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
which Paul counts himself a Master-builder that built not on Peter 's foundation or any others Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel and consequently the building of the Church Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel 3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows that the building of the Church is by Doctrine and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it not of Rule or Dominion Yea the Council of Trent it self Sess 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and thereby intimates the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine 4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire No where is a Prince said to edifie but Prophets Apostles and other Teachers nor is Excommunication Ordination calling of Councils and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification but teaching and reproving 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church Matth. 16. 18. 5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter but of what Christ would do by him and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power but of singular work 6. The end of the power which the Pope claims is for the exalting of himself and his visible Monarchy but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter but the use of him for setting up his Church The Popes power is as all experience witnesseth for the destruction of the Church not for edification and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18. If any say How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him I answer in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching as Acts 2. 3. 4. 10. appears and seems to be observed by Peter as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other though afterwards he chose Paul who did labour more abundantly than the rest 1 Cor. 15. 10. 2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them is proved 1. From Ephes 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building and it is Christ and not Peter in whom all the Building is fitly framed together 2. From Revel 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations and not one singular one supporting the rest but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles none of whom is the Foundation of the rest 3. That the term Church Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible is proved 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it 2. In that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish 4. That my Church Matth. 16. 18. is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter but that cannot be true sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul and he denies he built on anothers Foundation Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself sith Peter was part of the universal Church and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter which are absurd Which things being evinced it appears 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had and so belongs not to any Successour 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship pag. 75. for that Christ expresly forbade but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel recompensing his readiness to acknowledge Christ And this Christ had elsewhere promised Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of mâ—n Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built we would most gladly it were true that the Pope were such we should then honour him and kiss his Toe but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which the Pope is painted with as having them in his hands and by which he was wont to claim his power But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims sith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution the Keys are in their hands and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope therefore I need not insist on that here sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it SECT IV. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church But he adds And for a Reward of Peter's special dilection for he loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles he said to him Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. a Commission to feed all without exception Answ THe Argument seems to be this He to whom as a Reward of his special dilection by which he loved Christ more thaâ— all the rest of the Apostles Christ said Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. and thereby gave him a Commission to feed all without exception was Pastour of the whole Flock But this was Peter Ergo. Here four things are supposed whereof not one is true 1. That Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles For neither were all the rest of the Apostles there nor doth Christ or Peter say he did love Christ more than they did but onely puts a question which may either have this sense Lovest
God Acts 20. 26 27. and elsewhere Ergo. 10. If there were many Saints and Martyrs acknowledged even by the Romanists to be such who did not hold communion with the Bishop of Rome so as to own him to be supreme visible head of the whole church but did oppose him and lived and died in that opposition and yet were in the church of God then they who hold not communion with the See of Rome may be the true church of God But the antecedent is true in Cyprian Augustine and many more opposing the Bishop of Rome about rebaptization appeals from Africa keeping Easter therefore either they must be unsainted or else it must be yielded that persons who are not now in communion with the See of Rome may be true churches of God I need not insist any longer in proving the falsity of a tenet so palpably absurd and demonstrated to be so by Bishop Mortan in his Grand Imposture of the Roman Church and by others elsewhere Let 's view H. T. his proof SECT IV. The succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church THat saith he is the onely true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other is the true church of God For proof of the major he alledgeth Isa 59. 21. 60. 1 3 11. 62. 6. Ezech. 3. 26. Dan. 7. 13 14. Matth. 28. 20. John 14 16. Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. Answ The succession he means is expressed p. 45. to be a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith This succession may be either in the same place or some place or other indefinite and it may be said to be continued without the least interruption for the smallest space of time or so continued that in each age or century there hath been such a succession though with some intermission The succession in the profession of the same faith may be either universal in every point or limited to fundamentals The succession may be said to be continued either so conspicuously as that there is an Assembly of that people in each age which any Christians in any part of the world did or might know as they do the Commonwealth of the Venetians or Kingdom of France oâ— as heretofore the Roman Commonwealth was known or else obscurely so as to be known onely to themselves and some near neighbors The proof of this succession may be conceived to be out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments extant expressing persons and their faith or else it may be conjectured from some more obscure intimations This Author I conceive from many passages following understands his major here thus That is the onely true Church of God which has had in the same place a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time without interruption any notable time in any age of a number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith not onely in fundamentals but in other points also so conspicuously that all Christians did or might know it as the Roman Empire French Kingdom or Venetian Republique may be known and this to be proved out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments expressing the persons and their faith For such a succession this Author would have necessary to a true church which he imagines may be proved to be in the Roman church and no other But in this sense his Proposition is most false and no whit proved out of the Texts he produceth and nullifies the Roman church it self which he indeavours so much to magnifie as to make it to be the onely true church of God In opposition thereto I say 1. There may be a true church of God where there are no Bishops or Priests at all Which I prove 1. From Acts 14. 23. where it is said that Barnabas and Paul after they had gathered the churches they returned to them and ordained Elders in every Church which supposeth they were churches sometime afore they had Elders ordained for them therefore it follows there may be a true church without Bishops Priests or Elders sith those churches were such afore they had them 2. From the definition of a true church That is a true church which hath the definition of a true church H. T. confesseth often this Proposition to be true But a number of believers in Christ who have no Elders or Priests or Bishops hath the definition of a true church Ergo The minor is proved from the received definitions Bellarm. Tom. 2. Controv. l. de Eccles milit c. 1. Ecclesia est evocatio sive caetus vocatorum the church is the company of the called out and other Authors speak conformably But there may be a caâ—ling out or a company of persons called out though they have no Bishops or Priests therefore they may be a ture church of God 3. That company which hath the essential parts of a true church is a true church of God But a number of believers professing the faith of Christ hath the essential parts of a true church They are the matter of a church in that they are men the form is faith or the profession of it no other thing can be rightly assigned to be essential as constitutive of a true church their governours order special gifts and other things tending to their well-being are common accidents which may be or not be and yet the church remain a true church Therefore a number of believers professing the true faith of Christ without Bishops is a true church of God 2. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters whom H. T. terms Priests For 1. There are many Fathers and popish Writers who make them but one Order at first Lumbard senâ—ent l. 4. distinct 24. Apud vcteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt The Antients took Bishops and Priests for the same therefore with them there were churches in which were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters 2. Where there were two Orders yet they were not so necessary but that the church may be without them otherwise in the vacancy of the Episcopal See which hath in Rome it self been sometimes some years together often many moneths and days the church should cease to be a true church of God for then it would follow that in such vacancies the Roman church did cease to be 3. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a profession of the same faith in every point for then the Roman church should not be a true church
in Paul's days in which it is clear from Rom. 14. 2. that one believed he might eat all things another who was weak did eat herbs Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike In after Ages the differences in the Roman church it self if reckoned would make a large catalogue 4. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that the company and their profession be so visible as that they may be discerned as the Roman Senate was or the Venetian Republique and French Kingdom are For then the disciples which were assembled the doors being shut for fear of the Jews John 20. 19. had not been a true church of God nor the woman in the wilderness Revel 12. 14. nor those that wand red in dens and caves of the earth in desarts and mountains Heb. 11. 38. then the Saints in persecution should not be blessed as Christ saith Matth. 5. 10. but cursed as ceasing to be the true church of God 5. It is not necessary to the bring of a true church that there should be in it a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith for then the first company of such professors though called out of the world should not be a true church of God for want of succession 6. Much less is it necessary that there should be a succession in the same place For then when Christ removed the candlestick that is the church out of it's place as he threatens Revel 2. 5. though believers should come to dwell there a thousand years after they should not be a true church because of the interruption of succession in that place the church at Jerusalem after the persecution had not been a true church if the Apostles had been scattered as well as the rest Acts 8. 1 2. Doth a church persecuted and driveâ— out of a place cease to be a church because they and their successors are removed out of their dwellings Suppose the place wasted and destroyed shall that destroy the being of the church which was there before 7. Much less is it necessary that there should be a continuance without any notable interruption in each age For there may be many hinderances of elections of Bishops and ordinations of Priests there may be scatterings of the Laicks as was at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. and yet the being and verity of the church continue 8. If a church must be judged no true church because no Writings or Monuments have kept the catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christ till this time a church shall be condemned as no true church for want of Writings and Monuments or because they are now lost by reason of the inundation of barbarism and barbarous people who spoil Learning and Arts which yet Popish Writers acknowledge to have happened in the ninth Age tearmed by Genebrard Chron. l. 4. the unhappy age for want of learned Writers and H. T. himself p. 25. saith In this tenth Age or Century I find no General Council nor yet provinciaâ— in which any controversie of moment was decided SECT V. None of the Texts alledged by H. T. prove a necessity of such a succession as he imagines to the being of a true Church AS for the Texts he alledgeth they are all so impertinently alledged that it 's likely had he not presumed he should meet with very credulous Readers he would not have mentioned them or at least he would have shewed how he proves his Proposition from them it being necessary to do so if he had a mind to instruct and not impose on his Readers The first Text Isa 59. 21. is no promise of such a succession in any visible church as H. T. speaks of but of a continuance of Gods Word and Spirit with the persons there meant which seem to be peculiarly the Jews by the Apostles alledging Rom. 11. 26. However they are onely the Elect who can be there meant sith the promise is made good to none other none other have the Spirit of God not departing from them not any whole visible church among the Gentiles from whom the Spirit of God may depart In the three next Texts Isa 60. 1 3 11. Isa 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 26. the very words apply the promises to Hieruâ—alem and the people of Israel so that if they speak of any continued succession in any visible church in all Ages it must be the Jewish which it is certain hath had no such succession but is broken off from the true Olive to this day and therefore cannot be meant of them in H. T. his sense till they be reingrassed The next Dan. 7. 13 14. speaks not of the continued succession which H. T. imagines of every true visible church but of the duration of Christs dominion which shall not pass away to another that is there is no kingdom which shall succeed to it as there did to the former Monarchies nor shall it be destroyed as they were but shall be continued to Christ without any succession So that this Text mentions not H. T. his succession but excludes succession of any other to Christs dominion Matth. 28. 20. intimates a succession to the end of the world of teachers and so doth Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. but not in every true visible church nor so conspicuous as that all may know and discern the church as men discern the assembly of the people of Rome nor so apparent as that there may be produced a catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christs time till now Much less doth John 14. 16. prove such a succession it being onely a promise of the Spirits abiding with the Apostles for ever which is no promise to the Bishop of Rome or any other visible church now SECT VI. The succession pretended to be in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary BUâ— H. T. contenting himself to have set down these Texts leaves the Reader to extract what he can out of them and passeth on to the proof of his minor That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time which according to his meaning is as if he had said The Church either in Rome or Italy or Spain or France or Germany or Poland or any other part of the world which hath owned the Pope and his doctrine and been subject to his rule and no other has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith with the now Bishop of Rome so conspicuous as that there may be a catalogue of such produced out of good records and no other can do so So that then if he proves his Minor he must prove 1. That church to have this succession continued 2. That no other hath Which he takes on him to do by a catalogue of the Roman churches
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
no right Baptism almost throughout the Churches under the Papacy there being nothing but watering of Infants with some frivolous Ceremonies no immersion or plunging into the Water after Profession of Faith as was in the primitive times and is the onely Baptism Christ appointed Infant-sprinkling perfusion or dipping being meer Innovations begun after the Apostles ages and being onely by unwritten tradition as their own learned men confess conveyed to the Church not instituted by Christ himself And for administring the Lords Supper he that reades their Missals or Sees their Mass may easily discern there is not that done by them which Christ appointed but such a change there is in it from Christs institution as that it cannot be termed a Sacrament of Christ but a meer ridiculous or abominable device of men more like a Play than a religious service 2. When they say that the Church hath always exterior Consecration and Ordination of Ministers they necessarily put themselves upon it to prove that it hath been so in the Roman Church which they can never prove to have been always in the Roman Bishops much less in their Priests the Records of their Consecrations and Ordinations being in many respects either none or very doubtfull at best but humane testimony which is fallible and if these were certain yet their own Canons make many things necessary to their Sacraments specially that sottish conceit of the Trent Council that the Minister of Sacraments must intend to do what the Church doth without which there is a nullity in what is done and yet it is impossible to be proved and so many things according to their Canons nullifie their Ordinations as Simony and other irregularities of which nevertheless their own Writers accuse a great number of their Bishops and Priests and sometimes one Pope hath made void the Acts of another and in despite hath cut off his fingers which did ordain Priests as Platina relates in the life of Stephan the sixth concerning the usage of Pope Formosus besides this the Ordination of their Priests is to sacrifice for quick and dead which is no part of the Ministerial Office which Christ required Matth. 28. 19 20. which being considered if this be the note whereby the true Church must be proved no Church in the World hath less proof for its truth than the Roman but the Exceptions will be so many against their exterior Ordination and Consecration as will by their own Canons and arguings prove the Roman Church to be no true visible Church at all and so this Argument will be retorted on H. T. Let us go on to his second Argument onely taking notice that he useth the term Ministers which other Papists do deride in the Protestants SECT II. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5 14. Psal 18. with us 19. 4. prove not such a Church-visibility as H. T. asserts nor the words of Ireneus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Augustin A Light saith H. T. always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid must needs be always visible But the Church of Christ is a Light always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid therefore the Church must needs be always visible The Major is manifest by the very terms The Minor is proved by Scripture The Mountain of the House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains Isai 2. 2. You are the Light of the World a City seated on a Hill cannot be hid St Matth. 5. 14. He hath put his Tabernacle his Church in the Sun Psal 18. 4. Answ THough the Conclusion might be granted in some sense yet in the sense meant by the Romanists it is denied and in the Argument the Minor is to be denied and to the proof of it it is denied that the Texts produced prove it Not the first For though the Prophecies Is 2. 2 3. be meant of Christ and the times of the Messias yet whether by the Mountain be meant Mount Sion properly or the Church or Christ or the Apostles it is certain that it is meant of that time wherein the Gospel was at first preached to which sense Hierome expounds it and the exaltation of the mountain of the Lords house is in respect of the first promulging of the Gospel in respect of which neither at first nor now is Rome exalted above the Hills and therefore it is not meant of every particular Church visible nor of such conspicuity in government and outward appearance as the Romanists maintain The second Text Matth. 5. 14. is particularly meant of the Apostles and such Preachers of the Gospel as continued that Work with them or after them and doth not foretell what shall be but declares what they were in existence or duty rather and their conspiracy is in respect of the Preaching of the Gospel But this is not spoken of every particular or the whole Church militant at all times as if it were so visible as that every Christian might know where to address themselves to them and have resolution from them in their doubts The other Text is less to the purpose speaking of a Tabernacle for the Sun not a Tabernacle in the Sun the Suns Tabernacle not Gods put in the Heavens not on earth as Hierom reades according to the Hebrew although the Septuagint and Vulgar reade as H. T. and Augustin in his allegorical way expound it of the Church But it is frivolous upon Augustin's conceit in his Enarration on the Psalms to infer a Tenet from a place that hath quite another grammatical sense which is onely argumentative As for the sayings of Fathers the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. advers Hoeres cap. 45. are not that every true Church of Christ hath such a continued Succession and so visible as that every Christian may discern where to repair to it but onely in opposition to heretical Teachers tells us God hath set other Teachers in the Church than those he there opposeth Origen's words Hom. 3. on Matthew shew what was in his time not what must of necessity be and are meant of brightness of doctrine or truth not of outward glory in a conspicuous rule and state like some flourishing Empire Cyprian's words de unit Eccles are less to the purpose being not concerning the visibility but the unity of the Church but in neither for the Romanists purpose The words are thus Cut off the River from the Fountain and being cut off it will be dry so also the Church cloathed with the light of the Lord spreads its beams through the whole World yet it is one light which is every where diffused and yet the unity of the body not separated Chrysostom's words Hom. 3. on Isai 6. are that the Church is more rooted than the Heaven and then adds let the Greeks learn the power of truth how it is easier that the Sun should be extinguished than that the Church should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and yet no Separation from the whole And therefore this Position of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonstration that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Protestants have made cannot stand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Discipline Which sure he hath not yet proved nor is it likely he ever will but as the fashion of these Scriblers is sing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church and that Protestants are Hereticks and Sectaries with other Popish gibberish though the folly and frivolousness thereof hath been a thousand times demonstrated I have thus at last examined these nine Articles being moved thereto out of hope to do some souls good by recovering them out of the snare in which they are held by Satan and Romish Emissaries If they shut their eys against the light their judgement will be of themselves I shall add prayer for them that God would open their eys and if time health and other concurrences suit with my aims discover the vanity of the rest of H. T. his Manual In the mean time not as some Romanists blasphemously Praise be to the Virgin Mother in the end of their Writings but as Paul concluded his Epistle to the Romans so do I To God onely wise be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever Amen FINIS The Contents ARTICLE I. THe Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession Page 1 Sect. 1. Of the Title of H. T. his Manual in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed ibid. 2. Of the Epistles prefixed in which he ascribes too much to the Church and deceitfully begins with her Authority 3 3. His Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd 4 4. The Succession required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church 7 5. None of the Texts alleged by H. T. prove a necessity to the being of a true Church of such Succession as he imagines 10 6. The Succession pretended in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary 11 7. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years 13 8. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries of years 18 9. The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Centuries is shewed 21 10. The defect of his Catalogue in the eleventh and twelfth Ages is shewed 25 11. The defect of his Catalogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth Ages is shewed 28 12. The defect of his Catalogue in the fifteenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed 32 13. The close of H. T. is retorted 36 14. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections 38 ARTICLE II. PRotestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God 42 Sect. 1. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists demand ibid. 2. The Argument of H. T. against Protestants doth as well prove the nullity of the Roman Church for want of Succession as of the Protestants 44 3. Protestants have had a Succession sufficient to aver their Doctrine 47 4. The Succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding the Exceptions of H. T. 51 5. The Doctrine of Romanists was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by learned Protestants 53 6. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostasie of the Roman Church is proved 56 ARTICLE III. SUch visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church 62 Sect. 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church and what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church ibid. 2. Neither Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5. 14. Psalm 18. 19 4. nor the words of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine prove such a Church visibility as H. T. asserts 65 3. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church as it is by H. T. asserted 66 ARTICLE IV. THe Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Christian Faith 69 1. 〈◊〉 in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the universality of the Church militant ibid. 2. The ambiguity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed 70 3. Unity of Discipline under one visible Head and of Faith without division in lesser Points is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Acts 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed necessary to the Churches being 71 4. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his Argument from the unity of the Church is better against than for the Roman Church 73 5. The Argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him for Protestants 77 6. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. John 14. 15 16. Luke 1. 33. for time Psalm 85. 86 9. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. Psalm 19. 4. for place agrees not to the now Roman Church but may be better said of the Protestants 78 7. The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem Augustine are not for the universality of H. T. by which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman Church but against it 80 8. It is non-sense or false to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered 81 ARTICLE V. THe Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to obey her under Pain of Damnation but all this is a meer impudent arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scriptures or Antiquity 85 Sect. 1. The decit of H. T. in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope is shewed ibid. 2. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick Churches Infallibility 87 3. Matth 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for the claim