Alexandria and accordingly of Antioch and of other Provinces should have power over their own Provinces according to ancient Custome and the Custome in that case of the Church of Rome and that none should invade the Privileges of each other The same is said and confirmed in the second Canon of the second general Council held at Constantinople by the command of Theodosius the Emperour An. 380. And farther ratified by the third general Council at Ephesus in the Year 431. Can. 8. If we go forward we shall find that it was farther decreed in the abovesaid Council of Constantinople Can. 3. That the Bishop of Constantinople should have the order of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome because it is New Rome And what is thereby to be understood is sufficiently declared in the 28th Canon of the Fourth General Council assembled at Chalcedon An. 451. in which it is decreed That the Church of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with that of Rome there being the same Reason for that as the other as it was the Imperial Seat and accordingly is there a particular Instance given in case of Appeals Can. 9. From this Jurisdiction which every Church had over its own Members proceeded other Canons as That those who were excluded the Communion of one Church should not be received by another so Can. 5. of the aforesaid Council of Nice That no Appeals should be made to foreign or transmarine Churches so the Council held at Milevis in Africa where S. Augustine was present An. 416. Can. 22. which Canon Bellarmine confesseth was made with a particular respect to Rome To the same purpose the sixth Council held at Carthage An. 420. in which also S. Augustine was passed a Decree From all which you may observe 1. That the Bishop of Rome had anciently a limited Jurisdiction it was over his own Province onely 2. That the Jurisdiction which he had over his own Province was such as all other Supreme Bishops had over theirs 3. That none had a power to transgress the ancient and settled bounds of Jurisdiction or to invade those of anothers 4. That the Honour given to the Bishop of Rome whatever priority it was that he had was not by any Divine Authority but as Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. That the Honour and Privilege which it had by that means was what another was capable of for the same was given to Constantinople 6. That none of these Decrees in those General Councils were ever opposed by the Church of Rome 'till the Council of Chalcedon 7. That at that time the pretences of the Pope's Legates were universally opposed and rejected And I may add 8. That what was at any time in those days claimed by the Church of Rome was claimed not upon any Divine Authority but onely upon the Authority of the Council of Nice as it appears from the transactions in the afore-cited Council of Carthage 9. What was then claimed under that pretext was upon a pretended if not a forged Canon of the Council of Nice which was detected so to be by that Council of Carthage and their Usurpation rejected as is evident from the Acts of that Council and the Epistle written by the Fathers there assembled to Pope Celestine upon it From all which it appears and more I could shew that there was no such thing originally as this Universal Pastorship which the Bishop of Rome doth now challenge and that Rome is therein changed from what it was And now let our Authour ask if he please by what Councils was the Church of Rome ever condemned And you may answer by the four first general Councils Let him ask again Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her And you may answer no less than 1068. for so many were then convened in all these four Councils And if this suffice not we may turn him to the Councils of Milevis and Carthage before-mentioned and to others also of good Authority besides particular Fathers I have been the longer upon this not onely because it could not be well comprised in less but also because if this Claim of theirs fall their Cause must fall with it 2. Another new Principle of theirs is That the Pope hath at least in ordine ad Spiritualia a Power over all Kingdoms within the Church and of deposing Kings in case of Heresie or Obstinacy c. and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to them when thus deposed That this is the Principle of their Church is plain from Can. 3. of the Fourth Council of Lateran and from the Council of Trent in Sess. 25. de reform c. 19. where it is somewhat covertly expressed for a Reason which the state of Affairs at that time made necessary That this is the Doctrine of their Church is proved beyond all contradiction by the present Lord Bishop of Lincoln in his late Learned Treatise Of Popery c. But that this Doctrine of theirs is new is commonly confessed among themselves and maintained so to be by several of their own Communion and which any one may so far receive satisfaction in from what is written by Roger Widdrington aliàs Preston in his Apologia pro Jure Principum and his Humillima Supplicatio ad Paulum Quintum 3. Transubstantiation was not originally an Article of their Creed as it is now So it is said by Jo. Tribarn an approved Authour of theirs In primitiva Ecclesia de substantia fidei erat c. It was of the substance of Faith in the primitive Church to believe that the Body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine but it was not of Faith that the substance of the Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ and upon Consecration should not be Bread. For saith he this was not found out by the Church till the time of Innocent the Third in the Council of Lateran where many Truths that before lay hid are explained in the Chap. of Firmiter Credimus amongst which this of Transubstantiation is the chief So also saith Peter Tataret And this was the Opinion of Scotus the great Schoolman Now it is supposed that Scotus who lived within 150 Years after must better understand what was the Doctrine of their Church before it and what was the sense of that Council concerning it than he that comes about 450 Years after and chides him for so doing with a minime probandum 4. The Doctrine of Infallibility respecting their Church as the Seat of it was not anciently known neither claimed by themselves nor granted by others Amongst all the directions given in Scripture for finding out the truth there is not one word to this purpose and amongst all the Disputes in the Primitive Church we find no such course taken for the final determination of them as the having recourse to the Apostolical Chair of Rome Heresies were not then so scarce nor the confutation of them so easie as that this relief should be
forgotten And it seems they themselves did then as little understand their own Privileges as they did the Principles of Faith for this was never so much as thought of in all those Councils which were called on purpose for the suppression of Heresies and where the Legats of the Pope were present Nay to this very day they are at a loss where to go for it whether to the Pope or a Council or both or Tradition or the Collective Body of Christians that is they know not whether to give up the Cause or to maintain it I must confess if I should hear a person solemnly declare that he hath Treasure enough in his possession to enrich the whole World and should gravely invite all persons to address themselves to him but in the mean time perceive though he hath been of the same Mind for several Years that he can neither tell where it is nor is he and his Family for all this the richer or in a better condition than other Folk I should vehemently suspect him either to be a notorious Impost or or perfect Lunatick And when we hear the Church of Rome confidently asserting its own Infallibility but find withall that she knows not where to fix it and that its ruptures and differences are in the mean time as great as in other Churches and what are never ended by the way it pretends to but by plain downright force I cannot for my heart but think there is for the most part more of Interest than Reason in the Case and what they themselves do rather live by than believe But in my mind there is no better Evidence that this is new than that it 's false and no better evidence that it is false than that it hath mistaken Of which besides what hath been or shall be farther said of alterations in that Church I shall give you two plain Instances The Council of Trent saith that Traditions are to be received with equal reverence as the Scriptures and Maldonat tells us that The giving the Eucharist to Children was a Tradition in the Church for 600 Years after Christ which is now condemned as he shews by the Council of Trent Again S. Hierom saith that the Latine Church then did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Canonical Scriptures But that is now taken into the number by them and required so to be under an Anathema Sess. 4. Decr. 1. Conc. Trid. Now Infallibility and Fallibility are contradictory and if that Church hath erred as erred she hath then she cannot be infallible and so consequently the Infallibility of the Church of Rome was not the Principle of the Primitive Church of Rome I could shew as much of Novelty in the Doctrines of Indulgences Purgatory the Mass's being a Propitiatory Sacrifice and of no Salvation out of the Romish Church c. but what I have said I think is sufficient Secondly The Alterations are as great in point of Practice the Church of Rome differs therein as much from what she originally was As 1. The keeping the Scriptures and publick Service in an unknown Tongue is new The first is evident from the Translations of the Scripture into several Languages and especially into the Latine at that time a vulgar Tongue of which no sufficient Reason can be given were it not for the use of those that understood not the Originals The latter is not onely clear from 1 Cor. 14. but what Bellarmine doth acknowledge who saith That the custome of the Peoples saying Amen that is to what they understood as they did in the Apostles time continued long in the Western as well as Eastern Church 2. Worshipping of Images which was first established in the second Council at Nice but is so different from and contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church that Cassander an Authour of theirs saith that the Christians had not then so much as Images in their Churches and doth farther declare from Origen that the Ancients ab omni veneratione the very word used by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. decret de Invocat imaginum abhorruerunt that all Veneration of them was abhorred To this I refer the worshipping of Saints which was so little thought of that many of the Fathers did not think that the Souls of any should enjoy the beatifick Vision and be in a state of happiness till the Resurrection as Stapleton doth shew And it seems not to have been an Article of Faith in the time either of Lombard or Scotus the former of which saith It's not incredible the Saints do hear what we say and the latter that it 's probable God doth reveal our prayers that are offered unto them It was then the Doctrine of probability onely but now all are required to believe it under an Anathema by the Council of Trent As much is to be said concerning the Innovation of Worship to the Virgin Mary of which we read nothing in Scripture or Antiquity unless in what was practised by the Hereticks called Collyridiani in Epiphanius that used to carry about her Image and offer Cakes and Worship to it with whom that good Father thus encounters What Scripture hath delivered any such thing c. Let Mary be in honour but let the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost be worshipped let no man worship Mary 3. Communion in one Kind expresly contrary to the Scripture and the former practice of the Romish Church The former is acknowledged by the Council of Constance when they decreed with a notwithstanding for it The latter is acknowledged by Cassander who saith That the Roman Church it self retained the practice of receiving in both Kinds for above one thousand years after Christ as is evident from innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers To these I might add the practice of saying private and solitary Masses of the Adoration of the Host and carrying it about in Procession Confession as used in their Church c. But I shall forbear III. These alterations are to the worse and gross Corruptions For if the Pope is not Christ's Vicar originally and by his Deputation then he is so far a great Usurper If he hath not a Power over Kings to depose them and absolve their Subjects from Allegiance to them then those of them that have used that power have been notorious disturbers of the World. If their Church be not infallible and can no more penetrate into or resolve and determine points of Faith than another they do deceive and are deceived If Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of their own and not of Christ's they usurp upon his Prerogative If the Scriptures are free to all then their Church is guilty of the damnation of all amongst themselves that perish through the want of knowing and understanding them and of all the ignorance in the Christian World which proceeds from that cause If worshipping Images Saints and Angels the Host and Reliques be not Christian Doctrine
AN ANSWER To a Late Printed Paper Given about by some of the CHURCH OF ROME In a LETTER to a GENTLEMAN The Third Edition Imprimatur April 8. 1686. Rev. 2. 5. Remember from whence thou art faln and repent and doe the first works or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy Candlestick out of his place except thou repent LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE Popish Paper IT will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and Mother Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism I. Apostasie is not onely a renouncing of the Faith of Christ but the very Name and Title to Christianity No Man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus II. Heresie is an adhesion to some private and singular Opinion or Errour in Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any singular or new Opinion disagreeable to the common received Doctrine of the Christian World I pray satisfie me as to these particulars viz. 1. By what General Council was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her Or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For It seems to me a thing very incongruous that so great a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemn her III. Schism is a departure or division from the Unity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her self by Schism from any other Body of faithful Christians or brake Communion or went forth from the Society of any Elder Church I pray satisfie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted Schismatical when there cannot be assigned any other Church different from her which from Age to Age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whence she departed To my honoured Friend Mr. S. B. SIR I Had no sooner perused the Paper which I received from you but I perceived that it was penn'd for the sake of such as either are not well acquainted with the matters of Controversie betwixt Us and the Church of Rome or with the Way and Method of arguing To such as these they are wont to pretend high To those that are ignorant of the former they talk of Antiquity and Universality and to such as are unskilful in the latter of Demonstrations and self-evident Principles of Axioms and Definitions But all this is a mere flourish of Words for if these things come strictly to be examined instead of Antiquity we shall too frequently find Forgery and Imposture instead of the Catholick Church the Church of Rome instead of Demonstrations and Definitions Sophistry and Fallacious Arguments And after this strain is this Paper wrote in which things are so artificially mingled that they look very speciously to those that do not understand them and are so well fitted to work upon the easie the ignorant and inconsiderate that after it had been printed as I perceive long since in Fiat Lux it is again singled out to be put into the Hands of such as they have a design upon But I shall endeavour to unravel it and hope by that time that I have done that what is therein said will appear to be wholly insufficient to justifie their Church and acquit it of those Crimes it is charged with And this I shall doe by shewing First That the whole is false Secondly That the particulars are very fallacious The former I shall make good by these following Considerations I. That a Church may fall from what it once was II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times when it might most of all pretend to be as he calls it a most pure excellent and flourishing Church III. That the alteration from what it was then to what it is now is to the worse and that it is thereby intolerably corrupted If these Propositions be proved then the way taken by our Authour will signifie nothing since it will not be worth the while to enquire how it is whether it be fallen by Apostasie Heresie or Schism when it is demonstrable that so it is that it is fallen I. That a Church may fall from what it once was that is from its primitive Purity and Simplicity in Faith and Manners is evident to any that will read the Scriptures and mind what is therein said of the Churches of the Jews Sardis and Laodicea or that are acquainted with Ecclesiastical History And this they of the Church of Rome are bound to grant who must acknowledge according to their own Principles that we once were a Church when in their Communion and that call us Apostatical Heretical and what not since we have forsaken it II. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apostolical and Primitive times but is changed in Principles and Practice First In Principles as 1. That the Pope is Christ's Vicar that is that he is the Universal Pastor over Christ's Flock and hath a Jurisdiction over all Churches whatsoever is a new Principle This the Scripture which the Church of Rome of old used to appeal to is so far from giving any Countenance to that our Saviour expresly cautions the Apostles against any such Usurpation Luke 22. 25. When there was a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest he said unto them The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them c. but it shall not be so but he that is the greatest or will be great Mark 10. 43. among you let him be as the younger c and in the 30. v. saith ye shall sit upon twelve Thrones c. not preferring one before the other And lest what he had occasionally spoke to Peter Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. should be misconstrued he doth give the same power to the rest of the Apostles both before his Death Mat. 18. 18. and also after his Resurrection Joh. 20. 23. And if we would understand the sense of Antiquity as to this matter I know no surer nor shorter way than to see what is said by the Councils for then the Fathers may be supposed to speak most impartially and with greatest authority and of this I shall give you a brief Account The first general Council was that of Nice called by Constantine the Great and held An. 325. which in the sixth Canon doth thus decree That the Bishop of