have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8◠ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much
punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad
salvation is to be had or expected are errors and corruptions of it contrary to the doctrine that the holy Apostles have deliver'd to them and us in their Writings So that I may justly ask them Where was your Creed and Church before Pope Pius who was hardly so old as Luther I might add several other Doctrines and Practices as contrary to Scripture if I understand any thing in it as Darkness is to Light particularly Concerning some practices in the Roman Church which are against Scripture As 1. Service in an unknown Tongue that unreasonable service of God in a Tongue the people do not-understand Can any thing be more plainly contradictory to the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. Doth not Saint Paul there condemn all Speaking whether in Sermons Prayers or Thanksgivings in the Church in an unknown Tongue ver 2. Unknown not to God who knows all things even Sermons in Latin Greek or any Tongue else but to Men. He prefers Prophecying i.e. Preaching or expounding the Scripture before Tongues i. e. strange and not understood by the Hearers for this very reason because he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue speaketh to God not unto men for no man understandeth him howbeit in the Spirit i.e. by a miraculous gift of the Spirit Ver. 3. as the gift of Tongues was he speaketh mysteries i. e. profound and admirable Truths But he that prophesieth or preacheth in a known Tongue speaketh unto men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort He that speaketh in an unknown Tongue edifieth himself Ver. 4. not the Church But Saint Paul would have the whole Church edifi'd or profited by whatever is spoken Hence he commands ver 26. all things to be done to edification and forbids any one to use his miraculous gift of Tongues in the Church unless he interpret what he saith or another for him that so the Church may receive Edifying i.e. spiritual profit being built up in their most holy Faith. Is it not as clear as the day at Noon that according to St. Paul's doctrine there is no profit or edification redounding to the People by whatsoever is spoken in the Church in an unknown Tongue Neither doth he in that Chapter speak only of Sermons Papists themselves are not so absurd as to preach in Latin to their people or private Conferences as Bellarmine would evade he speaketh generally of whatever is spoken in the Church it must be in a Tongue known to the people that so the people may be profited by it in regard else they are not edify'd or profited at all Neither doth he speak of Sermons only but Prayers and Thanksgivings hence ver 15 16. I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also So that in St. Paul's judgment it 's necessary to pray and sing Praises Psalm 47.7 as David saith with understanding Then he adds Else when thou shalt bless God with the Spirit i.e. by an extraordinary gift of strange Tongues bestow'd by the Spirit on many in those days how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen to thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest Where two things are as plain as if they had been written with a Sun-beam First That St. Paul in that Chapter discourseth not of Sermons or Conferences onely but Prayers and Hymns Secondly Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Hieron in Epist ad Galatas lib. 2. in praefat That the unlearned cannot as they ought say Amen to Prayers or Hymns of Thanksgiving they understand not We use as the ancient Church did to say Amen to Prayers not to Sermons or Conferences So that Saint Paul expresly condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue used at this day by the Roman Church in her Latin Service And there is ground to think this is one reason why they suffer not the Laity to read the Scriptures lest they should by them discern this amongst other of their palpable erroneous and corrupt practices This may be a second instance that the Romish Religion is not Apostolical Denying the use of the Scripture to the Laity V. Claudium Espenceum in Titum cap. 2. For what can be more contrary to our Saviour's command John 5.39 Search the Scriptures c And that of Saint Paul Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom and spiritual understanding Yea to the very end of Gods giving the Scriptures than to forbid the generality of the people to read them lest they should by it become Hereticks i.e. Protestants Did Saint Paul write his Epistles to the learned or Clergy only at Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. and not to the whole Church Yea doth he not adjure them at Thessalonica to cause his Epistle to be read 1 Thess 5.27 not onely to the Rulers or Elders of the Church but to all the holy Brethren or Saints Might they hear what was written to them but not read it Were they not Greeks and did not Saint Paul write unto them in their own vulgar Tongue To what end if not that they should read it Otherwise surely he would have written to them in Hebrew or Syriack for he had the gift of many Tongues But say some Politicians The common people are apt to mistake and to wrest the Scriptures to Heresies and their own destruction To which I answer First Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitatis oriri c. Index libror. prohib Reg. 1. If the Scriptures be so apt to be misunderstood and do more hurt than good why should we look upon them as a singular blessing of God to his Church Secondly Do onely unlearn'd men wrest the Scriptures We know the old Hereticks as Arius Nestorius Pelagius c. were neither unlearn'd nor Laicks Thirdly Why did St. Paul if the Scripture be so dangerous to the common people command his Epistle to be read to all the holy Brethren Might they not mistake his true meaning by hearing it read as well as reading it Lastly I answer The Church of God is not to be govern'd by the late Policies of men but by the Laws of Christ and the example of the Primitive Church who altho many damnable Heresies arose in those Ages Cyril contra Julian lib. 6. and were colourably maintain'd by the Scripture Hom. 2. in Matth. Chrysost Hom. 3. in Lazarum Hom. 9. in Coloss Hieron Epist ad Eustochium Salvinam Celantiam in Epitaphio Paulae as Julian the Apostate objected yet never forbad any man to read the Scripture but exhorted and encourag'd the Laity even Women to do it A Licence to read the Scriptures would have been looked upon in those days as a prodigious Novelty Because many people receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood unworthily to their own damnation may therefore the Laity be wholly and generally kept as well
less on his Successours and that at Rome rather than Antioch Saint Austin agreeth Quid est super hanc petram c. What is it On this Rock will I build my Church super hanc fidem on this Faith Thou art Christ the Son of God. But sparing at present particular testimonies I shall shew that all the four first General Councils These P. Gregory the Great received as the four Gospels Lib. 1. Epist 24. all Popes are sworn to them Ad apicem observaturos Can. sicut Dist 16. Hist lib. 60. c 23. l. 1. c. 6. Roma Metropolis Romanae ditionis Athanas ad solitar vit agentes either expresly or by consequence and implicitly have refuted and overthrown the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome I begin with the first Nicene Council Can. 6. where we read Let the Antient Customs remain The Bishop of Alexandria shall have the Government of the Churches of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Quoniam Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custom i. e. to govern Rome and the suburbicarian Region as Ruffinus as Roman Presbyter understood it and the precedent words plainly enough intimate The Bishop of Alexandria is to govern his Diocess as the Bishop of Rome doth the Churches belonging to him of antient Custom Here is a manifest limitation or rather exclusion of the Bishop of Romes Universal Jurisdiction Baronius Bellarmin and Coriolanus answer that those words because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custome means no more but this because the Bishop of Rome consuevit perinittere hath used of old Custom to permit the Bishop of Alexandria to govern those Churches of Egypt c. A strange gloss and a mere begging of the Point in question As if the right of governing all Churches belonged to the Bishop of Rome when the Council as of antient Custome inviolable and equal to that of Rome parilis mos commit the government of those Churches to the Bishop of Alexandria as his antient Right might not we say as well that the Patriarch of Alexandria permitted the Pope to govern the Church of Rome It is evident enough from this Canon that the Nicene Fathers did not imagine that the Supreme Government of all Churches did belong to the Bishop of Rome or that the Patriarch of Alexandria needed to supplicate him for a Pall. The first Council of Constantinople Can. 2. forbids all Bishops to encroach on the Diocesses of others lest they confound the Churches And Can. 5. they decree that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the honour of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome in regard it was new Rome to wit made the Imperial City by Constantine who called it after his own name Constantinople Here we see the Bishop of Rome is forbid as well as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishop in other mens Dioceses and that the Council out of Reverence to antient custome grants him a priority of Place or Order not a superiority of Power and Jurisdiction The general Council of Chalcedon expounds and confirms this 5th Canon of Constantinople who Can. 27. decree in these words Following in all things the Decree of the 150 Fathers to wit in the Council of Constantinople before mentioned we decree the same concerning the Priviledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople which is new Rome Their Reason is for the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God the Father nor Christ his Son Matth. 16 16. but the Fathers the Bishops did of right give Priviledges to the Throne Ecclesiastical of old Rome because it was the Imperial City and upon the same consideration the 150 Bishops before mentioned have granted to the Throne of new Rome i.e. Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges rightly judging that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enjoyeth equal Priviledges i.e. Civil with old Rome the Imperial City should also in matters Ecclesiastical be equally with her magnified and extolled being the second in order after her Here we see plainly First That the Church of Constantinople is in all Ecclesiastical matters and Priviledges equally extolled and magnified with old Rome Gratians corruption of this Canon is abominable for he translates it thus We Decree that the Seat of Constantinople may have not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal but similia like Priviledges with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Semor old but Superiour superior Rome non tamen in Ecclesiastic is magnificatur ut illa but is not in Ecclesiastical matters magnified as she is whereas in the Greek it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical matters shall be equally extolled An ignorant or shameless man. Secondly Observe the reason why the Fathers in both Councils being near eight hundred Bishops granted Priviledges and Preeminences to the Bishop of old Rome was because it was the Imperial City and upon the very same ground the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedo judged it right and fit to grant the same and equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople in regard it being made the Seat or Head of the Empire by the Emperour Constantine it was new Rome or the Imperial City Here is no mention made of any Divine Right granted by Christ to Peter or his Successours at Rome This Canon is of more weight than all the Decrees of Popes and the Writings of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits put together It was confirmed in the sixth General Council in Trullo Can. 36. as also by the Emperours Marcian Justinian Novel 115. cap. 3 c. Our Adversaries alledg In Edicto de Confir Syn. Chalced. apud Binium Tom. 3. p. 471. Caranza p. 369. that this Canon was surreptitiously obtained by the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius when the Bishop of Romes Legates with others were gone out of the Council But Caranza a Popish Collector of the Councils informs us that upon this complaint made by the Legates the Canon was debated the second time and confirmed by the Bishops in Council so much doth Binius Concil Tom. 3. p. 404. 463. acknowledgeth also yea the Bishop of Rome is desired by the Council to consent to it as Baronius himself confesseth I hasten to the General Council of Ephesus where upon complaint of the Bishops of Cyprus that the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a Power to ordain their Bishops contrary to antient custome the Fathers decree that they should enjoy their antient right adding a Canon whereby they forbid any Bishop not excepting the Roman to invade the Diocâ—â—ses of others lest the Statutes of the Fathers be broken and under pretence of the sacred function the tumour of secular power should creep in and so unadvisedly by little and little we lose our liberty which Christ hath purchased by his own bloud Thus those Reverend Bishops decreed V. Bernard ad Eugenium de Consid lib. 3. as if by a Prophetical Spirit they had foreseen the future Captivity of the Church
they shall not be admitted to the Vision beatifical till after the Resurrection Occam Scotus lib. 4. dist 45. qu. 4. Valentia with others deny that the Saints departed or Angels see all things in Speculo Trinitatis in God who seeth all things but onely such as are essential to their happiness Videt omnia qui videt videntem omnia Greg. M. In 2. Tom. 3. digres 17. p. 118. In August de Civil Dei l. 8. c. 27. and which he is pleased to represent to them Claudius Espencaeus testifieth that some old Folk trusted in the Saints and ascribed no less to them than to God himself and thought it easier to intreat or prevail with one of them for obtaining their requests and desires than him Ludovicus Vives professeth he could discern no difference betwixt the worship of Saints practised in his time and the heathenish Parentalia Wickliffe apud Walden Tom. 3 Tit. 12. the Albigenses and Waldenses rejected long before Luther Invocation of Saints I shall close this Particular with the words of Cassander a learned and ingenuous Papist Cons p. 154. This false and pernicious Opinion is too well known to have prevailed among the Vulgar while wicked men persevering in their naughtiness are persuaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints whom they have chosen to be their Patrons and worship with cold and prophane Ceremonies they have Pardon and Grace prepared them with God which pernicious Opinion hath been confirmed in them with lying Miracles And there is another Errour that men not evil of themselves Compare Sir Edwin Sandys's Europae Speculum pag. 56. Biel in Can. Missae Lect. 30. saith as much Solus Deus simpliciter orandus est Sancti magis se tenent ex parte orantium quam illius qui oratur Halens qu. 92. Mem. 10. Art. 4. have chosen certain Saints to be their Patrons and keepers and put confidence in their Merits and Intercession more than in the Merits of Christ so far that the onely Office of Christs Intercession being obscured they substituted into his place the Saints and specially the Virgin his Mother c. Are not these things highly injurious to the honour of our blessed Saviour and Redeemer Did they not call aloud for an effectual Reformation I might add several other Points of Doctrine which if they be not already by the Tridentine Decrees may become Articles of Faith whensoever the Pope pleaseth The Popes Infallibility To deny it is sententia Haeresi proxima non proprie haeretica De Infallib Papae l. 4. c. 1. V. Caranzam Sess 12.38.35 V. Alphons de Castro adv Haeres l. 1. c. 2. vid. cap. 4. Ibid. Stapleton Contr. 3. qu. 4. saith it 's no Point of Faith but of Opinion only Cusan Concord l. 1. c. 14. Canus loc Com. l. 6. c. ult Cajetan de Authorit Papae c. 26. Lib. 1. c. 4. Valent. Lib. 8. Analys fidei cap. 1. Pope Hadrian in 4. de Sacram. Confirmat sub finem Canus Loc. l. 6. c. ult p. 331. Valentia Analys fidei lib. 8. c. 3. 4. V. Bellar. de Pontif. M. Waldensis Doctrin sidei l. 2. c. 19. Add Alph. de Castro lib. 1. cap. 4. the Ground Rock and foundation of all their Faith and Religion is ferè almost saith Bellarmin an Article of Faith and but almost which all prudent and considering men may well wonder at Yet it is not only denied by the Council of Basil who decree that it is de fide a Point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council in regard he may be as Liberius Zepherinus Honorius Anastasius and some other Popes were a notorious Heretick and Schismatick but strongly confuted by Occam qu. 1. de potestate Pontif. c. 9. Almain Quaest in Vesp de Autoritate Eccl. c. 10. Ovandus 4. Dist 18. prop. 25. Coroll 2. Nicolas Clemangis de corrupto Eccles statu Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. Contarenus Gerson c. Lyra in Matth. 16. Turrecremata Summ. Eccl. l. 4. part 2. c. 16.20 with many more grant the Pope may be a Heretick in his private person or judgment yea as Alphons de Castro Bozius Tom. 2. de sign Eccles l. 18. c. ult Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. acknowledge that he may be not onely a Heretick himself but impose by his Pontifical Authority in his Decrees Heresie on the whole Church The truth is there is need of an infallible Judge to determine where or in whom the Roman Infallibility resides Some of them say in the Pope alone whether he maturely considers what he decrees or no. Whether the Premisses on which he builds his conclusion be pertinent or not true or false Some in the Pope assisted with a General or Provincial Council Some in a General Council without yea decreeing against the Pope Some in the Universal Tradition of the Church They have little reason then to upbraid Protestants with their difference of Opinion in lesser matters seeing they differ amongst themselves in the fundamental Article and ground of all their Religion 2. The Immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary This is almost an Article of Faith amongst them insomuch that no Divine can commence Doctor as Salmeron reports in the University of Paris Orig. Hom. 17. in Lucam Chrysost Hom. 45. 46. in Matthaeum August Quaest vet novi Test qu. 73. Theophylact. in 2. Lucae Matth. 12. unless he swear to maintain it Nevertheless it is not onely contradicted by the Antient Fathers generally but by the Elder School men as Bannes Part 1. in Tho. qu. art 8. dub 5. and Turrecremata de Consecrat dist 4. num 11. acknowledge Lumbard lib. 3. Sent. dist 3. Aquinas summ 3. part qu. 27. art 2. Cajeran opusc Tom. 2. Tract 1. de conceptione Virg. Bonaventure Dist 3. in Sent. 3. qu. 1. Art. 1. Capreolus l. 3. dist 3. to whom many more may be added assirm the same 3. That the Apocryphal Books are to be received as of equal Authority with the Canonical is decreed and so made a point of Faith by the Council of Trent yet it is evidently contradicted not onely by the Laodicean Council Ruffinus Augustin cont Gaudentium l. 2 c. 23. See Field's Appendix to his third Book of the Church Loc. lib. 2. c. 9. Biblioth lib. 1. c. 19. Origen Hierom P. Gregory the Great and others but by multitudes of their own modern Writers as Cajetan Lyra Hugo Sigonius Occam the ordinary Gloss Waldensis Antoninus Tostatus Carthusianus Faber Clichtoveus Driedo Ferus with many more Canus even since the Council of Trents Decree saith It 's no Heresie to reject the Book of Baruc and Sixtus Senensis since that Council denies the additions to the Book of Hester to be Canonical 4. That we are justified by our own good Works or inherent Righteousness and not by Faith onely is decreed by the Trent Council as an Article of Catholick Faith yet it is plainly contradicted not onely by the