all the World oppugning If Optatus call Peter the Head of the Apostles it is meant as is frequent in Scripture and other Writers to call the forwardest and leader or first in order the Head of the rest But the words Apostolorum Caput Petrus inde Cephas appellatus gives occasion to conceive these words inserted in Optatus who it is likely would not have given so inept a derivation of the word Cephas as if it were from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Head The words in Augustin Serm. 124. de tempore not as H. T. 12. de 4. temporibus which shews that he cites this passage without reading it and it is likely he did so in the rest have no likelihood to be Augustine's those Sermons being nothing like Augustine's Writings nor is it likely that Augustine would have called Peter the Foundation of unmovable Faith or have made the sin of denying Christ exiguae culpae a small fault The words in the eighty sixth Epistle ad Casulanum are either deceitfully or ignorantly alleged they being not the words of Augustine but of Urbicus whom he refutes For so the words are Peter also saith he that is Urbicus the Head of Apostles the Door-keeper of Heaven and Foundation of the Church Simon being extinct who had been a Figure of the Devil not to be overcome but by Fasting taught the Romans that thing whose Faith is declared to the whole World of Lands The words of Augustine of whom Peter the Apostle by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship bore the person c. tract ultimo in Joannem being recited at large are so far from proving the Supremacy which Romanists ascribe to him that they are against the principal grounds by which they endeavour to prove it and therefore I will recite them at large This following Christ the Church doth blessed by hope in this sorrowfull life of which Church Peter the Apostle by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship bare the person by a figured generality For so much as pertains to him properly he was one man by nature by grace one Christian by more abundant grace one and the same first Apostle But when it was said to him To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth shall be bound also in Heavens and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed also in the Heavens he signified the whole Church which in this World is shaken with divers temptations as it were showres flouds and tempests and falls not because it is founded upon the Rock from whence Peter also took his name For the Rock is not called from Peter but Peter from the Rock Petrus a Petra as Christ is not called from a Christian but a Christian from Christ For therefore saith the Lord upon this Rock will I build my Church because Peter had said Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Therefore he saith Upon this Rock which thou hast confessed will I build my Church For Christ was the Rock upon which Foundation Peter himself also was built For no man can lay other Foundation besides that which is laid which is Christ Jesus The Church therefore which is founded on Christ received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens in Peter that is the power of binding and loosing sins For what the Church is by propriety in Christ that is by signification Peter in the Rock by which signification Christ is understood to be the Rock Peter the Church In which passage though there are conceits not right yet clear it is that Peter's primacy is here asserted to be onely in this that he represented the whole Church that the Rock on which it is built is Christ that he had his first Apostleship by more abundant grace in that he was made a figure of the whole Church to signifie its unity that in him the whole Church had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens that is the power of binding and loosing sins which points I presume the Romanists now will not avow That which he cites out of the council of Nice Can. 39. Arab. is but a late devised thing those Arabick canons being forged there having been but twenty in all in that council in the fifth of which number the Pope is equalled with other Patriarchs And the council of Chalcedon Act. 16. is falsly alleged as if it ascribed all primacy and chief honour of the Pope of Rome sith it makes the Pope and other Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction within their circuit or Province notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates and the flattery of some there and that preheminence which the Pope had was of order or place not of power nor that by divine institution for Peter's sake but by humane allowance by reason of the dignity of the City of Rome SECT VIII The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds after his fashion Objections solved Object Pilate had power over Christ himself Thou shouldest not saith he have any power against me unless it were given thee from above John 19. 11. therefore temporal Princes are above the Pope Which is strengthened by Christ's disclaiming a worldly Kingdom John 18. 36. saying Who made me a Judge over you Luke 12. 14. declining the being made a King John 6. 15. Answ I Distinguish your Antecedent he had a power of permission over Christ I grant a power of Jurisdiction I deny and so do all good Christians Nor is your Consequence less to be denied speaking of spiritual things and things belonging to Church-government in which we onely defend the Popes Supremacy and that without all prejudice to Princes and chief Magistrates in their Supremacy of temporal affairs I reply this Objection is most directly against the Popes Supremacy in temporal things which this Authour after Hart and sundry others seem not to allow the Pope though Carerius Baronius Bellarmine and others defend it places it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third of Lu. 22. 25. upon another occasion the strife of the Disciples at Christ's last Supper who of the Apostles should be the greater our Lord Christ doth expresly determine the Kings of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is have dominion over them aud they that rule over them are called Benefactours but you not so and in all these places in the vulgar Latin which the Papists are bound to follow it is Dominantur corum or eis potestatem exercent in eos or potestatem habent ipsorum or super eos in none of the places doth that Translation express the words as importing tyrannical rule according to their own will without respect to the good of the persons ruled and the translating of it by H. T. over-rule and noting that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as importing a forbidding onely to lord it over Inferiours is not right
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
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
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
39 and never to repair to the Church to be resolved in points of faith if H. T. say true How much doth he abase the credit of the Scripture who makes it to depend on mens for such is the Churches pretended infallibility report and ascribes it to Popes and Councils who do oft contradict themselves and one another which is onely to be had from God and his Word What is this but as in another case Tertullian said of the Roman Senates decreeing who should be worshipped as God God shall not be God unless man will so Gods Word shall not be his Word unless man will Which is so much the worse in H. T. who Art 8. ascribes that assurance to unwritten tradition of which there is no assurance but from men confessedly fallible as shall be shewed Art 8. which he denies to be from Scripture as if the obscure tradition of unknown persons from Age to Age were more certain than the great written tradition received from Apostles by the whole Church Besides how doth he reckon of all other besides Popes and Councils as if they were all idiots and fools that they can understand no Chapter of the Bible without the Pope who hath been sometimes altogether unlearned What Blockheads would he have men think themselves after all their study of Languages and Arts and of the Scripture that yet they cannot be certain what is the true sense and meaning of Matth. 4. Acts 8. or any other Chapter in the Bible unless the Church that is the Pope tell them Why do not all their Commentators and Preachers first ask the Pope of the meâ—ning of the Scripture afore they by writing or preaching take on them to expound it Why doth not the Pope forbid them to expound till they have consulted him Will â—e permiâ— them to teach that of which they have no infallible assurance Why doth he tie men to follow the consent of Fathers as Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull did if the Fathers yield no infallible assurance of the true meaning of any Chapter in the Bible without the Churches that is the Popes or his Councells infallibility How did it come to pass that the Fathers Chrysostome Hiâ—rome c. did so well expound the Scriptures as that their consent must be the Rule of modern Exposition Did they first consult the Church or the Church them Pope Damasus I believe had more help from Hierome to expound Scripture by than Hierome from Dâ—mâ—sus Have the Popes any better means to expound Scripture by than the Fathers or the Fathers than other learned men in these days Wherein did any of the Fathers exceed Cajetan Arias Montaâ—us and such learned Romanists or any of all the Popes after the Apostles days in ability to open Scripture Would not such men as these secretly disdain and smile in scorn if any should prefer any of the best Expoâ—itions of Popes before their own Will the Jansenians or Moliniâ—â—s think either the late Pope Innocent or the present Pope Alexander more infallible in their Eâ—positions than themselves I trow not so little is the pretended infallibility of the Church esteemed when it toucheth themselves however they make a great noise of it against Protestants yea some Papists have well preferred the Expositions of later Writers before the Fathers and Councils and Popes giving this for a Reason that later Writers have had more help in that they have had their own abilities and diligence to boot for finding the meaning of Scripture besides the Fathers Writings and may see farther than they did as a Childe set on a Giants shoulder as Banner did fitly express it Do not at this day the learned Expositors reject the Expositions of Fathers and Popes and Councils Doth not Maldonat the Jesuit expresly reject in his Commentâ—ry on John 6. 53. the Exposition of that Verse by which Pope Innocent Augustine and many of the Fathers following held the giving the Eucharist to Infants necessary to their salvation which the Council of Trenâ— it self doth condemn So sottish a conceit hath H. T. here vented that doubtless none but the ignorant sort of Popish Proselytes can believe him in if they do not resolve not to seem to see what they do see But were it granted that the Church were infallible I would fain know how H. T. can demonstrate who or which is that Church which is infallible or give assurance at this distance from Rome that this or that point of faith is thus determined by that infallible Church Will he make every Priest or Legate or Register of the Pope to be infallible If not let him tell me how he is infallibly assured that Pope Innocent the third or the Latâ—ran Council did define Transubstantiation or Pope Leo the tenth and the last Lateran Council the Popes Supremacy If he say by universal tradition or the Records which are kept and are to be seen and the agreement of opposite parties though in the points named there are none of these means which do give such assurance of those determinations as is given by them of the Scriptures sure me thinks H. T. who makes such determinations to be assuredly theirs upon such or the like Reasons of their credibility should yield that there is more assurance from these without the infallibility of the Church of the holy Scriptures being Gods Word and the true sense and meaning of it Will H. T. be more unbelieving than a Jew who acknowledgeth the Books of Moses the Psalms and Prophets to be Gods Word Will he not allow that to a Christian which the Jew had to wit assurâ—nce infallible from Micah 5. 2. that the Messiasâ—hould â—hould be born at Beâ—hlehem without the Churches infallibility Will H. T. think he can make such men as Arias Montanus or Cardinal Cajâ—tan and other learned Romanists believe that they are not certain of the Gospel of Matthew to be Gods Word or of the true sense and meaning of the third fourth fifth sixth seventh Chapters thereof without the Churches declaration Did they gather their Expositions out of Popes Decrees Canons of Councils or examine them by them Does not he know that in many places those and other learned men have interpreted Texts otherwise than Popes and Councils approved by him have expounded them Do not they know that such an attempt would be but an exposing of Popes and Councils to contempt and make their Canon Law appear â—idiculous What unmercifulness and carelesness of mens souls is there in Popes Councils Churches if they are infallible that in the space of sixteen hundred years they have not given us such a Commentary on the Bible as may take away all doubts from inquiring Christians about the true meaning of the Scripture and determine all controversies in points of faith Sure it 's fitter work than to enrich their kindred advance base sons give audience to Embassadours over-aw Princes and Emperours subdue the holy Land About which Popes and Councils have wasted a world of
blood and treasure when perhaps one Protestant or Popish commentator hath profitably illustrated the whole Bible Why doth H. T. with his collegues if they believe what he saith of the infallibility of the church to be true petition the Pope to do this or call a council and at last together do it To what purpose should any else but Popes and councils study the Scripture compare copies revise Translations examine Interpretation if there be no assurance in points of faith of the meaning of the Scripture without the churches infallibility But alas how far from infallibility Popes are and of all men the unfittest to do any thing in this kinde the shamefull disagreement between Pope Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth their Editions of the vulgar Latin Bible doth abundantly declare as may be seen in Dr. James his Bellum Papale whereby it may be perceived how miserably and perpetually the souls of Christians must fluctuate and be tossed up and down and at last drowned if they have no assurance of the meaning of Scripture but from this pretended infallibility of the church which is no better to stay a Soul than an anchor of cork to stay a ship I abhor therefore justly this blasphemous speech of H. T. whereby the souls of men must be brought to waver in faith if they receive it and not onely sinfull but also the weakest and worst of men for such they confess many of the Popes have been idolized by ascribing that to them which is proper onely to him who cannot be deceived nor deceive And I protest that should the Pope and his Consistory or general Council and all the Churches of the World conspire together to say that the Books of Moses the Prophets the Psalms of the four Evangelists Paul James Peter Jude and John are not the Word of God yet I am assured not onely by tradition of the Jews and Christians but also by the very confessions of Adversaries and chiefly by the matter of them which shews it self to come from God the Spirit of God giving me a discerning understanding thereof that they are the Word of God and that the meaning of them is in the main points of faith as the Articles of the Creed express concerning one God and one Lord his Incarnation Preaching Crucifying Death Resurrection Ascension coming to Judgement the holy Spirit the Church of God forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ Resurrection of the body and life eternal which I know by understanding the meaning of the words and thereby am assured that neither is the Popes Supremacy nor his and his Councils infallibility nor his power of granting Absolutions and Indulgences by his Bull nor the Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Flesh nor the worshipping of Images nor a Purgatory fire after Death in a part of Hell nor communion under one kinde nor Invocation of dead Saints and holy Angels nor Prayer in an unknown Tongue nor Justification by Works nor good Works meriting eternal life of condignity taught in them And if I did think I were to doubt of any of these Assertions I should turn Sceptick and doubt whether there were a Moses or David or Solomon or Mahomet whether I knew the meaning of their words yea whether there be such a City as Rome or Trent such a man as the Pope such a Council as the Tridentin such Canons as are said to be theirs or such a Creed as is said to be by Pope Pius the fourth required to be confessed by Romanists or that the meaning were as H. T. conceives in a word I should begin to doubt whether I hear what I hear should affirm any thing make any Confession of Faith but think my self to be in a Dream when I write talk eat drink hear or do any acts of a living waking man As for assurance of our salvation the denial of which H. T. counts an absurdity I am glad to read it and that thereby he gives some occasion to question whether he believes the Doctrine of the Trent Council Sess 6. chap. 9. That no man can know by certainty of Faith which cannot be false that he hath obtained the grace of God But for my part as I know that the Doctrine of the Romanists is inconsistent with it self when they teach that the Priests Absolution and ministring Sacraments doth give infallibly Grace and Remission of Sins and yet that a man cannot be certain with certainty of faith that he hatâ— obtained Grace So I am infâ—llibly assured without any Popes or Councils or Churches determination of my salvation through faith in Christ Jesus by the Spirit of adoption and hope to please God by faith in Christ though I reject Popes Councils Churches Decrees or Canons which are not from the holy Scripture but unwritten tradition or invention of men many of them being most foolish and ridiculous toys and abuses of Scripture more like Mahomeâ—'s Alcoran than the Oracles of God SECT VI. 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 cited by H. T. say it is but the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. August conâ— Epist Fund cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it H. T. hath one more Argument for his Delilah the Churches infallibility which is his fourth and last thus The Church hath a power from God to oblige all men under pain of Damnation to believe her in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith But she could not have such a Power from God unless she were infallible in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith Therefore she is infallible in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith The Major is proved by all those Texts above cited in the first and second Arguments as also by the Councils of all Ages which command all men under pain of Damnation to believe and subscribe to her Decrees and Definitions of Faith which hath accordingly been done by the Fathers and all true Believers The Minor is proved by reason because it were not consistent with the justice mercy or veracity of God to give a fallible and erring Judge such a power in things of that high consequence Answ 1. THe conclusion is still different from the tenet 2. The Major is denied and it is denied that the texts cited did prove it noâ— doth the practise of the councils putting anathema to their canons prove it For 1. It is not proved they did well in so doing except when their definitions agree with the holy Scriptures and when they do so they do not more then every believer may do whom they will not say to be infallible 2. Nor have all the Fathers or true believers subscribed to the decrees of councils and their definitions of faith nor do the Papists themselves subscribe to those they call general councils not to
is fundamental which God revealeth at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the divine authority revealing in respect of which the Authors who use the distinction acknowledge all fundamental likewise as Dr. Potter Chillingworth and others who make those articles of faith fundamental which in respect of the matter are necessary to salvation to be explicitly known and believed by all nor is it by them denied but if it be sufficiently proposed to us by the church as so revealed all that is revealed by God we are then bound to believe otherwise we should deny Gods infallibility and veracity But we deny the bare determination of the church that is a Pope Oâ—cumenical council or prelates to be a sufficient proposal without proof from Scripture or other demonstration that the revelation is divine 2. It is an idle inference which he makes that because Protestants grant the church doth not erre in fundamentals therefore the Roman church doth not erre or is infallible in fundamentals For that which we grant of the church is meant of other churches besides the Roman 3. It is idle that he chargeth Protestants with schism at least in revolting from the church for points not fundamental For he cannot prove the Protestants did or do revolt from the church but from the Roman court fashion nor that they revolted till they were driven out by excommunication and cruel persecution and could not enjoy communion without yeilding to sin nor that they revolted at all for those errors which are about points not fundamental but for the errors about points fundamental to wit one Mediator salvation by faith in him not by our own works c. 4. It is idle that he imputes to the Protestants uncharitableness for accusing Papists of Idolatry when their profession and worship is openly Idolatrous in their adoration of bread Images wooden crosses invocation of Saints deceased of Angels with other innumerable practises used and maintained by them about crosses reliques feasts of Saints Temples dedicated to them vows swearing Priests of them of which their own Liturgies Canons writers are undoubted witnesses 5. The framing of the Protestants objection by H. T. against the infallibility of the Pope or his council is idle sith it is urged by Protestants against them by shewing its errors even in fundamentals that Popes and councils approved by them have been heretical 6. His answer is much more idle in that it is not at all to the argument by him brought which in form is this That church which may erre in non-â—â—ndamentals is no infallible judge of controversies But the Roman church whether Pope or council by him approved may erre in non-fundamentals Ergo the Roman church is no infallible Judge of controversies Now in his answer there is neither denial of Major Minor nor conclusion but only a denial of the fit use of one term in the premises against which his own exception is but idle as hath been shewed yea and if there be no such distinction of fundamentals and non-fundamentals in points of faith the objection is more strong against them For then if it be proved that the Roman church errs in points of faith it errs in fundamentals if all points of faith be fundamental which will prove not only the fallibility but also the nullity of the Roman church and so H. T. will pull down what he endeavours to build up But H. T. goes on thus Ob. Those things only are fundamental which are absolutely necessary to salvation and every man is bound expliciâ—ly to know and believe Answ If this were true the Bible or written Word which you will have to be the onely rule of faith and Judge of controversies were not a fundamental for faith depends not essentially on writing but on hearing many were good Christians and saved before any of the new Scripture was written or received among them the first Gospel being not written till seven or eight years after the death of Christ I reply 1. This scribling is idle also in which that is brought in as Protestants objection against the infallible and supreme judicature of the Roman church in controversies of faith which is only an explication of one term they use in their dispute against the assertors of it 2. It is idle that he saith they will have the Bible or written Word to be the only Judge of controversies when some of them as Chillingworth whom he after names Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. p. 114. deny it properly to be the Judge of controversies but make it only the rule of faith or the rule to judge by yea p. 75. H. T. himself chargeth this on Chillingworth as if he had forgotten what he said p. 73. that right reason is the only Judge of controversies and others who term the Bible the Judge of controversies do not make it the only Judge but the Spirit of God by it and the teachers of the church and each believer for himself by it 3 It is idle again that he makes that an absurdity which they will not own when Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. p. 114. and some others do grant that the Bible or written Word is not a fundamental point of faith in their sence because if the matter of the Bible should be believed by one that never saw or heard of a Bible yet he should have a true faith to salvation And yet they make it necessary to be believed by all to whom it is made known 4. It is yet more idle that he gives that for a reason why it should be absurd to say the written Word is not fundamental to wit for faith depends not essentially on writing but on hearing which concludes it is not absurd For if faith depend not essentially on writing but on hearing which concludes it is not absurd For if faith depend not essentially on writing then is the written Word not fundamental for that is not fundamental without which faith may be 5. It is idle which he saith in opposing writing to hearing whereas faith may be by both and if he had spoken accurately he should have said not by seeing but by hearing or not by writing but by speaking 6. It is idle also and false that faith depends essentially on hearing For then it could never be that deaf men should believe for want of hearing 7. That which he adds to confirm it is as idle For though there were good Christians afore the Gospel was written yet it being written upon supposition there were no other means but writing to beget faith it would depend essentially on writing 8. This discourse of H. T. overthrows himself and his party For if faith depend essentially on hearing not on writing then they have not faith who read except they hear the infallible Judge whether Pope or council approved by him nor is the point of faith sufficiently proposed unlesse it be delivered viva voce and if so there is no Papist hath
private reason which faith often is inforced to captivate but into the authority of God revealing and the Church proposing I believe it saith Tertullian because it is impossible viz. to humane reason I reply 1. Chillingworth makes not reason the only Judge of controversies nor any Protestant therefore the conclusion is ill fathered on them 2. The reason of H. T. his denial of the consequence is insufficient For it supposeth the consequence to imply that our acts of faith are ultimately resolved into private reason and this private reason judging that onely to be true of which it conceives how it is possible But the truth is they that make reason the Judge of controversies neither resolve ultimately their acts of faith into private reason neither do they conceive they have reason to believe onely what they conceive how it is possible to humane reason but resolve their faith into Gods authority as the formal and ultimate reason of their believing and make their reason onely the means or instrument by which they finde that God hath revealed that which they believe not excluding their teachers credit and Churches example as a fit motive to hearken to it as a thing credible Which opinion is confirmed by this authors own words making faith an act of reason and discourse and approbation of reason alwayes a previous and necessary condition to it and therefore in all acts of faith even when it rests on the Churches Authority yet eachmans private reason is the Judge for himself discerning in controversies why he is to believe one and not another all the difference is the Papist thinks he hath reason to believe transubstantiation Popes supremacy c. because he takes the Church of Rome or Pope to be infallible The Protestant doth not believe them because the Scripture doth not say thus which alone he takes for an infallible rule to judge by in such controversies Whether Papists faith be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God revealing hath been before considered a little and will more in that which follows To Tertullians words I can return no answer till I know where to finde them As they are here cited they seem nor right Yet again saith H. T. Ob. There is no Apostolical tradition for the Churches infallibility Answ Yes a more universal one then for the Canon of the Scripture it self which notwithstanding you believe on that score if at all For there is not any one book either of the old or new Testament which hath not been rejected by some heretick or other if therefore it be a sufficient proof of an universal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture that some one or two general Councils have set down the number and names of all the books of Scripture though not without some variety and that the Fathers have given testimony to them some to some books some to others but few to all and that the Church in after ages hath accepted them for such how much more universal is the tradition for the Churches infallibility which is virtually decided and attested by the Anathema's and definitions of all the general Councils that ever were condemning all who did not humbly obey and subscribe to them every decision being attested by all the Fathers no one contradicting or condemning the stile and most unanimously accepted by the whole Church of after ages I reply the speech of H. T. here that there is a more universal Apostolical tradition for the Churches that is not only the Church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly Oecumenical that is to say call'd out of the whole world and approved by the Pope it's infallibility in definitions of faith then for the Canon of the Scriptures it self is so monstrously false and so pernicious as tending to the undermining of the fabrick of Christian Religion that it shews an impudent face and an impious heart in the assertor For 1. The tradition of the Canon of the old Testament is by the whole Nation of the Jews from Moses to Christ and from Christ and his Apostles who have testified that to them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 1 2. and this witnessed by the Jews unto the death and by the complement and events verifying it And though it be that some hereticks have been adversaries to the Law and Prophets yet scarce any but such as have been little better then phrenetick have denied it to be divine however they have conceived them not binding And for the Canon of the new Testament though some parts have been a little while somewhat doubted of in the second and third ages by some few yet the rest have had universal and undoubted tradition from the Apostles and Evangelists and primitive teachers who witnessed the truth of the doctrine by many evident undeniable divine miracles and by their martyrdome by which also in after ages many of the Fathers and other Christians gave testimony to it and since the Churches Greek and Latin Protestant and Popish Heretical and Orthodox in Asia Africa Europe have attested it as divine But for the Churches infalibility in that sense in which this Author means it how little hath been brought appears by the answer here made and that much may be said against it will appear by that which follows Yea I dare bodly say that as H. T. holds it no one Council or Father of esteeme held the Churches infallibility in the first thousand years from Christs incarnation and I think I may say for half a thousand more but many not onely of those who are reckoned for hereticks by Romanists but also such as have been judged Catholicks have opposed it in the second and third ages yea whole Nations Emperors Kings and states have opposed the definitions which the so termed Generals Councils approved by the Pope have made and many learned men have written against it none died for it in that time nor were any miracles wrought to confirme it Nor hath the questioning of some few of the books of Scripture either by some hereticks or a few Fathers for a while abated the credit of those parcels questioned in the Churches of Christ throughout the world So that if it were true that we believed the Canon as I know nothing but uncharitablenesse can make this Author question whether we do onely on that score as we do not yet we have far more abundant tradition for it then is for the Churches imagined infallibility 2. I say the Anathema's and definitions are neither formal nor virtual proofs of an universal tradition or attestation to the Churches infallibility For 1. p. 7. He confesseth in the second and third ages were no councils nor in the tenth in which any controversies of moment were decided p. 25. and therefore here this universal tradition fails 2. Those that were not approved by the Popes but rejected by them and those which were not Oecumenical have not used such Anathema's
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
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
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
faith but he onely who hears the Pope speak by word of mouth from his chair or a council approved by him speak with audible voyce the reading of the Trent canons or the Popes Bull is not sufficient to beget faith much less the hearing a Priest or Prelate tell us their determination By which it may appear that if H. T. his dictates hold then there is neither church nor faith among the greatest part of Papists 9. All this discourse is idle because Papists themselves do grant in effect the distinction he excepts against and his own words do in a manner confesse it is right as the objectors explain it and therefore in this is but a meer humour of quarrelling as having a minde to say somewhat against Mr. Chillingworth and Dr. Potter the Lord Falkland and Dr. Hammond who have fully beaten them out of this their last hold of the infallibility of the Roman church which they would fain have fortified being unable to keep the field in the several points of controversie between us and them H. T. goes on thus Ob. In Gregory the greats time the discipline and doctrine of the Church was altered and corrupted Ans That cannot be for from Gregory the greats time to this day even the least substantial part of either hath not been lost or changed as is visible in all the councils liturgies and constitutions of the Church I reply this is so notoriouslly false and the contrary so fully demonstrated even out of the confessions of Popish writers themselves and in the points of the Popes supremacy out of Gregory himself l. 4. Epist 32 34 38 39. in the point of worshipping of Images in his Epistle to Serenus and in other points by Bishop Morton in his first book of the Protestants appeal against Brerely his Apology that were not this Author resolved to out-face the most manifest verities against the now Roman tenents he would never have vented so grosse a falshood The very confessions of Popes the decrees of reformation even in the Trent council prove the contrary to what H. T. saith Claudius Espentaeus com in 2 Tim. c. 4. digres 21. confesseth that toyes and lyes were in almost all their portesses And if there were no more to prove this Author an egregious lyar yet this is enough which is apparent to all the world that they have had councils opposing councils about the superiority of a Pope above a council since the time of Gregory the great and even in their Miffals and Bibles many things have been changed and purged Clemens the eighth hath altered many things in Sixtus the fifth his Bible and thereby shewed how corruptions have crept into their own authentick translation H. T. adds Object That which may happen to any one particular man or Church may happen to all but it may happen to any one particular man or Church to erre in faith therefore to all Answ I distinguish the first proposition that which may happen to one may happen to all in a divisive sense I grant in a collective I deny and granting the second proposition I deny the consequence for it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense and is as equivocal as this That which may happen to any one egge in the Parish may happen to all But it may happen to any one egge in the Parish to go into your mouth at once therefore it may happen to all the eggs in the Parish to go into your mouth at once I reply I know not whose argument this is Dr. Rainold in his Thesis saith thus but it may happen to every Church which may happen to any certainly what happened to the Church of Jerusalem which had much more ample promises then ever the Church of any City As it is formed by this Author I think the Major is not universally true but being formed thus that error which may be in each man and church singly and it 's not assured shall be removed from them met together may happen to them so met But error in faith may be in each man and Church singly and it 's not assured to be removed from them met together therefore error in faith may happen to them so met The Major is I conceive without question The Minor consists of two parts 1. That all men and Churches singly or severally may erre in faith I think will not be denied That the Popes as private Doctors may erre in faith it 's not denyed by the stiffest assertors of the Popes infallibility That any particular Church also even the Roman may erre it 's not denied the infallibility which H. T. would have to belong to it is as Catholick and this must be when the whole Church diffused over the world unanimously teach a point of faith or it 's representative in a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope 2. That to none of these is such infallibility assured which is proved in that there is no promise of such infallibility to any of them The texts urged by H. T. in this article yeild not that promise nor that text Mat. 18. 20. For 1. Christ may be in the midst of men and yet they not infallible He walks in the midst of the Churches Revel 2. 1. yet they might and did erre in faith So God hath promised inhabitation to every true believer and walking with them 2 Cor. 6. 16. and yet they were not infallible 2. If infallibility were there promised it was promised to two or three gathered in Christs name and so to a Church neither collectively nor representatively Catholick 3. The promise is but conditional upon supposition of being gathered together in Christs name which whether any council be it is uncertain to us As for H. T. his distinction and application they seem to me to savour of unskilfulnesse in the meaning of Logick terms A proposition is true in a divided sense which is not true in a compound when the predicate agrees to the subject considered as at different times upon an alteration as when it is said the blind see the deaf hear the dumb speak this is not true in a compound sense that at the same time that persons are blind deaf dumb they see hear speak but in a divided sense But the Major proposition as set down in the objection is understood of the same time without alteration And so it is not true that it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense Nor is there any consequence in the proposition as he unskilfully speaks but the proposition is a simple or categorical proposition As for his similitude of eating eggs they may be kept for his breakfast as now being unseasonable But he proceeds Object The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the Church Answ True the Church was to depend on them as on the first masters and proposers of faith who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance
to discover the truth And though it be that Councils may be and have been usefull when good choice hath been made of persons and undue practises to mis-lead and over-aw them have been removed yet as Nazianzen in his five and fiftieth Epistle ad Procopium complained that he knew no good issue of them so he that shall examine the cariage of things in Councils even the best of them since the Apostles days will finde reason not to take any thing from them on trust meerly by reason of their authority and for the Councils which have been above a thousand years by reason of the activity and prevalency of Factions and the unlearnedness of most of the Bishops in them will find more reason to be jealous of what Councils have determined them to acquiesce in them Nor will it follow that if this judgement be allowed to every private man then all or any Heresies whatsoever have been good and sound Doctrine but that those who have pretended Reason and Scripture have abused both Nor is H. T. his Reason of force because Hereticks pretend to reason and Scripture therefore every one is not to judge for himself and all Heresies were sound Doctrine any more than than this cavillers pretend Law and Reason therefore Judges that use their knowledge in the Law and their Reason in passing Sentence do justifie cavillers or determin no better then cavillers Were the Churches authority infallible hereticks might and did pretend to it's authority and Apostolick tradition and therefore notwithstanding these yet heresie may be taken for sound doctrine as well as if private reason be made a Judge for each ones self yea many heresies have alledged unwritten tradition and have had some council or other perhaps more and more numerous to patronize them then the Orthodox so that I may say setting aside the holy Scripture which is now the rule by which to determine what is error what not neither the Churches authority nor unwritten tradition can prove a point to be heresie or extirpate it but rather propagate and establish error as by experience is manifest there being never more heresies established and propagated by any one or more private mens following their reason then have been by the Popes and Councils supposed to be Oecumenical and infallible nor is there any greater cause of erring then the confidence of infallibility nor any error so fast rooted as that which is decreed by men that will confesse no error As for those heresies which he reckons as unanswerable by humane reason if he mean they are unanswerable by humane reason how or in what manner the things opposed by them are it is granted but of this Mr. Chillingworth doth not make humane reason Judge if any humane reason cannot comprehend how a thing should be nor can answer all objections yet if it judge that God hath revealed it is so it is to believe it even as Mary was to believe her having a son though she knew not how Luk. 1. 34. That which each mans reason is to judge is not how a thing can be which God hath revealed is or shall be but whether it be so revealed and this he is to do not by a blind assent to what the Church or his teachers say but by searching as the Beraeans did Act. 17. 11. with Gods approbation even when Paul preached to them the Scriptures whether they say right And if the Scripture say the contrary to what those named hereticks say then are their tenents to be rejected of which each persons reason is to judge for himself he being to be saved or damned according to his own faith if not the determination of councils against it is not to be received And this manner of judging by reason will neither promote herefie nor Atheism but on the contrary if the Popes Councils Churches determination be counted infallible it will perpetuate an error if once received as too much woful experience shews in the Roman Papacy wherein the error of transubstantiation though it be such as is so contrary to Scripture reason sense Fathers that a man unprejudiced would think them meer mad men or phrenetick persons who hold it yet it is by Papists maintained I dare hardly say by the learned believed most obstinately and furiously to this day Finally saith H. T. because if private reason were the onely Judge of controversies it would evidently follow the general councils of all former ages which have commanded all persons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions and submit to their decrees were the most tyrannical and unjust assemblies that ever were in usurping such a power over mens consciences and consequently that there neither is nor ever was any such thing on earth as a Church or obliging guide in matters of faith and Church Government I reply though Mr. Chillingworth say not private reason to be the onely Judge of controversies nor denies the Church or Council to be Judge of controversies but only the infallibility of them yet if he did say either neither of these things would follow which H. T. makes consequent thereon For notwithstanding such saying he might deem councils to have followed Scripture and therefore not unjust in those commands and that there was a Church and Church government obliging men in matters of faith though not by vertue of their own authority yet by vertue of Gods revelation in the holy Scriptures Neverthelesse if I may be allowed to speak my judgement freely I do think that if not all yet most of the Councils termed general have been for more then one hundred years too unjust and tyrannical in their commands usurping the words of the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. 28. too arrogantly as if their authority were equal to the Apostles and imposing on mens consciences burdens too intolerable and that this hath been a most pernicious engine of Satan to cause divisions and mischiefs in the Church of Christ And certainly if any have followed humane reason and a private spirit in deciding controversies of faith and judging matters of religion they have been Popes and the Councils approved by Popes who do almost in every thing in some things expressely forsake the Scripture and adhere to their own reason in their Canons and Decrees and Papists who receive their determinations do forsake the guidance of Gods Spirit and follow humane reason and a private spirit H. T saith further Ob. Your therefore believe the Church to be infallible and whatever else you believe because you judge it reasonable to believe it and your very act of faith it self is an act of reason therefore reason is the only Judge of controversies Answ The discourse and approbation of reason is alwayes a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason not discoursing but simply assenting All this I grant yes I deny your consequence because our acts of faith are not ultimately resolved into
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
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
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-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