God Acts 20. 26 27. and elsewhere Ergo. 10. If there were many Saints and Martyrs acknowledged even by the Romanists to be such who did not hold communion with the Bishop of Rome so as to own him to be supreme visible head of the whole church but did oppose him and lived and died in that opposition and yet were in the church of God then they who hold not communion with the See of Rome may be the true church of God But the antecedent is true in Cyprian Augustine and many more opposing the Bishop of Rome about rebaptization appeals from Africa keeping Easter therefore either they must be unsainted or else it must be yielded that persons who are not now in communion with the See of Rome may be true churches of God I need not insist any longer in proving the falsity of a tenet so palpably absurd and demonstrated to be so by Bishop Mortan in his Grand Imposture of the Roman Church and by others elsewhere Let 's view H. T. his proof SECT IV. The succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church THat saith he is the onely true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other is the true church of God For proof of the major he alledgeth Isa 59. 21. 60. 1 3 11. 62. 6. Ezech. 3. 26. Dan. 7. 13 14. Matth. 28. 20. John 14 16. Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. Answ The succession he means is expressed p. 45. to be a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith This succession may be either in the same place or some place or other indefinite and it may be said to be continued without the least interruption for the smallest space of time or so continued that in each age or century there hath been such a succession though with some intermission The succession in the profession of the same faith may be either universal in every point or limited to fundamentals The succession may be said to be continued either so conspicuously as that there is an Assembly of that people in each age which any Christians in any part of the world did or might know as they do the Commonwealth of the Venetians or Kingdom of France oâ— as heretofore the Roman Commonwealth was known or else obscurely so as to be known onely to themselves and some near neighbors The proof of this succession may be conceived to be out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments extant expressing persons and their faith or else it may be conjectured from some more obscure intimations This Author I conceive from many passages following understands his major here thus That is the onely true Church of God which has had in the same place a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time without interruption any notable time in any age of a number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith not onely in fundamentals but in other points also so conspicuously that all Christians did or might know it as the Roman Empire French Kingdom or Venetian Republique may be known and this to be proved out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments expressing the persons and their faith For such a succession this Author would have necessary to a true church which he imagines may be proved to be in the Roman church and no other But in this sense his Proposition is most false and no whit proved out of the Texts he produceth and nullifies the Roman church it self which he indeavours so much to magnifie as to make it to be the onely true church of God In opposition thereto I say 1. There may be a true church of God where there are no Bishops or Priests at all Which I prove 1. From Acts 14. 23. where it is said that Barnabas and Paul after they had gathered the churches they returned to them and ordained Elders in every Church which supposeth they were churches sometime afore they had Elders ordained for them therefore it follows there may be a true church without Bishops Priests or Elders sith those churches were such afore they had them 2. From the definition of a true church That is a true church which hath the definition of a true church H. T. confesseth often this Proposition to be true But a number of believers in Christ who have no Elders or Priests or Bishops hath the definition of a true church Ergo The minor is proved from the received definitions Bellarm. Tom. 2. Controv. l. de Eccles milit c. 1. Ecclesia est evocatio sive caetus vocatorum the church is the company of the called out and other Authors speak conformably But there may be a caâ—ling out or a company of persons called out though they have no Bishops or Priests therefore they may be a ture church of God 3. That company which hath the essential parts of a true church is a true church of God But a number of believers professing the faith of Christ hath the essential parts of a true church They are the matter of a church in that they are men the form is faith or the profession of it no other thing can be rightly assigned to be essential as constitutive of a true church their governours order special gifts and other things tending to their well-being are common accidents which may be or not be and yet the church remain a true church Therefore a number of believers professing the true faith of Christ without Bishops is a true church of God 2. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters whom H. T. terms Priests For 1. There are many Fathers and popish Writers who make them but one Order at first Lumbard senâ—ent l. 4. distinct 24. Apud vcteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt The Antients took Bishops and Priests for the same therefore with them there were churches in which were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters 2. Where there were two Orders yet they were not so necessary but that the church may be without them otherwise in the vacancy of the Episcopal See which hath in Rome it self been sometimes some years together often many moneths and days the church should cease to be a true church of God for then it would follow that in such vacancies the Roman church did cease to be 3. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a profession of the same faith in every point for then the Roman church should not be a true church
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it
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
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
men which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests against Gods allowance and the practice of former ages The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches who though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants As for the Nations converted Scots French the Martyrs of Africa which he mentions it is not shewed that either they were converted by any from Rome or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years within which he included his Demonstration which were better than the later though not without their corruptions I proceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following SECT IX The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in the sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Ages is shewed H. T. in his catalogue from the year of Christ 500. reckons up thirteen chief Pastors one general Council the second Constantinopolitan Pope Vigilius prefiding Fathers 165. An. Dom 553. against Anthimius and Theodore but Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 1. de concil c. 19. that Eutychius of Constantinople was President there though Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople As for that which Bellarmine cites out of Zonaras in the life of Justinian he cites it maimedly For Zonaras said not that onely Vigilius was Prince of the Bishops who were present but with him Eutychius of Constantinople and Apollinaris of Alexandria What H. T. mentions of the definitions of the council is nothing against the protestants nor for the Papacy That which he allegeth out of the third council of Carthage is disorderly placed in the sixth age it being held as is said in the year 397. and is of doubtfull credit sith it mentions Pope Boniface as then living though he sat not according to Onuphrius till the year 419. but it matters not what it was sith it was but a provincial Synod and of the canons cited by H. T. the first is onely about a point not of Faith concerning the celebrating the Mass Fasting the other which terms the Apocryphal books as canonical may be expounded according to Hierom's distinction that they are canonical to form manners not to inform faith Yet this may be observed by the way that the six and twentieth Canon of the third Council of Carthage which was authorized by the sixth general council holden at Constantinople in Trullo as it is alleged by Gratian in the Decrees dist 99. de primatibus and by Pope Pelagius approved denies to any the title of Chief Priest or Prince of Priests but alows onely this Title Bishop of the first See whereupon the Gloss saith that even the Bishop of Rome was not to be called the Universal Bishop The determination of the Council of Mileris about Childrens Baptism is disorderly placed in the sixth age being said to be held in the year 402. and being no general council about a point not gainsaid by most protestants is impertinent to prove a succession of assertors of the Roman Doctrine opposite to the protestants That which he allegeth out of the Caesar Augustan Council which decreed that Virgins should not be vailed till after forty years probation makes against the Papists who in the Trent council allow it sooner and practise the vasting of them afore they are twenty years old That which he adds of Pope John the first his Decree that Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it because it is written See thou offer not thy holocausts in every place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. shews the Popes ignorance or Judaism who applies this to the Mass which was meant of Jewish sacrificing in the Levitical Law and makes the Mass to be an offering of an holocaust and every place consecrated by a bishop the place that God chooseth and also the vanity of this Scribler who puts in his catalogue such an impertinent testimony to prove a succession of the assertors of the Roman faith which I scarce think any sober papist would make any part of his faith against protestants nor do I think the papists in England would be content to be tied to that Law In that which he adds of Catholick Professors to the year 600. he doth not shew that they acknowledged the bishop of Rome's supremacy or the now Roman faith Yea Columbanus in this age and after Aidanus Colmannus and others lived and died in opposition to the Romans about Easter That Austin the Monk converted England is onely true of some part of it and it is true also that he did in many things pervert them and it is said he was an instigator of the murder of many British Christians better than himself but that either he or Pope Gregory that sent him held the same supremacy of the pope which now popes claim or the now Roman faith opposite to the protestants cannot be shewed On the contrary it is manifest enough that Gregory the great refused the Title of Universal Bishop as profane and sacrilegious and accounted the assumer of it to be a fore-runner of Antichrist lib 4. epist 32 34 36 38 39. lib. 6. epist 30. he allowed not Worship of Images in his Epistle to Serenus bishop of Marseiles he allowed priests wives nor did tie men to follow the order of the Roman church which shews the popes then not to have been altogether so bad as in the next age In which and throughout the rest of his Catalogue he can hardly shew a Pope that lived either the life of a Christian or did the Office of a pastour of the church of God if any sure not many but in stead of Christian pastours a generation of men of an ambitious and luxurious spirit contending with Emperours and Bishops for worldly greatness persecuting godly Christians living in pomp riot and all kinde of wickedness are set down as chief pastours of the universal church In the seventh age he reckons up nineteen Popes whom he terms chief Pastors of them the second is Boniface the third who obtained of Phocas the Emperor who by treason had gotten the Empire slaying his Lord Mauritius and his children the title of universal Bishop detested before by Gregory the great as profane and sacrilegious and Honorius the first is the fifth condemned in the third Constantinopolitan Council in which H. T. saith there were Fathers two hundred eighty nine Pope Agatho presiding Anno Domini 680. against the Monothelites and that in it were condemned Sergius Paulus Petrus Cyrus and Theodore who most impiously taught but one
hands the thing that was good that he might have to give to him that needs and how they should be called a holy order who were like to the institutors but never appointed by God I understand not Many learned men in those daies demonstrated them to be no holy orders but a company of men that promoted the Popes usurpations and injuries to the great mischief of the Commonwealths and Churches of Christians Of the Nations converted the Emperour Cassanes with innumerable Tartarians were not converted by the Church of Rome nor owned the Popes supremacy or faith and therefore are no witnesses for the Papacy In the fourteenth age ten Popes are set down of whom most â—â—te at Avignon in France and so could not be Pastors of the Church of Rome one is Clement the fifth who chained Francis Dandalus the Venetian Ambassador under his table to feed with dogs and lost at the pomp of his Coronation out of his mitre a carbuncle valued at six thousand â—â—orens Another John the twenty one by others John the twenty second whom Bellarmin de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 14. confesseth to have thought that the souls should not see God till after the resurrection though he adds a cold excuse as if he might so think then without danger of heresie because no definition of the Church proceded which is not true if he say rightly himself l. 1. de eccl triumph c. 2. that the same that is that the souls see God afore the resurrection teacheth Innocent the third who was one hundred years before John the twenty one by H. T. his account c. Apostolicam extra de Presbytero non Baptizatâ— However if there were no definition it proves a Pope may teach heresie sith John the twenty second did earnestly press this on the Parisians that they should believe as he did Of the rest their unpeaceableness in their contention with the Emperor and among themselves in their Schisms in which one Pope was set up against another divers Popes at the same time one owned by one another by another makes the succession so uncertain that even the Romanists disagree in the succession some putting in Clement the seventh in this age whom H. T. leaves out some standing for one some for others as the right Popes Besides their cruelty and covetousness pâ—ove them rather Butchers than Pastors of the Church of Christ H. T. adds one general Council of Vienna Fathers three hundred Pope Clement the fifth presiding Anno Domini 1311. in which he tells us the Council defined baptism to be necessary for infants condemned the Begards and Beguines who held carnal lust done out of temptation to be no sin and that we ought not to shew reverence at the elevation of the body of Christ which last alone is against Protestants in common But the Council whether provincial or general being swayed by a proud prelate Clement the fifth it s no marvel it should make such decrees as then were made As for the Catholick Professors there is scarce a man of any note but Iro a Canonist whose profession will be of little weight with considerate men That an Emperour of Russia if made a Christian did embrace the Romish Religion and submit to the Pope is not likely The rest of the Nations converted H. T. proves not to have been converted from Rome or to have held communion with the Pope if they did it avails little to prove H. T. his Minor that such rude people did so SECT XII The defect of H. T. his Catalogue in the fiftenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed IN the fifteenth Age he reckons up thirteen Popes as chief Pastours in which number he leaves out Benedict the thirteenth though reckoned by others who with Gregory the twelfth upheld a Schism of three Popes together till they with John 22. or 23. for divers intolerable villanies were deposed as Eugenius the fourth was after at the Council of Basil of the rest scarce any of worth besides Pius the second whose Writings remain under the name of Aeneas Sylvius and the last is Alexander the sixth Roderique Borgia who with his son Caesar Borgia were so infamous for poysonings covetousness and uncleanness of body that Rome though the sink of wickedness yet yielded few or none worse in any Age. H. T. tells us of two general Councils that of Constance Anno 1415. against John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague Pope John the two and twentieth and Martin the fifth presiding but the main end of its calling by Sigismund the Emperour was the composing of the Troubles by three Popes together whom it deposed and decreed the Council to be above the Pope which is against the now Roman faith It is true also that they condemned sundry Articles of John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague whereof some were most falsely ascribed to them as the Works of John Wickliff and other testimonies do shew And notwithstanding the safe conduct given by Sigismund the Emperour to the perpetual infamy of the popish party they judged he was to deliver John Hus to be burned Sess 19. whereupon the Emperours solemn faith was broken and thereupon they were burned and Wickliffs bones as they imagined forty years after his death were digged up and burned in England and a most impious Decree made that notwithstanding Christ 's institution and administring in both kindes and in the primitive Church it were received by the faithfull in both kindes yet the custom was confirmed of receiving in one and the requiring it in both judged an errour and it was forbidden to be given the people in both kindes Sess 13. The other Council H. T. mentions is the Council of Florence Fathers 145. Pope Eugenius presiding Anno 1439. against many Heresies which defined Pugatory the Popes headship Transubstantiation the Apocryphal books canonical the Grecians Jacobites Armenians and Patriarch of Constantinople subscribing this Council and being reconciled to the church of Rome But this Council however it hath a shew of great authority by reason of the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other of the Eastern Christian churches yet indeed it was of no authority it being gotten together by a Factioâ— in opposition to the Council of Basil which was decreed by Pope Martin the fifth to be ten years after the Council of Constance and the end of it was to divert the Fathers of the Council of Basil from deposing Eugenius the fourth from his Popedom which nevertheless they did for his ill Government and chose Amadeus Duke of Savoy who was named Felix the fifth who is omitted therefore by H. T. though by others counted the lawfull Pope but H. T. thought it best to omit him and the Council of Basil which together with the Council of Constance had determined that a general Council was above the Pope and were not bound to obey him but might depose him as the French churches yet to this day do hold so that they who are termed
preach the Gospel to every creature nor were they successors to them in their Apostleship for that particular office ceased with the first Apostles So that the truth is this conceit of succession is but a vain conceit though it be much magnified by H. T. and other Romanists for want of solid proof of their several doctrins out of Scripture or primitive antiquity I go on to the next Article ARTIC III. Popish Church visibility not necessary Such visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church SECT 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God hath had not onely a continued but also a visible Succession from Christ to this time c. which we prove thus 1. A Society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers preaching baptizing and administring Sacraments must of necessity be always visible But the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministere Therefore the Church of Christ must of necessity be always visible The Major is proved by evident reason because those are all outward and sensible actions which are inconsistent with an invisible society of actors The Minor is proved by Scripture Go ye teaching all Nations baptizing them c. And Behold I am with you all days c. St. Matth. 28. v. 20. He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints Ephes 4. 11 12. Answ THe Tenet and the Conclusion of the Argument differ the Tenet asserting what hath been the Conclusion what of necessity must be the Tenet having for its Subject the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of God the Conclusion the Church of Christ indefinite and both Tenet and Conclusion is granted but not in this Author's and other Romanists sense It is granted there hath been a Succession but not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith meaning the now Roman from Christ and his Apostles to this time which H. T. in the former Article makes the Definition of Succession And visibility of each particular Church is granted but not of the Catholick as Catholick which as such is to be believed not seen And this visibility it is granted to be of some at some times not in the same splendor or conspicuity at all times nor to all persons But Protestants deny it visible always to all in so glorious and conspicuous an estate as Bellarmine asserts when he saith in his Book de Eccles Milit. cap. 2. That the Church is an Assembly of men so visible and palpable as is the Assembly of the People of Rome or the Kingdom of France or the Common-wealth of the Venetians so that we might grant his Tenet and Conclusion were it not that fraudulently there is more intended than is expressed which is needfull to be discovered For answer to it as it is the Major is granted if it be understood of visibility simply but if meant of such a conspicuous visibility as the Romanists assert it is to be denied In the Minor it is to be observed 1. That a distinction is made between exterior Consecration and Ordination which I judge to be done that thereby may be implied the distinction of Bishops who are consecrated not ordained from Presbyters whom they ordain not consecrate to have been always in the Church of Christ which is not right 2. That it is asserted that the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers which is because he holds a true Church hath always such Ministers But as I said before that is not true no not in the Church of Rome in the vacancy of the See which hath been sometimes long and therefore it is not necessary to the being of a true Church that always the exterior Consecration and Ordination be continued and if it may be intermitted one two or ten years and yet the Church a true Church it may be an hundred and therefore the Minor is not to be granted if meant of exterior Consecration and Ordination of Bishops distinct from Presbyters and such a perpetuity as is without the least intermission nor do any of the Texts prove it For the Precept Matth. 28. 19 20. proves onely it ought to be not that it shall be and the Promise if it do prove that a Succession shall be yet it doth not prove such a Succession as shall have exterior Consecration and Ordination but such assistance in Preaching and Baptizing as shall uphold and prosper them in that Work nor is this assured to any one place but indefinitely to any persons in any place where this Work shall be continued And the other place Ephes 4. 11 12. proves not a certainty of the event which is asserted in the Minor but if the Gift be meant of Institution of what ouâ—ht to be it notes onely a certainty of Duty if of Donation of Abilities it notes not an exterior Consecration and Ordination but an act to be immediately from Christ himself or by his Spirit and so doth not prove a futurity of such Succession by outward Consecration and Ordination as H. T. brings it for Nevertheless this Author doth disadvantage his own party by this argâ—ing For 1. by this arguing he plainly makes the marks of the Church by which it is visible Preaching Baptizing and administring Sacraments which doth by good consequence infer that the Protestants do rightly make the Preaching of the Word and the administring of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church which will make well for the Protestants by whom these are observed but ill for the Ministers of the Roman Church chiefly the Bishops of Rome who neither preach nor baptize nor administer Sacraments but do other acts of other kindes Nor to speak truth is almost any of their Preaching the Preaching of the Gospel but the Rites of the Roman Church extolling the Virgin Mary and other Saints excellency little of the Gospel or if any part of it it is likely the History of the Gospel in an historical fashion little of the mystery but in stead thereof such Doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin merit of good works are preached as do overthrow the Gospel And for Baptizing though Bellarmine tells us lib. 2. de bonis oper in partic cap. 17. that at Rome the old Custome is not abolished of Baptizing the Catechumeni at Easter but among the Papists chiefly in the City of Rome there is no year in which many catechized persons are not baptized at Easter yet the truth is there is
who are more justly to be accounted Protestants in respect of the doctrine they taught then Papists whom they falsly call Catholicks 3. It is not denied that Socrates l. 7. hist c. 17. mentions a miracle of Paul a Novatian Bishop and Augustin tract 13. on John and de unit Eccles c. 16. denies not that the Donatists alleged miracles and he calls them by contempt Mirabiliarios and judged that the Church was to be judged by Scripture and the miracles by the Church as Bellarm confesseth de notis Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. 4. Those that are said to be done by persons of the Catholick Church for the first five hundred years were not done by persons that held the now Romish doctrine or in confirmation of it or the verity of the now Roman Church 5. All the rest in all the ages following are of none or very small credit Gregory the great is himself judged by Romanists to have been too credulous of tales those Dialogues which are said to be his in which are related some of the miracles which the Papists rely on being either none of his or shewing too much credulity in him the rest of the miracles in the legends are so ridiculous fopperies as even discreet Papists themselves have discredited Dr. Rainold Conf. with Hart ch 8. divis 2. allegeth Canus as in general excepting against the reports of miracles even by grave ancient learned holy Fathers loc Theol. l. 11. c. 6. and particularly against Gregories Dialogues and Bedes history and the very Portesse as having uncertain forged false and frivolous things in them about Francis and Dominick and he shews that Pope Gelasius and a council of seventy Bishops with him condemned many false stories which were rehearsed in the Roman Portesses if Espencaeus Comment in 2. Epist ad Tim. c. 4. digress 21. be to be believed The two pretended miracles which this Author hath chosen for instance have nothing like divine miracles or truth The miracles of Christ and his Apostles were such as were done openly in the sight of all so as they could not be denied but even adversaries confessed them these were things only in private so as that there might be some device used to delude the sight or might be fancied to be so by some doating persons or might be by the illusion of Satan which is not improbable to have been used in them there being great cause to conceive that in those dayes of darknesse by seeming wonders apparitions visions prophecies Satan promoted the worship of Saints especially of the Virgin Mary the opinion of purgatory prayer for the dead worship of reliques by which Idolatry and superstition grew among Christians about and after the time of the second Nicenâ— Synod Nor is there any likelihood that the wounds of Francis should appear fifteen dayes afore death in which time he was likely covered and not after his death in which his body being naked they might have been more visible were not the time afore death more convenient for the imposture And the like may be said of the other tale What likelihood is there that a man should venture his life to steale two pieces of bread or little water cakes or that a Jew should buy one or do such an act before witnesses which would bring so much evil on him the thing seems more likely to have been a devised tale to pick a quarrel with the Jews as it was in those dayes usual for a pretence to get their goods as it had been done to the Templars Sure there was no justice to burn thirty eight for the fact of one much lesse to banish all Jews thence And why was nothing done to Paul Form either it was therefore a meeâ— fiction like one of those in Sir John Mandevils travailes or else a device to stiâ— up rage against the Jews that they might prey on their goods 6. Were it yeilded as it is not that there was truth in these relations yet the most that can be collected is that God would vindicate Francis from some ill opinions or reports of him not that he might be extolled as Horatius Turselin in his blasphemous Epigram did as if he were comparable with Christ or that either the Popes supremacy or the order of Friers or the verity of the doctrine of the Roman Church then much lesse the truth of the present Roman Church should be confirmed Nor if the other accident were true doth it follow that God would thereby confirm the opinion of transubstantiation but the verity of Christs being the Son of God and we may more justly answer concerning iâ— then Bellarmin doth concerning the miracle of the Novatian Bishop that it was done not to confirm the Novatian faith but Catholick baptism so the other was done not to confirm the Popish opinion of transubstantiation but the Christian doctrine of the man Christ his being the Son of God H. T. adds notwithstanding this confession of adversaries I will also all some Fathers of whose relations of miracles it is not worth while to consider whether they were true or not there being not one of them that proves this point that the Church which wants miracles is not the true Church or that the present Roman doctrine or Church are the true doctrine or Church That which Cyprian and Optatus relate if true did only vindicate the Lords Supper from contempt that of Gregory Thaumaturgus whether it were so or onely a report of which good men were sometimes too credulous it proves not the truth of the Roman Church but rather if any of the Greek Church which owned not the Popes supremacy nor their doctrines in that age Much less is that which he brings out of Chrysostom concerning the reliques of Babylas for his purpose sith it is expresly said to have proved against infidels that Christ was the Son of God and the Idols of the Gentiles were vain things which no more proves the truth of the Roman then of the Protestant Churches nor so much as of the Greek Churches who hold the same That of Ambrose concerning his brother Satyrus proves not transubstantiation but rather the contrary sith Satyrus adored not the Eucharist when he kept it and that he did keep him from drowning was but a conjecture nor is it proved that God by that accident approved his superstition though he might reward his faith and love of which that was a sign What Augustin l. 22. de civit Dei c. 8. writes of things done in his time are not undoubted sith some of them are related upon the report of one or more not very judicious who might enlarge things beyond truth espâ—cially when the custome was of reading the relations to the people and they were pressed in conscience to divulge them as there Augustin saith was done by him and it seemed so much for advantage of Christian Religion some of them might be by medicines working beyond expectation though attributed as the fashion is to that which was last
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
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by