the Roman Religion But the frequent Impostures of Papists in this kinde as of the Blood of Christ at the Abby of Hales that of Boxley Abby and the holy Maid of Kent related by Speed in his Chronicle of Henry the eighth at Orleans by Gray Friers related by Sleidan Com. lib. 9. at Bruxels related by Meteran lib. 10. hist Belg. that of the Boy of Bilson near Wolverhampton in Stafford-shire which is related in a Book of that thing and persons yet alive can testifie of the Priests deceit in it with many more give just cause to discredit all such Narrations as meer jugling tricks Nor have the Legends of Saints which this man calls the Records of the Church any better credit with the more ingenuous of their own Church of whom though some mince the matter calling them Pious Frauds as if Piety might be upheld by Lyes yet Ludovicus Vives freely censured those that made them to have had a Brasen forehead and those that believed them a Leaden heart And therefore it is the more necessary for their Priests to let us see their Miracles not to satisfie our curiosity but our consciences if they will have us converted from disbelief in their Lord God the Pope as in the Canon Law be is termed there being nothing in the Scripture to prove the Roman Churches verity or infallibility or the Popes Supremacy as will appear by examining the seventh Article to which I now hasten which is intituled The Popes Supremacy asserted ARTIC VII The Popes Supremacy is an Innovation The Pope or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole Church of God is not proved by H. T. SECT I. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the true Successour of St. Peter and Head of the whole Church of God which hath in part been proved already by our Catalogue of chief Pastours who were all Popes of Rome and by the Councils of all Ages approved by them and owning them for such and is yet farther proved thus Answ THat Peter was Pope of Rome hath been said but never yet proved but by the tradition of the Ancients who might be as easily deceived in that as they were about Christ's age the keeping of Easter and many other things Those very men who relate Peter's sitting at Rome as Bishop do not agree about his immediate Successour whether Linus or Clemens or Cletus as H. T. confesseth here pag. 52. And the relation it self is so inconsistent with that which Paul saith that by consent he and Peter agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and had the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to him his not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans his being at Antioch and according to Luke and Paul in other places so long a time as they mention in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians makes it altogether improbable that he should be Bishop at Rome such a time as they say he was and be put to death in Nero's time as the tradition insisted on bears in hand Nor was it agreeable to Peter's Office appointed by Christ to be as a fixed Pastour in one Place And if he were settled in any place it is more probable it was at Antioch where Paul mentions him to have been than at Rome nor of his translation of his Seat from Antioch to Rome is there any proof but what is by such tradition as in this and other things appears to be very uncertain and unlikely Yet were it yielded that Peter was Bishop or chief Pastour how will it be proved that he was to have a Successour Paul it is certain was at Rome and did while he was there undoubtedly execute the Office of a Pastour yet Popes do not challenge themselves to be Paul's but Peter's Successours however they put Paul's Sword in their Arms with Peter's Keys and in their Writings say the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul and use Paul's name with Peter's in their Sentences
of his own Sheep but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner and therefore though he is to rule and feed them yet he is not to rule them after his own will but the Owners nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep but the Owner is to have it the Shepherd is not to look but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner Now the Flock of Christ were none of Peter's Sheep nor were all the Sheep of Christ universally taken to be fed by Peter for then he should feed that is rule himself who was one of the Flock and so excommunicate himself absolve himself and sith the Pope hath Peter's power if he be one of the Sheep of Christ by this Doctrine he is to rule that is to excommunicate absolve and deprive himself And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like absurdity For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church and the term Foundation imports the ruling of the whole Church Peter who is a part of the Church is the Foundation of himself and the Pope of himself and sith he is the Vicar of Christ he is in stead of Christ to himself and so hath preheminence over himself and the Pope in like manner yea unless they deny the blessed Virgin Mary to have been one of Christ's Sheep they must assert Peter and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary to have had a power to rule excommunicate and absolve her The truth is this the pressing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is used draweth with it many absurdities and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that use of these which the Authour of the Speech intended by them which what it is will be considered by examining the Texts brought for proof And for the Arguments if they did conclude the thing in question they should be thus framed or to this purpose He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Christ hath supreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Christ But such was Peter and by consequence the Pope of Rome Ergo. Again He that is to feed all the Sheep of Christ hath dominion or rule as aforesaid But that was Peter and consequently the Pope of Rome is to do Ergo. In both I should deny the Major understood of the under Foundation Builder and Shepherd though it should be yielded by concession of an impossibility yet he should not have such a supreme unerring Rule thereby and I deny the Minor also and in both as they stand or should stand there are many Propositions in these and his forms expressed or implied which are apparently false As 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it There were some as firm in the Faith as the Apostles and of the Apostles some as firm or more firm than Peter 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion 4. That as applied to Peter they note in him supreme unerring Rule or Dominion 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock 6. That he is above his Flock 7. That the person that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed the whole Flock of Christ universally taken 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much as have supreme dominion be a visible Monarch over them 9. That the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successour in that charge and power which Christ committed to him over his whole Church 10. That what is said of Peter in this point is true of every Bishop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious All which I have distinctly noted that it may appear upon how many suppositions the Popes Supremacy hangs and yet how loose and empty of proof from Scripture or Reason the Disputes of Papists are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion in so much that were it not for the heavy curse that is befallen Papists that sith they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved they should believe Lyes that they might be damned 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. it could not be that understanding persons among them should ever assent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon these Reasons But let us view what is said here The Major is proved because the Foundation supporteth the rest of the Building we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone Ephes 2. 20. and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock Answ The Argument framed hence must be this That which supporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the Building which is founded on it But so doth every Foundation Ergo. But the Major is not true of personal Metaphorical Foundations of which we now speak not of material proper Foundations A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth and support it by his wisdom and example and authority and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it and so in the founding of the Church a man that founds it may fall away and yet the Church stand firm Neither is the Minor true of every personal metaphorical Foundation he may be said to be a Foundation that is begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after support it The Text Ephes 2. 20. proves neither of the Propositions nor do I know to what purpose it is produced except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation But then it proves not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to have been Foundations and so proves no preheminence to Peter above them which is the Assertion of this Authour But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apostles are termed Foundations 1. Because this seems to be appropriated to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Because it is not said Ye are built on the Foundations but the Foundation and therefore seems to have this sense ye are built on that Foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid not which they are and so the genitives are of the efficient not of the subject and the Foundation must be that Doctrine or truth they declared of which Christ that is the Doctrine or Faith of Christ is the chief Corner-stone Nor is this against that which is Revel 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apostles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jerusalem For that may be said because they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation as Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 3.
thou me more than thou lovest them or more than they love me And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profession and shamefull denial 2. That Christ made Peter a Head or gave him a supreme Dominion under the term of Feeding But 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to rule but onely to provide pasture or to eate as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth Jude 12. being intransitive both of them where they are enjoyned to Apostles Bishops or Presbyters note teaching not imposing Laws on persons excommunicating depriving and such like acts as Popes claim as belonging to them as Pastours as may appear by viewing the places Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 20. 28 29 30 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power Jurisdiction and Government in Peter it proves every Bishop and Presbyter to be also a supreme Head and Governour over the Church of God 2. That Peter had no such Headship of Government and Jurisdiction given him in those words John 21. 17 18. is proved by the description of the persons to whom these acts of feeding were to done they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Christ not Goats now to the Lambs and Sheep of Christ no act of lordly rule such as imposing Laws excommunicating depriving or the like acts in which the Pope placeth his power of Jurisdiction could be lawfully done nor did Peter any such acts but teaching them being guides to them directing exhorting and comforting them which the Pope regards not to do were to be done to them Wherefore it is plain that lordly rule was not appointed by Christ but fatherly care and tenderness in that injunction and that which Christ enjoyned in his Commission to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do noâ— thinks it his work but another thing to wit princely dominion which Christ forbade 3. The third thing supposed is that because the terms are indefinite my Lambs my Sheep therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep even the whole Catholick Church which if true then it is false which Paul saith Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and the Gospel of the circumcisiou unto Peter and vers 9. James and Cephas and John did sin against Christ's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Heathen and James Cephas and John to the Circumcision and Paul did ill to style himself the Teacher of the Gentiles 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he should have boasted in another mans line or rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. sith all places had been within Peter's line or rule and he did ill to say Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and never mention Peter's Supremacy no not in that very Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Rome so much as once naming him who was if Papists say true the Universal Bishop and Bishop of Rome and sate there at that time when he wrote that Epistle nor doth Paul salute him when he salutes many of less note As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Christ it is very frivolous For an indefinite term is not all one with an universal unless the matter so require it but in such kinde of speecheâ— as these it notes onely indefinite particulars as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we should remember the poor that is so many as we could and when Christ bids Matth. 10. 8. Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead it is meant without exceeption of any yet not an injunction to heal every individual or to raise every dead person but such as there was occasion of healing and raising And when Mark 16. 15. the Apostles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature the Command is to preach to any one without exception yet not to every individual which had been impossible so here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely yet not all universally which had been an impossible task 4. It is supposed that John 21. 16 17. was a Commission conferring power authority rule and that over the very Apostles themselves and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection of Christ Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care not dignity or authority of empire and hath nothing in it of jurisdiction as a Judge or Commander but of faithfulness and diligence as a servant and guide And in this the Apostles were equal to him H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 97. The Apostles were equal in their calling to the Apostleship to which this of feeding the Sheep of Christ belonged and therefore Peter reckons himself but a fellow Elder and requires other Elders to feed as well as himself 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Ephesus are appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the Church of God which is as large an exppression as is John 21. 16 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headship in them as in Peter And Paul counted himself not behinde the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to â—im nothing Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him but was equal to him And to bid Peter to feed the Apostles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds The Doctrine of the Gospel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter but of the Apostles in common Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted persons and they were together nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd or by his direction but by agreement Gal. 2. 9. yea they sent Peter to Samaria Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection but a task enjoyned to him because of his more open denial three times charged on him as he thrice denied Christ and used as a stay of Peter's weakness rather than a mark of his worthiness much less a proof of his Supremacy SECT V. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy THe second Argument of H. T. is this He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith and is generally set bâ—fore others in the Scripture must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apostles in the faith and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures therefore St. Peter was above the rest of the Apostles in power and dignity and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest Answ The Conclusion it self might
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
Minister which shews the meaning to be this If any affect to be as the elder greater or superiour to the rest be so far from ascribing or yielding to him such precedency greatness or superiority that my will is that you should account of him as the younger Servant and Minister to the rest and so it shall be ye shall be all equal none above another This is the very drift and purport of Christ's determination that there should be no superiority or inferiority among them but an equality and that which H. T. speaks of the mention of superiority and inferiority is meant of superiority that might be affected but not of any superiority allowed by Christ it being plainly forbidden And for what Bellarmine urgeth from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Christ had appointed one Ruler or Prince in the College of the Apostles though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Leader is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Ruler yet if it did note Princedom it is manifested that Christ speaks of a Prince among them not by due constitution but by inordinate usurpation and therefore to infer from thence as if Christ would have one superiour over the rest when he determines there should be equality is the act of a man that is resolved to be lustily impudent By this whole discourse the Objection is fully vindicated against the shifts of H. T. and other Romanists and stands thus That Supremacy is not to be yielded to have been granted to Peter which Christ forbade to every one of the Apostles But to be a supreme Ruler over the rest Christ forbad to every one of the Apostles therefore Christ forbad Peter to be a supreme Ruler over the rest of the Apostles I yet add that were it granted that Christ did onely forbid spiritual Superiours to lord it over Inferiours this very grant would prove the Papal Supremacy which Popes claim and exercise to be certainly forbidden For if ever there were a Superiour that did lord it over Inferiours the Pope is such a one yea I may aver and easily prove it that let all the tyranny and lording which any Tyrants or Princes have exercised from the beginning of the World to this day be considered they will be found incomparable to the Papal tyranny and lording over the Church of God If this be not the highest lording to impose on mens consciences such Laws as Christ never imposed to enjoyn the holy as they term it inquisition with rigour to excommunicate deprive burn men and women old and young who yield not to the Popes Laws though contrary to Christ's to take on him to dispense with Gods Laws to challenge the defining of all controversies supremacy over all Councils power to depose and destroy Emperours and Kings if they acknowledge not his immense power yea if they be not his Butchers to kill their best and most peaceable Subjects if he once term them Hereticks to interdict a whole State for limiting by Law Donations to Ecclesiasticks and imprisoning notorious malefactours who were Ecclesiasticks the use of divine service to subject a King to whipping on the Bare for the death of an Ecclesiastick not by him killed to depose Emperours for investing Bishops to canonize Saints whom he will to be invocated even such an one whose holiness was disobedience to his lawfull Prince and to have a Feast proper to him besides innumerable other acts done against the Laws of God and Man I do utterly despair ever to know what it is to lord or tyrannize over others Surely it is easier to praise Busiris or to justifie Dionysius of Syracuse or Nero of Rome and to acquit them from lording than the Bishop of Rome for many hundreds years last past if we stand to the Relations of Writers of their own Church who speak too favourably of them H. T. proceeds Object Christ is the foundation of the church and other foundation can no man lay 1 Cor. 3. 11. Answ Other principal foundation can no man lay I grant other subordinate I deny for that he himself hath laid Peter thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my church St. Matth. 16. 18. and the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all although not equally Ephes 2. 20. I reply when it is said Christ is the Foundation of the Church and other Foundation can no man lay it is meant of a principal Foundation not excluding a subordinate But sith the term Foundation as hath been proved before in this Article Sect. 2 3. as applied to the Apostles doth not note settling or upholding by rule or dominion but by teaching the Papists who ascribe to the Pope such a Supremacy and Infallibility in teaching as is proper to Christ do lay another principal Foundation besides Jesus Christ not subordinate but coordinate to him Which that they do is proved by two things which are ascribed by them to the Pope either by himself or with his Council 1. That they can alter the plain express precepts of Christ as namely in determining that it is not necessary that other faithfull people besides the sacrificing Priest should drink the Wine in the Eucharist though the precept of Christ is as express for all the faithfull drinking of it as it is for their eating of the Bread and that it is not lawfull for a Priest to marry though the Scripture expresly saith Marriage is honourable in all men Heb. 13. 4. 2. In enjoyning under pain of Heresie Excommunication and Damnation things to be believed and practised which Christ never enjoyned to be believed or practised as namely Transubstantiation the unbloody Propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called in the Mass Purgatory Fire confession of all a persons known sins into the ears of a Priest the keeping of the Vow of a Monastick profession when the person cannot contain and to live an idle begging life when the person is able to work and hath no other imployment nor pretends to any which is usefull to men besides praying which is the common duty of all Christians Now surely he that takes on him to alter Christ's commands and to put his own in stead thereof doth make himself the principal Foundation equal to Christ which is contrary to Paul 1 Cor. 3. 11. and to Christ Matth. 23. 8 11. and so makes himself a Foundation co-ordinate as indeed more than Christ however he pretend himself the Vicar of Christ or the authority of the Church for his Warrant As for that which is said of Peter here it was answered before Sect. 2 3. that it doth not import any Rule or Dominion but some peculiar success in his preaching besides what others had which was but a personal preheminence derivable to no Successour much less to the rank of Roman Bishops in these last Ages who never build the Church by preaching but pull down Princes and oppress those that would build up Christ's Church Yet it is observable
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
Faith or Catholick Church but not any longer And this Authour may as some in case of Marriage conceive he is obliged to keep faith with Inâ—idels and yet not with Hereticks And for the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 15. 18. neither durst Protestants then trust to the safe conduct then given and before and since sad instances of Papists perfidiousness have given too much occasion to Protestants to suspect the lurking of a Snake under the grass I mean some hidden deceit under a covert of fair words especially when we consider this Authour a little before counted the definition of the Council of Constance to be of faith Sess 15. 18. In which Sess 19. that Council as it is in Binius hath these words The present holy Synod doth declare that no prejudice to the Catholick faith or to Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction is generated or impediment can be or ought to be made by any safe conduct granted by the Emperour Kings and other secular Princes to Hereticks or defamed of Hereâ—ie thinking so to recall the same from their Errours with whatsoever Bond they have bound themselves but that the said safe conduct notwithstanding it may be lawfull for a competent Judge and Ecclesiastick to inquire of the Errours of such persons and otherwise duly to proceed against them and to punish them as much as justice shall perswade if they shall refuse stifly to revoke their Errours although trusting to their safe conduct they have come to the place of judgement who otherwise would not have come nor doth he that so promiseth when he hath done what lies in him remain obliged by this in any thing Which surely amounted then to as much as this and hath been thousands of times objected by Princes and others that publick faith is not to be kept with Hereticks And how little reason Protestants have to trust Papists not onely the actions of former Papists for a thousand years past but also of late their actings in Ireland Poland Piedmont shew Whom he means by the Popes flatterers or particular Doctors I do not well understand should he call Bellarmine Baronius or such like men so perhaps he may be served as Francis a St. Clara and others were I judge H. T. to be a gross Flatterer in maintaining the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility there being in this tenet no better than blasphemous Antichristian flattery ascribing to some of the worst and oftentimes most ignorant men that which is due to the Son of God And for his Corollary I deny the Major and Minor both sith that may be a true Church which hath neither local personal Succession nor conspicuous Visibility nor such Unity Universality Infallibility Sanctity Power of Miracles Universal Bishop as H. T. requires as necessary to a true Church nor hath he made it plain that these marks do agree to the present Roman Church or Bishop and no other but his mistakes in these are shewed I follow him in the rest ARTIC VIII Unwritten Tradition now no Rule of Faith The unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith SECT I. The Argument for Apostolical Tradition unwritten as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered H. T. intitles his eighth Article of Apostolical Tradition and saith Our Tenet is That the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition or a delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and nothing ought to be received as Faith but what is proved to have been so delivered which we prove thus The first Argument That is now the true Rule of Faith which was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first But oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first therefore oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books is the true Rule of Faith The Major is proved because the Rule of Faith must be immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is The Minor is proved because the first Gospel was not written till eight years after the Death of Christ or thereabouts in which space the Apostles had preached and planted the Faith of Christ in many Nations over almost all the World Add to this that many Ages were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church so that when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age they were not to inquire what had been written but whether the Apostles so taught Answ THis Doctor whether it be by reason of his ignorance or heedlesness or malignity to the holy Scriptures determines worse than his fellows yea against the Doctrine of the Trent Council and Pope Pius the fourths Bull. For whereas in the Trent Council Sess 4. it is said that the truth and Discipline of Christ and his Apostles is contained in written Books and Traditions without writing and would have both to be received with equal affection and reverence of piety and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull requires the admission of the sacred Scripture and Apostolical Tradition H. T. concludes that written Books are not the true Rule of Faith but oral and Apostolical Tradition If he had said they had not been the entire Rule of Faith he had agreed with the Trent Council and the Popes Bull but now he contradicts them as well as the Protestants and his Argument doth as well conclude that the holy Scripture is no part of the Rule of Faith as that it is not the whole But leaving him to be corrected by his fellows let 's view his Dispute Setting aside his non-sense speech of being received as Faith in stead of being received as the object of Faith and taking Apostolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly so called I grant his Tenet and say with him that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition that is the Doctrine which the Apostles delivered or that delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and that nothing ought to be received as Faith that is a thing to be believed with a Christian divine Faith which all Christians are bound to believe but what is proved to have been so delivered For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Christian Faith by whom or what way soever it be delivered and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Testament which are objects of Faith yet sith now Christ and his Apostles have delivered those divine revelations as the oracles of God and what the Apostles preached and thought needfull for us to know and believe to salvation is written and these Writings are conveyed from father to son by hand to hand we grant the Tenet being meant of them and yield further that if they can
not to do so still why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy c. and tells us here pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy and consequently the Popes without the Scripture and therefore allege it yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith and so make void their own proof and the very Rule of Faith which they would fain establish SECT II. Unwritten Traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles But let us view what he adds A second Argument is That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of these things But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and by no other means Therefore Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith The Major is manifest because in the Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith The Minor is proved because a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether infallible since sensible evidence in a world of Witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars and such a report such an evidence is Apostolical Tradition for all the Doctrinos Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible Answ THe Popish Tenet is that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith that so what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome being Bishop there Purgatory-fire Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host mixing Water with Wine in the Eucharist and many more which Popes and Popish Councils obtrude on the Church of God as Apostolical Traditions may be received as Objects of Faith But here H. T. concludes Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith and proves it of no other Apostolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apostles which I might grant and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpose sith Apostolical Tradition may be the true Rule of Faith and yet not Apostolical Tradition unwritten much less that which Popes and Councils call Apostolical Tradition which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church and this Apostolical Tradition infallible that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whose names they bear and that the things in them related are certain and yet other Traditions of other things not so But to his Argument I say the Major is not true nor is it proved by his reason which in form is this That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith The Conclusion which followeth from these premises is not his Major that is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things nor the Conclusion set down therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith for these terms that by which we may be assured of the Doctrines or Books the infallible means of knowing them are not the same with the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith and therefore the Major is not proved but indeed the very Protestant Doctrine which he gainsays is proved unawares thus That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are the true Rule of Faith Which proves directly what H. T. denies that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith and shews that he mistook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith between which there is manifest difference the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient principal or instrumental by which a person comes to believe the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe the same means may be the means of believing contrary things Caiaphas and Balaam may prophesie right things of Israel and be a means of expectation of the Messiab and yet also be a means of laying a stumbling-block to overthrow them A messenger that brings a grant wherein a Prince grants a thing is the means of belief and so is the Seal but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant Thomas his seeing and feeling were the means of his believing Christ's Resurrection but the Rule was Christ's words 2. I deny his Minor For though I grant such a full report as he speaks of is infallible nor do I deny that there is such a a report or such an evidence for all the Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote yet I say 1. That this is not the Apostolical Tradition which Papists assert for with them any thing used in their Church a long time and approved by a Pope or a Council confirmed by him is an Apostolical Tradition though it have not such report or evidence 2. That there are other means by which we may be assured what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote besides this full report as 1. The inward testimony of the holy Spirit 2. The innate characters of the Doctrine and Books themselves foretelling things to come opening the Mysteries of God advancing Gods glory enlightning and converting the soul with many more which shew whos 's the Doctrine and Books were Yet by the way I observe 1. That notwithstanding he makes here such an Infallibility in the report and evidence of sense yet pag. 205. he denies evidence of sense infallible in the Sacrament and thereby overthrows his Position here 2. From his words here I argue against his opinion of Transubstantiation thus A full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether
infallible since sensible evidence in a world of ey-witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars But there are worlds of ey-witnesses and hand-witnesses and tongue-witnesses and nose-witnesses and ear-witnesses of fathers and sons who all unanimously concurring discern and say of what they have seen felt heard tasted smelled that there is no flesh nor blood but Bread and Wine in the consecrated Host therefore the report that there is no flesh and blood but Bread and Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration or consecrated Host and consequently no Transubstantiation is altogether infallible So inconsistent are this Authours sayings in one place with that he saith in another as indeed Popish Doctrine being a Lie must of necessity be self-repugnant SECT III. The obligation of the Church not to deliver any thing as a point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. proceeds thus A third Argument If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they had received from them as such then is was impossible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second Age but what they had received from them as such and so from Age to Age to this time But Christ and his Apostles did give to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they received from them as such Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first Age should deliver any thing to the Church of the second Age for Faith but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles or consequently that they should erre in Faith The Major is proved because to make her deliver more for Faith than she had received in this supposition the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in matters of Salvation and Damnation which is impossible in a world of ear and ey-witnesses as hath been shewed or else the whole Church must have so far broken with Reason which is the very nature of man as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn her self and posterity by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith which in her own conscience she knew she had not received and this is more impossible than the former even as impossible as for men not to be men as shall be shewed in the next Argument The Minor is proved by these positive Texts of Scripture Therefore brethren stand ye fast and hold the Traditions which ye have learned whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thess 2. 15. Those things which ye have been taught and heard and seen in me these do ye Phil. 4. So we have preached and so ye have believed 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses the same commend thou to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received let him be Anathema Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you besides that which we have preached to you be he Anathema Gal. 1. 8. Answ 1. THe Conclusion were it granted is not the Position to be proved that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical oral Tradition not Books nor is it included in it sith some in the Church although not the whole Church of the first Age might deliver to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son that for Faith which was not received from Christ or his Apostles and it be after received as from the Apostles as is manifest in the reports of keeping Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon of the Millenary opinion as from John and in points of Faith the whole Church might mistake or forget not deliver all truth yea might erre and so not be fit to be a Rule of Faith 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the first Age to the second were a Rule of Faith yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith unless they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the first Age to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son without alteration which they cannot prove Nevertheless sith this Argument tends to the asserting of an Infallibility in the Church of the first Age distinctly taken from the Apostles and their Writings I grant the Minor and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it though some of them yield a good Argument against unwritten Tradition But I deny the Major as being contrary to experience both in the Jewish Church to whom it was forbidden to add to or diminish from Gods commands Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Christian Church as is most evident in the Traditions of the Chiliasts about Easter and sundry other things And though the whole Church of the first Age did not deliver points of Faith to the second Age yet in the second and after-ages corruptions did come in which were taken for universal Traditions as in giving Infants the Eucharist which Augustine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apostolical Tradition though the Trent Council condemn it And many things there are now taken for Apostolical Traditions as Worship of Images praying to Saints not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants which yet are manifestly repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine As for the proof of H. T. I say 1. The eye and ear-witnesses of all the points of Faith are not a whole World 2. Errours may be traduced as from the whole Church of the first Age and from the Apostles which were not from them 3. The Church delivers not Doctrines but the Teachers in them whereof many sometimes are Hypocrites sometimes weak in understanding all of them being men are liable to mistakes passion forgetfulness inadvertency and those that are not sincere may against their conscience deliver errours Sure if Polycarpus an Auditour of John the Evangelist and Anicetus Bishop of Rome in the second Age Polycrates and Pope Victor in the same Age Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in the next contradicted each other about Traditions no marvel later and inferiour Teachers such as Papias a credulous man and others mistook about them and the after Churches follow them in their mistakes 4. The Churches were in the Apostles days easily drawn away from the Doctrine which Paul had evidently taught them by hearkening to Seducers as the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. though the
their Faith and prepossessing them with the Doctrines of the present age which once received very few except men very learned and impartial inquisitours into the truth will be able to examine and in effect that which the Pope and his Council have or shall determine must be taken for unquestionable nor is this reasonable but against all right way of understanding that we should apply our selves to know what Christ and his Apostles taught sixteen hundred years ago rather by the present and precedent ages after the times wherein they lived than by their own Wriâ—ings as if a man might better know what Legacy his great grand-father â—ave an hundred years ago by the testimony of men now living than by his â—wn Will upon record 2. The pretence for this resolution is but imaginary and fictitious and refuted by experience Surely if there were such an impossibility as this Authour speaks of the whole World had not been corrupted as it was in Noaâ—'s and Abraham's days nor the Church of Israel as it was in the days of the Judges of Elias Manasseh our Lord Christ at his coming in the flesh in the time of Athanasius when as Hierom said The whole world groaned that it was become Arian there would not be such a falling away as the Apostle foretold 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2. Thess 2 4 at which time the Rhemists grant in their note on that place that even the service of Christ shall be suppressed And therefore the impossibility here supposed by H. T. is but imaginary out of inadverteney of what the Scripture hath related and foretold and ignorance of the great corruption of man and the power of the old Serpent called the Devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole World Revel 12. 9. 3. But what Church is there that so resolves her Faith none that I know of besides the Roman or rather the Court of Rome For I do not yet think that either the Greek Asiatick or African Churches do so resolve their Faith no nor yet some of those Churches who do hold communion with the Roman See nay I hardly think the Church or Court of Rome it self doth resolve it's Faith such as it is as H. T. here speaks I instance in one main point that the Pope is above a Council For sure if that be their resolution they will be cast sith the precedent age I mean the fifteenth century did deliver by hand to hand from father to son that a general Council is above the Pope as the two so termed general Councils of Basil and Constance did expresly determine And in other points in difference between Protestants and Papists if they go from age to age upwards Papists would finde themselves destitute of Tradition unwritten as well as written in the half communion Papal indulgences worship of Images and many more besides So that however this Authour pretend Tradition of a world of fathers to a world of sons when he and his party are put to it they have not any ancient universal Tradition elder than the sixteenth century for the chief point of the Papacy the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility and therein the Pope and his packed Council of Trent are the great World he means at which were at some determinations of great moment about fifty Bishops such as they were and some of them but titular and in other points there hath been no Tradition but what hath been gainsaid and therefore in fine the Papists faith is resolved into the Popes and Council of Trents determination which is the Catholick Church with Papists as is manifest by the words of this Authour here p. 70. where he makes the Church which he counts infallible A Council called out of the whole World and approved by the Pope which he judgeth the Trent Council to be pag. 76. and if the Catholick Church do resolve its faith into the catholick churches tradition what is this but to resolve its faith into its own tradition at least the catholick church represented in an oecumenical council approved by the Pope must resolve its faith into it self Pius the fourth and the Trent Bishops must resolve their faith into their own tradition and so must believe what they believe in points of Christian Faith because they hold so and judge themselves infallible and if so it would be known whether they did believe the same things before they did determine them in a council if not they defined what they did not believe if they did then it would be known upon what tradition they did believe them if they name the tradition of the foregoing age the same questions will be put and the answer must be either at last to resolve it into Scripture or some fallible men or the process will be endless or it must rest in the determination of the present church catholick properly so called or general council or Pope or else the questions wil return and the arguing will be circular Yet there are these Reasons why Papists make shew of this way of resolving their faith into the churches tradition unwritten 1. Because they would not have their Doctrines and Faith tried by the holy Scriptures alone nor in the first place nor by the Doctours of the first five hundred years 2. Because they know that few either of the learned or unlearned can track them in this way it being impossible for any but men of very great reading and very accurate criticks to discern truth in this way by reason of the multitude of Nations in which the Church hath been whereof some are unknown to some other Churches the impossibility to know what each church throughout the World held in every age the difficulty of travel the variety of Languages the multitude and uncertainty of Authours especially since they have been gelded and altered by the Indices expurgatorii and practises of Monks and other Scribes the foisting in bastard treatises under the names of approved Authours For which reason it is that they decline as much as they can trial of their Doctrine by Scripture pretending difficulties where there are either none or such as might be removed though by their course they cast men into insuperable difficulties and when they are necessitated to let people have the Scripture in the vulgar Language by reason of importunity of adversaries yet they so pervert it by corrupt Translations and notes as in the Rhemist's Testament is manifest that people have much ado without much diligence to finde out their deceits SECT V. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity Yet H. T. hath the face to say But if we refer the whole trial of faith to the arbitrement of Scripture I see nothing more evident than that this one Argument ad hominem gives the cause into our hands since it clearly proves either many controverted Catholick Doctrines are sufficiently contained in
themselves I reply were not this man bewitched or as the Prophet speaks Isai 44. 20. Fed on Ashes having a deceived heart that turneth him aside so as that he cannot say Is there not a Lie in my right hand he would never have preferred oral Tradition seconded by erecting and use of Images made by idolatrous Sots and termed Teachers of Lies by the Prophet Hab 2. 18. as a safer and more infallible Rule of Faith than the holy Scriptures inspired by God and his great gift to men though impiously termed by this Wretch dead Letters ' But it is the just judgement of God that they that make Images and adore them should be like them Psalm 115. 8. that is as blockish as the Images are How uncertain oral Tradition is hath been shewed and how impossible it is to be a true and right Rule since the departure of those who could preach infallibly That there is any such uniform and outward practise of the Roman Church which can second oral Tradition aud make any Point of Christian Doctrine much less the whole frame of necessary Points of Christian Doctrine in a manner visible and sensible is a Lie with a witness Christian Doctrine doth not consist in the History of the things sensible to the eye but in the opening of the true causes and ends and uses of things done which can onely be apprehended by the understanding and is brought to it by hearing and reading whence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10. 14 15 17. It is most false that the erecting of Images of Christ and of the Cross hath been the uniform practise of the Church It is certain by many Writers that Christians had no Images in their Churches for many hundred years yea it is certain that the best Emperours and Bishops of the East and West were against the having them in Churches however Gregory the first Bishop of Rome by his superstitious opposing Serenus his taking them down counting them Lay-men's Books opened a Gap to that Deluge of Ignorance and Idolatry which hath since spread over the Western Churches which have gone a whoring after them This Authour calls them holy Image which the Scripture counts abominable as defiling places and making them not sacred but polluted He saith The Incarnation and all the Mysteries thereof are made sensible by the Images of Christ erected in all sacred places the passion by the sign of the Cross used in Sacraments and set up in Churches But what a notorious falshood is this One Mystery sure is the Holy Ghost's overshadowing the Virgin Mary another the Union of the two Natures Can any Image of Christ teach these What can the sign of the Cross teach but that there was such a kinde of punishment to put men to Death If Images did teach these Mysteries then Image-makers would be Stewards of the Mysteries of God and Successours of the Apostles and Michael Angelo and such like Painters and Carvers more truly Peter's Successours and Bishops of Rome than Popes as doing more to teach the Mysteries of God than Popes do The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is a meer figment of a thing present which all the sense of all the men in the World contradicts full of apish gestures and toyish fashions fitter for a Stage-play than a spiritual Service of the Christian Church and being in a Tongue not commonly understood without teaching informs not the Hearers or Seers in the Mystery of the Death of Christ nor makes any lively Commemoration of his Passion but pleaseth superstitious and womanish or childish spirits which are taken with such shews the Sacrament opens no Mystery thereof without the Word written Accedat Verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum was the old resolution Put the Word to the Element then it is made a Sacrament Nor is it true that the practice hath been uniform therein the variety of Missals and the corruptions purged out of the Roman Missal as is confessed in Pope Pius the fifth his Bull according to the Decree of the Trent Council prove the contrary The Trinity is known by the institution and practise of Baptism but that is learned out of the written Word not oral Tradition None of these practises do at all open the Mystery of the Gospel as experience shews it being manifest by conference that none of the People in Italy and elsewhere who go to Mass and look on Pictures and have no other teaching do understand any thing of the Mystery of the Gospel the end reason use of Christ's Birth or Death but content themselves with a meer theatrical shew without any true understanding of the grace of God inward feeling or effectual change in their souls thereupon Perhaps it is better with Papists in England where their Superstitions are not altogether so gross and their understanding bettered by neighbourhood and converse with Protestants But that Images should conserve revealed verities or oral Tradition seconded with Images more explicate them than Books which this man again impiously terms dead Letters unless the Images be animated as that was that it's said told Thomas Aquinas Thou hast written well of me which was fit to be silenced by telling it that it had no allowance to speak in the Church is to me unintelligible And if these be such a safe and infallible Rule or means to teach and conserve the whole frame of Christian Doctrine then sure Christ did inconsiderately appoint Writers and Preachers to teach and guide the Church till we all meet in the unity of the Faith Ephes 4. 11 12 13. he should rather for the times after the Apostles have appointed Massing Priests and Painters to have taught the People nor were the Council of Trent and some of the Popes so advised as they might have been in appointing the unnecessary businesses of framing a Catechism and amending the vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible and much more foolish have been all the learned Papists who have in late years and formerly made large Commentaries and other Treatises to conserve revealed verities there being a more compendious way by oral Traditions with the use of Images and Masses and some other things if this impudent Scribler say true Yet H. T. continues thus Object If all things necessary to salvation be not contained in the whole Bible now shall a man ever come to know what is necessary to be known either by the whole Church in general or himself in particular Answ For the whole Church in general she is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde she being made by Christ the Depository of all and having the Promise of divine assistance to all And for each particular man so much onely it necessary to be believed as is sufficiently proposed to him by the Church and her Ministers for the Word of God or would at the least be so proposed if he himself were not in fault
profession or other act it is which makes Schism Nor is this a definition which doth agree with their own grants For the Councils that deposed Popes separated from the government of the Pope and the French in their pragmatick Sanction and the Venetians that refused to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory deny themselves to be Schismaticks Nor is it shewed how either is damnable or sacrilegious nor how Protestants are Sectaries or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection yet sith by what follows we may ghess his meaning let 's view his dispute SECT II. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation The Argument saith H. T. All such as are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state But most Protestants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church Therefore they are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state The Major is manifest out of the very notion and definition of Schism and Heresie The sequel of it proved thus by Scriture Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 2. 1. Jude 13. Rom. 16. 17. Matth. 18. 7 17 18. 2 Thess 3. 14. Answ 1. BY denying his Definition to be good and that any of the Texts prove it 2. By granting the Sequel of them that are truly termed Schismaticks and Hereticks but not of such as he calls such to wit that do wilfully divide from the Doctrine and Discipline of the now Roman Church falsly by him called Catholick There is no need of examining each Text till they are shewed to prove what is denied The Minor saith he is proved because Luther and his fellow Protestants divided themselves from the Communion of all Churches therefore from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that as well in Points of Doctrine as matters of Government as plainly appears by all we have said and is yet confirmed because when they began their Separation Luther in Germany Tyndal in England c. the Catholick Church was in most quiet possession of her Tenets in perfect peace and unity her Doctrine and Government being the same they had been not onely to the time of Gregory the Great as Protestants confess but to the very time of the Apostles as is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages in which no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Discipline then professed by the Roman Catholick Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as you have seen in the Councils Answ 1. The Minor speaks of most Protestants but mentions none but Luther and his fellow Protestants and Tyndal in England now it is no good proof against us that we are Schismaticks because Luther and his fellow Protestants were so and Tyndal began Separation in England It is told them by Câ—illingworth c. 5. p 1. against Knot that there may be an unjust Separation begun and so a Schism in the Leaders and yet no Schism in the Followers in after Ages as in a Common-wealth it may be a Sedition and Rebellion to set up another Government and Governour in the first Authours and yet none in the Posterity to continue them but rather their duty to maintain them in order to the peace and liberty which was unjustly obtained at first 2. It is denied that Luther or Tyndal divided themselves wilfully that is without necessity It is known in the History of Sleidan and others that Luther at first spake honourably of the Pope and was willing to have continued in communion with the Roman Church till Leo the tenth did by his Bull condemn his Doctrine afore he had heard him and he saw plainly as the World found by experience that the Popes and Court of Rome did never by good proofs out of Scripture go about to refute them but by Excommunications Fire and War to which Emperours and Kings were stirred up by them endeavour to root them out And for Tyndal it is manifest by the Book of Acts and Monuments of the Church written by Mr. Fox in the Reign of Henry the eighth that Tyndal was persecuted by the Popish Bishops and his body burnt in Brabant Now sure were the Protestants never so erroneous yet the Law of Nature ties them to run away from such cruel Wolves as in stead of teaching them with love endeavour to destroy them with cruelty 3. It is most false that Luther and his Fellows divided themselvs from the communion of all Churches It is certain that they actually joyned with the remainder of the Hussites in Bohomia and the Waldenses about the Alpes who were true Churches of Christ however the Romanists term them nor did they ever renounce communion with the Greek Eastern or Southern Churches though by reason of distance and the Power they were under they could not have actual communion with them And by their desire of a free Council in Germany not called by the Pope but the Emperour and Christian Princes nor of Bishops sworn to the Pope but of men that were equal Judges by whom their Doctrine might be examined and by their often Colloquies for Reconciliation they plainly shewed that they tried all means they could with a good conscience to have prevented the breach between them and the Popish party who were certainly the cause of the Schism and truly the Schismaticks as may be gathered from their own stories such as Thuanus Frier Paul's History of the Trent Council and others who relate the proceedings of those times and not the Protestants 4. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in point of Doctrine It is most certain that the party from whom the Protestants separated had relinquished the Catholick Doctrine of the Scripture and Primitive times for five hundred years at least and had brought in a new upstart Doctrine of Invocation of Saints worshiping Images Transubstantiation half-communion as sufficient denial of Priest's Marriage Popes universal Monarchy Purgatory-fire Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass Justification by Works and many more which were unknown to the first Christians nor hath the contrary appeared by any thing H. T. hath said before as the Reader of this Answer may perceive 5. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in the point of her Government The Government of the whole Church by one universal Bishop was never the Government of the Catholick Church It is manifest by the first general Councils that the Pope of Rome was not acknowledged superiour to other Patriarchs and the Greek Churches have always resisted his claim of Supremacy and many as Nilus Arch-bishop of Thessalonica Barliam and others have written against it as an unjust claim 6.
It is false that the Roman Church falsly by H. T. called Catholick was in most quiet possession of her Tenets when Luther began his Separation in Germany Tyndal in England It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught in many if not all the points in which Protestants do now oppose it 7. It is false that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception about the Popes Supremacy above a Council and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed as the event shewed no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day but each when occasion is offered contending for their way 8. It is false that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great or that Protestants do confess it It is most certain to the contrary that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy the Worship of Images Transubstantiation half-Communion in the Eucharist and many other points were brought into the Roman Church as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley 's Apology to King James hath proved 9 It is also most false that their Doctrine and Government were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles The contrary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans by Bishop Robert Abbot against Dâ—ctor Bishop and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fathers 10. It is false which H. T. saith It is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as may be seen in the Councils The contrary is most manifest that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage in which Augustine was present opposed the Popes Supremacy as schismatical that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical besides many other as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth SECT III. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks BUt H. T. saith Fathers for this Point though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Protestants being guilty of Schism or Heresie or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages or that in no case there may be dividing from it or teaching contrary to it without Heresie or Schism yea it is certain that Irenaeus Cyprian and Austin thought the clean contrary Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him Cyprian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization Augustine opposing Popes Boniface Zozimus and Celestine about the Appeal of Apiarius But let 's view their Sayings The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church ambitious men who have not the honour of God before their eys but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so important as the evil of Schism is prejudicious lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put prejudicious for pernicious or his Authour whence he had it for it is in Irenaeus Quanta est Schismatis pernicies But it appears 1. That he hath either not read the place or not considered it because he puts in God will judge whereas it is manifest out of the words following But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth that is without the Church but he himself is judged of no man and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God and the Apostolical Doctrine chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters the love of God into the honour of God before their eys 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes which was most true of Victor then Bishop of Rome in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eusebius hist 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants who neither make nor continue Schisms and that Separation which they make they do it for very great causes And he saith No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes as is the mischief of the Schism they make but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation or correption which is Irenaeus his word is so necessary that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent I add the words of Irenaeus the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors and Churches as Schismaticks and Hereticks who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints humane Satisfactions inherent Justice justifying Merit of Condignity have departed from the Apostolical Faith and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture The words of Cyprian de unit Eccles in the third Age against the Novatians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism that it could not be purged by suffering for Christ nor they be Martyrs though they died for the Confession of his Name is too heavy a censure yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants who are not guilty of that Schism The words of Chrysostom hom 11. in Ephes shew how grievous an evil Schism is but prove not that they are all Schismaticks that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof or the Romanists free The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controversie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be
drawing of the Net on the shore at the Day of Judgement is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism which surpasseth all other crimes lib. 2. cont Epist Parmen I reply it is a Scolds trick to say we slander and not to prove it We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the Roman Church then held Justification by Faith without Works that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith that the Church of Rome might fail that the Roman church is but a particular Church that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days that it is Idolatry to do as Papists now do worshiping the Creature with such Worship as belongs to the Creatour that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not with sundry more in which the present Roman church hath sweâ—ved from the primitive We prove out of Gregory the Great himself that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope and disavowed the Worship of Images with other things now received at Rome and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious Augustine himself hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon yet his speeches touch not us who do not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours and practising such Idolatry as are damnable We do not say that the church perished but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints We need not allege any Church for our Mother but the Jerusalem which is abovâ— which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsiderate speech to say any visible church is the Mother of Christians it is in my apprehension all one as to say the church is the Mother of the church Christians or believers being all one with the church and therefore count such speeches whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them no better than ridiculous non-sense and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel and allege that we have been begotten by it which way soever it be Were not the â—berians a church of Christians who were converted by â— captive Maid when there was no church there before and the Indians by â—rumentius without a Church to bring them forth May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations but were expelled and peâ—secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome when they endeavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans English and other Nations If Augustine meant simply that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable he wrote that which is not true it being contrary to Paul's practise Acts 18. 9. God's command 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess 3. 8. Revel 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist Pâ—rmen cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have society with them but by doing evil with them But if he meant it of such Separation as the Donatists made as it is likely he doth it toucheth not us who separate not from the Romanists because some evil men are tolerated but because Errour Idolatry and other evils are urged on us by them and such is their tyranny that without yielding to them there is no communion but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning Once more saith H. T. Object We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome Therefore not from the whole Church Answ I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome iâ— universal or Catholick and in what sense she is particular take it in which acception you will your Consequence is false for whosoever separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular he consequently separates from the whole and is an Heretick or Schismatick I reply neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church in either sense is an Heretick or Schismatick And to his proof I say 1. That many Protestants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther separated but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church and they that acknowledge it a true Church in respect of the truth of being yet not of Doctrine and they that say it had the truth of being say it not of the predominant part but of the latent conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them or avouched by them though living among them or if they did yield to them or some of them they had pardon as doing it in ignorance retaining the old Creed of the Apostles And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held who were in it though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance yet they might say to Rome being found uâ—câ—rable as the Jews to Babylon Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon but she is not healed forsake her and let us go every one into his own countrey for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven and is lifted up unto the Skies 2. That it is not universally true that he who separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total privative not positive out of prejudice and passion in heat not in heart as between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius temporary not perpetual in prudence though not out of absolute necessity necessary not voluntary just and not rash without revolt from the Faith or persecution of those from whom it is made In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from
of the Roman Church or Popes or oecumenical Councils Infallibility 88 4. None of these Texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14 26. John 16. 13. Acts 15. 28. do prove the Infallibility in Points of Faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general Council approved by him 90 5. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our Salvation without supposing the Churches Infallibility 93 6. Neither can the Church oblige men under Pain of Damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith nor is there any such Judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her nor do any of the Fathers words cited by H. T. say it is the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. August contr Epist Fundam cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it 97 7. The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the Infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers 106 8. The Objections of Protestants against the Churches Infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 124 ARTICLE VI. THe Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her sanctity and Miracles 131 Sect. 1. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent ibid. 2. The sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church 132 3. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman church 134 4. The Roman church is not proved to be the true church by the holiness of its Doctrine but the contrary is true 136 5. The Devotion of the Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman church it being for the most part will-worship and Pharisaical hypocrisie 139 6. The power of working Miracles is no certain mark of the true church 143 7. The Popish pretended Miracles prove not the truth of their church nor the Miracles related by some of the Fathers 144 8. The Objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman church from the Power of Miracles are not solved by H. T. 147 ARTICLE VII THe Pope's or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole church is not proved by H. T. 151 Sect. 1. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour ibid. 2. From being the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 16 17. neither Peter's nor the Pope's Supremacy is proved 152 3. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles but a Promise of special success in his Preaching 156 4. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole church 159 5. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren Luke 22. 31. and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy 161 6. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter 164 7. The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy 165 8. The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Pope's Supremacy 169 9. Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Pope's Supremacy 176 10. Of the Emperours calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping faith with Hereticks 18◠ARTICLE VIII THe unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith 187 Sect. 1. The Argument for Apostolical tradition as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered ibid. 2. Unwritten traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles 190 3. The obligation of the church not to deliver any thing as a Point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Tradition a Rule of Faith 191 4. Counterfeits even in Points of Faith might and did come into the church under the name of Apostolick tradition without such a force as H. T. imagines necessary thereto 195 5. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity 198 6. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith 202 7. Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 205 8. H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions 212 ARTICLE IX PRotestants in not holding communion with the Roman church as now it is in their worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by ejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks 220 Sect. 1. H. T. his Definitions of Schism and Heresie are not right ibid. 2. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation 221 3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks 224 4. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquitting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists 226 FINIS Ecclesia Christi est quae luscipit à Christo doctrinam seu cujus fides sundatur authoritate Christi Thomas Whitsonus Bucci Tract 1. Sect. 7. Watson quodlib p. 252 260 343.
authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it