they go on this account A Bishop of your own and Legate of the Popes that dwelt in those Countries saith that the Christians in the Easterly parts of Asia alone exceeded in multitude the Christians both of the Greek and Latin Churches Jacob. a Vitriaco Hist Orient c. 77. And which is more the whole Church for many hundred years after Christ were far from being the subjects of the Pope of Rome And indeed had Christ no Church till the Pope became universal Monarch Must Paul be damned because he was not one of Peters subjects Do not your consciences know that swearing obedience to the Pope of Rome was a thing unknown for many hundred years yea that it is a novelty in the world Must Christ lose for ever the most of his Church even those that never heard of Rome because they believe not in the Pope Never shall I be Papist while I breath if I must be engaged to send the most of the Christians on earth to the Devil and that upon such an account as this These things are so uncatholike so unchristian so inhumane that I wonder and wonder a hundred times how any learned sober men among you are able to believe them For my part I am a resolved Catholike that own the universal Church of Christ and cannot limit my charity to a corner or a faction especially so gross a one as yours I own not the errors or other sins of any of the Churches so far as I can discover them But if I must make them Hereticks and unchurch them for these yea even those that go under the name of Nestorians and Eutichians I must needs put you in among them who I think do erre more grosly then they But I am none of your judge Nor none of your most rigid adversaries I am one that have been oft called a Papist in print for avoiding some of those extreams into which some others have run from you I am one that cannot choose but hope that there are thousands that shall be saved that profess themselves of your Church and way But that I cannot do so my self and the Reasons why I cannot do it I have thought good here to let you know Many more there are but I have mentioned some of them in the following Disputations to which I refer you I can truely say this in the presence of the Lord that knows my heart that if I knew it my self I would most gladly turn Papist before I sleep if I could discern it to be the way of God Yea if I had but any probability of it and knew but the man that could give me satisfactory evidence on your side I would wander from Sea to Sea to find him as weak and unfit for travail as I am And therefore if any learned man among you have so much confidence of his way and charity to my soul as to perswade me to his opinion he shall at any seasonable time be wellcom and I shall thankfully entertain any evidence that he can bring according to my capacity But then I must desire him to deal plainly and come bare face't and not to juggle under the vizor of a Seeker or any other Sect for that way will never take with me And I must further here profess that this paper comes not with any cruel or bloody design against you I write not to exasperate the Governors against you so far as to deal unmercifully with any of you And whereas under the vizor of the sects before mentioned you are of late so earnest in pleading for a toleration deal but impartially like honest men and I will set in with you Procure but a toleration for the Reformed Christian Religion in Italy and Spaine and your part of Germany Portugal c. and I should willingly petition the sovereign Powers in England that you might have as much liberty here But that you shall have full liberty here and Protestants have none where you can hinder it this is not equal dealing But how comes it to pass that you that pretend so much to unity are in this also of so many opinions the English Papists are for liberty of Religion and the Spanish and Italian are against it But I must cry you mercy I now consider It is but your selves that you think have right to liberty here and others should have it but in order to yours As hardly as you think you are used in England you live openly among us and no man that I hear of layeth hands on you When you know if a Spaniard or Italian be known to be a Protestant hee 's as sure tormented and burnt at a stake as the coat is on his back Do you not know this to be true Were I in those places where your Religion hath its will I know one leafe of this book would cause me to be burnt to ashes that I am alive is because I am not in your power But for my part I wish not the shedding of one drop of your blood nor your imprisonment or banishment but only your moderate and necessary restraint from open iniquity and seducing of those that are unfurnished to encounter you I have some invitation to make this profession by the usage of a Justice of Peace of this County who was so far your friend as to censure me and others for a late Gratulation and petition to his Highness the Lord Protector subscribed by many Justices and by the Grand Jury and thousands of the County and to censure the said petition to be of a cruel and bloody complexion inserting to your honor and the reproach of the Reformed Churches a vindication of your Religion from the guilt of the Powder-plot and Spanish invasion and other foreign bloody acts and charging as much on the Reformed as can be charged on you according to the History called The Image of both Churches And what was this bloody petition of this County Why when you had murthered and banished and starved such a multitude of the poor Protestants in Savoy and we were assured of it by a Narrative from the Lord Protector himself inviting us to contribute to relieve the remnant in the sense of your continued bloody dealings and of the sad case of those poor people and the favor of his Highness toward them we returned him a thankful acknowledgement of his care and added our desires to use the most effectual means to hinder the growth of so bloody a doctrine lest it should reach our selves at last yet adding that we desined no rigor as to your persons but craved the promoting of the Reformed Religion and of unity among our selves as the means of our preservation The world is come to a fair pass when our brethren are murdered by thousands we are bloody for mentioning it and blaming you for it and desiring our selves to be preserved from your doctrine and rage so as without any rigor to our persons Alas poor Protestants When your throates are cut by the merciful
points of order of â— necessity to salvation this doth not make them â—â— us to be of two Religions or wayes of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous â— destructive points under that pretence Obj. But the Church still held those things as â—â—cessary to Salvation which you deny Ans Wâ— deny that to be true Some of the points in differâ—â—â— are novelties of your own which the ancient Churâ—â— did never hold the rest are such as they never â— such a stress as mens salvation upon To conclude Let it be considered whether thâ— Argument may not damne your selves which I tâ— against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christs time â— â—â—w But the Religion of the Romanists as comâ—â—ehending all points of their faith or made by them be necessary to salvation hath not had any visible â—â—urch professing it of many hundred years after â—â—rist Therefore it is not the true Religion nor a â—â—e way to salvation The Minor I shall undertake â—â—re seasonably to make good And our Divines â—â—e done it already No doubt but common reason and justice requirâ—â— that you that call to us so earnestly for a Cataâ—â—gue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages â—â—uld be as much obliged your selves to give us a â—â—â—alogue of yours yea and to give it first because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it Unâ—â—â—take this task therefore and perform it well and â—u shall carry the whole cause Give us a Cataâ—ue of any besides impeached Hereticks that did â—n your main points of Popery for many hundred â—â—rs after Christ and we will give you a full acâ—â—nt of such as contradicted those conceits and beâ—â—â—ed as we do and let both be compared together â— let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence â—â—â—ry it You make a meer empty noise among the â—â—gar of Antiquity and Universality and call for â—roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of â— Church as if in this you had the advantage â— the ballance did turn on your side When as â—â—ough we know that there is no such necessity of â— proof in this as you pretend yet we know your â—dvantage here to be so great that if you will â— be perswaded to this way of tryal it will be to the â—â—â—er shame and confusion of your cause What 's the â—â—tter else that you still appeal to the latter or preâ—â—t Church and that is only to the Romane and that 's onely to your selves If we do but invite you to tryal by Scripture and the Fathers and Records the three first ages you presently scorn the moâ— and fall upon the Fathers with accusations as if thâ— had not understood or believed all that was necessaâ—â— to salvation or to the being of a Christian or Church for you say they did not meddle with thâ— controversies and so you call us down to the laâ— or present times as having equal authority with â— first To which we say 1. That the silence of â— first times concerning these matters if there wâ— no more as yet there is is sufficient to prove tâ— they were not then taken for any necessary points faith For Though our Records of the secâ— Age be very short yet both they and mâ— more those of the third and fourth Ages containe such purposely undertaken explicationâ— the Christian faith that we cannot imagine sucâ— multitude of necessary points would have been oâ—ted 2. And though the Pastors of the present â— have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregatioâ— with those of the second yet they cannot give â— sure an account what was the doctrine and pracâ— of the former Ages nor any way prove it to us â— by producing such records The Papists themselves are so far from denyâ— that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold â— Positive part of our Religion that they hold it theâ—selves For they themselves profess to believe â—â— book of holy Scripture that we do They say â— believe the Creed called the Apostles and the â—cene and Constantinopolitane Creed and that of â—â—thanasius and so do we still taking the holy Scâ—pture onely for our Rule so that their own tongâ— â—ust confess the Antiquity and Universality and â—ccession of our Religion For this is ours But all that they have to obâ—ject is this That we â—n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives To which I say 1. The Negatives at least for the most part of them if not all are â—e meer consequences of the Affirmatives and Posiâ—ves and implyed or plainly included in them For â—xample when our Religion saith Thou shalt worâ—ip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve â—is includeth the Negative Thou shalt â—ot worship or serve Saints Angels or â—ny other save only by a service and honour duely â—bservient to the service and worship of God and â—herefore that we give not Divine worship to the â—onsecrated host or the Virgin Mary or to any â—ther meer creature Our Religion teacheth us to â—o all things to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 This includâ—th the negatives that we must not worship God in â—n unknown tongue or unedifying manner bleating â—nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridicuâ—ous tones Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission to teach the Nations and Baptize Mat. 28.19 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach that is as Commissioned officers nor baptize This affirmative Peter was sent to Disâ—iple Nations includeth this Negative Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome and there â—o reside This affirmative The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church includeth this negative â— Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church This Affirmative It is bread and wine which we take â—nd eat and drink in the Eucharist containeth or implyeth the Negative that It is not Christs flesh and blood which the bread and wine is transubstantiatâ—â— into I might thus instance in many more Our Nâ—gatives are contained or implyâ—â— in our Affirmatives which yoâ— hold or confess your selves 2. I answer further that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. We have a plaine Iâ— the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also theâ— ten thousand words in a tongue unknown 1 Cor. 14.19 We have a plain See thou do it not for I am thy fellow servant Rev. 22.9 And so of the chief differences through the rest 3. If we had but this one point proved that the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists For to Believe all that is in Scripture and
that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God 4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts or some of them that speak of Peters own person were also spoke of certain successors of his as well as of himself as that on them the Church shall be built and their faith shall not â—ail c. 5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter 6. To this end they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus and was Bishop there but they must know that he was the only Bishop there or at least the chief and that Paul was no Bishop there who is more likely to have been or else that he was the inferior and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls or else succeedeth them both and hath his infallibility but from one unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too 7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once and if there be two which of them is to be believed when they disagree But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome the one of the Circumcision the other of the uncircumsion then it must be known by what right their successors made them one or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision when all Jews were banished from Rome and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing the Pope be not only Pauls successor 8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome yea of Antioch before Rome and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture either as to the Church oâ— the Bishop seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ as they do how shall we know whom to believe and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome 9. It must be known what it is that makes a Pope what is necessary to his being Peters successor Iâ— it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope Or that his party call him so Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror though a Lay maâ— did so he should be Pope And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peters infallible successor at any time But if there must be an ordination and Election then it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration and Election will serve or not If it will then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once they were all Saint Peters infallible successors though one condemned the other If not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of election which being the act that determineth of thâ— person is the maine that must resolve our doubts and also of consecration or ordination And hoâ— shall the people know this when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves 10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect If they have then how came they by it And then whether werâ— all those that were elected by the people in the first ages and by the Emperors in after ages true Popeâ— or not If they were not then Saint Peter hath no successors because of the interruption of the succession so long and the Church had then no visible head If they were then the sufficient power is not onely in the Cardinals And if it be not onely in them then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen onely by them of late ages 11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved when Popes have been chosen three several wayes sometime by the people or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church and sometime by the Emperors and now by titular Presbyters who are Bishops of other Churches and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome If all these several wayes of Election may make true Popes then it seems any way may serve and then the three Popes at once will be all true If not then there hath been an interruption of the succession and so according to their own Principles there can be now no true Pope 12. And here it must needs be known too whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary that he can be no true Pope without it If not then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope If there be then it must be known what that is which few private men at least do know 13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Hereticks yea judged so by Councils or by their own successors and those that were notorious Whoremongers Sodomites Murderers Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedome Simonists buying the Popedom with money c. were capable of being true Popes 14. If they are not capable then we must all know that all the Popes were none such when the Papists themselves confess they were such before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter 15. But if such may be Popes then must we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise and the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church and whether such were infallible in their judging falshood to be truth as they did 16. And we must know that the Pope onely is lawless and under no power of Canons or Decrees of former Popes and Councils Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null and so the succession still hath been interrupted And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty and so null his calling 17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre through ignorance even in universal questions of faith Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick and reach Heresie so it be without a General Council And that most of the rest do only hold that whether the Pope be
Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lye They that receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved are threatened to be given up to delusions and therefore have no certainty of being infallible They that choose their own wayes God will choose their delusions Isa 64.4 There is no communion between light and darkness Christ and Belial therefore no infallibility with the children of Belial Of all men naturally till Christ illuminate them by special grace it is said in Scripture that they are blind deceived lyars of no understanding receiving not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 Prov. 28.5 Rom 3.11 Prov. 6.32 9.4.10 15.21 7.7 12.11 2 Pet. 1.9 2 Tim. 3.13 Tit. 3.3 It is onely the elect that cannot be deceived even in the foundation Mat. 24.24 None of the wicked shall understand but the wise shall understand Dan. 12.10 They are threatned to be given over to blindness that they may not understand Isa 6.9.10 Act. 28.26 27 Mar. 4.12 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Psal 111.10 God promiseth to teach the humble Psal 25. but the proud he still resist when he giveth to the humble his grace 1 Pet. 5.5 Jam. 4.6 And not onely the minds of the wicked but their tongues are deceitful even when they know the truth so that a wicked Pope may lye and deceive Psal 36.3 Prov. 12.5 Mar. 7.22 Rom. 3.13 I confess that a wicked man may have some kind of superficial knowledge of all those doctrines dis-junctly at least which are known to true Believers but as he hath no solid knowledge of them so he hath no promise or assurance of infallibility in that which he is capable of knowing Nor is it so like that a blind deceitful man should be universally orthodox And for the Minor that many Popes have been notoriously wicked I need not prove it while their own Historians and disputers too do so commonly confess it It s well known what wickedness the Councils that deposed them charged upon some and what poisoning and other murders Simony conjuration incest common adulteries and other wickedness is by the writers of their lives and other Historians charged on so many more that I should but trouble the weary Reader to no purpose to cite them Read the lives of Pope Sylvester the Witch the 2. Alexander the 3. and the 6. John 13. and the 22. and the 23. Gregory the 7. Vrbane the 7. c. in Platina Luitprandus Fasciculus temporum Martinus Polonus c. Ticinus hist li. 6. of John 13. shews that his sins were proved in Council that he ravished and committed filthiness with maids widows and wives at the Apostolick doors committed many murders drunk to the Devil and at Dice ask't help of Jupiter and Venus and at last was slain in the act of adultery See of Sylvester 2. Fascic temp an 1004. Martin Polonus Anno. 1007. Platin. in ejus vita Of Boniface the 7. See Baronius himself anno 985. n. 1. Of Alexander the 6. see Guicciardine hist li. 1. and Onuphrius vit Alex. 6. But I will name no more Argu. 15. Other Bishops and Churches who have as good a pretence to plead for their infallibility as the Bishop and Church of Rome are yet generally acknowledged fallible even by themselves and by the papists Therefore the Pope and Church of Rome also are fallible All that 's doubtful is whether any other Churches or Bishops have as fair a plea for infallibility as the Romane which I prove thus 1. The Plea of the Romanists is that their Bishop is the successor of an Apostle who was infallible and so the Promises belonging to him do belong also to his successors And the successors of the rest of the Apostles may have the same plea For all the Apostles after the Holy Ghost fell on them were infallible as well as Peter And therefore their successors have as fair a plea as Peters successors Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter Answ 1. There can no greater a promise to Peters successors be shewed then was made Mat. 28.29 to them all Lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world 2. The Papists according to their new fundamentals must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility for they say their infallibility is in order first known evidenced and to be proved before it be known that Scripture is Gods word 2. The plea of the Romanists for their Popes infallibility is that he is the successor of Peter But the Bishop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the successor of Peter and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility Therefore c. That History which telleth us that Peter was Bishop of Rome doth tell us that he was Bishop of Antioch also yea and that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome so that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church What reason then can the Papists give why the Bishop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peters successor as the Bishop of Rome Unless they could prove that Peter did by his last Will and Testament bequeath the honor of succession and the priviledges of infallibility to Rome onely which they have not yet that I can find been so bold as to go about to prove Otherwise if one must needs be preferred why should not the eldest unless they be disinherited and the younger hath the blessing which must be proved Whence is it but from the honor of their Antiquity that Antioch Hierusalem Alexandria and Rome should be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches And if Antiquity be a good reason for that then why should not Jerusalem and Antioch on the same account be preferred before Rome seeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches and Antioch the more ancient seat of Peter in the judgement of them that make him Bishop of either So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to say for infallibility then Rome who yet make no prentence to it Argu. 16. The Apostles themselves were not infallible till the holy Ghost fell on them nor by any other help without the extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost for before they understood not that Christ must dye rise and ascend till it was done but Peter Mat. 16.20 disswadeth him from suffering therefore the Pope if he might plead succession from Peter cannot expect more then Peter himself had and therefore cannot expect his infallibility without his spirit and inspiration And therefore those Popes that have not the Holy Ghost and that inspiration as Peter had cannot pretend to be infallible as his
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God If Infallibility survive in other Pastors then it seemes it is not the Pope onely that is infallible but others as well as he And was not the Churches Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject But the case is out of question thus farre that we have neer fifty of their own Writers especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joane as Platina in vit Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead l. 1. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence part 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Fasciculus Temporum Nauclerus Volaterane Textor Caryon Sigebertus Gemblacensis Mat. Palmerius Massaeus c. And I marvaile why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it as if their cause lay more on this then other things If a Conjurer a common Whoremonger a Murderer a Simonist a Heretick may be the infallible judge of the faith why may not a woman Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these specially if she had but kept her self honest I should have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender Quest 19. And further I would know If the City of Rome were consumed with fire or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea which Bellarmine confesseth it is not impossile to be done where then were the infallible head of the Church and what were become of the Romish faith If they say that this can never be and that Christs promise implyeth the preservation of the City of Rome I answer 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that 2. Their own writers confess the contrary 3. Let the end determine it But if they say that infallibility is not tyed to the place but to the Person who shall be Peters successor I answer we thought hitherto that to be Peters successor and to be the Bishop of Rome had been all one with them If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peters successor then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while Why not the Bishop of Alexandria Hierusalem Ephesus or other place as well as the Pope specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter as inheriting his first chaire I doubt if Rome were extinct and the Bishop of Mentz or Cullen or Vienna or Rhemes or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Bishops would much contradict it and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head Quest 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter or were they sent by him or did they receive their authority from him Do they find that ever the Apostles or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith as first to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible and therefore to perswade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith because they say its true Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin in Ignatius Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian or any other of those times that the preachers that went abroad the world to perswade men to Christianity did ever use this Popish Medium or go this way to work Did they first preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Christ or Scripture Did they first preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that O that these men would but shew us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument How many and large Orations Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Fathers writings for the Christian Faith to convince the unbelieving world in Clem Alexand. Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen Athanasius Basil Eusebius Cyril Alexandr Augustine and many others And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility â—ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith must be resolved Undoubtedly if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach we should have had the first part and a great if not the greatest part of all thoâ—e Apologies and discourses laid out in the proof of the Romane infallibility What man will go to evince a whole systeme of doctrines to be true and quite forget that medium by which onely it is first to be proved Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God or that Christianity is the right Religion therefore this is true Nay further consider If this kind of arguing had been then used may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them that surely we should have found some of them remembred to posterity Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith the Romane infallibility who stuck at so many things in the faith it self Or have Cyril Alexandr and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest
therefore â—â—ey shall have life supposing it to be a true faith â—â—at worketh by love The Jews that heard Petersâ—â—rmon â—â—rmon Act. 2. were converted and added to the â—hurch even threâ— thousand souls and put into a state of Justification by Believing that Sermon 〈◊〉 37 38 41 46 47. But the Protestants believe â— that Peter preached in that Sermon thereâ—â— they also are of the Church and justified And least the Accusing Devil or Papists shâ—â— trouble the peace of any of his people Christ 〈◊〉 protested it with his own mouth Joh. 5.24 Veâ—â—ly Verily I say unto you He that heareth my word 〈◊〉 believed on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed frâ—â— death to life Me thinks this should make any â—â—liever tremble at the thoughts of condemning thoâ— that Christ hath protested shall not be condeâ—ned Christ hath promised that all those that receive â— words and in whom his words abide shall be beloved of the Father and have everlasting life and â— heard in what they aske Joh. 14.23 15.7 Doubâ—less that which Christ himself preached was the tâ— Gospel and so far sufficient that whoever believeâ— it shall be saved Otherwise Christ could not â—aâ— converted any soul so far as to have brought theâ— into a state of Salvation by his Doctrine and theâ— Peter and the rest of the Apostles were not trâ—â— Christians by the belief of the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 if the Doctrine which Christ preached be sufficieâ—â— to make true Christians and Church-members oâ— those that receive it then the Protestants are such For they believe every word that the Evangelists record of the Doctrine of Christ And if the Papiâ—â— say that there is more of his Doctrine necessary tâ— salvation which the Evangelists did not record iâ— Scripture 1. We call for their proof of it and 2. Wâ—â—â—â—ow that the Evangelists did purposely write thâ— â—â—ur Gospels or Histories of Christ of purpose to acâ—uaint the world with his Nature Birth Life doctrine â—eath and Resurrection c. Luke professeth that he â—rote his Gospel upon perfect understanding of all â—â—ings from the very first which conteyneth a Declaâ—â—tion of those things which are most surely believed â—mong us even as they were delivered by them that â—â—om the beginning were eye Witnesses and Ministers â—f the Word Luk. 1.1 2 3 4. And he tells us Act. â— 1 2. that he wrote his Gospel of all things that â—esus began both to do and teach untill the day in â—hich he was taken up It would therefore have â—een an exceeding blemish to the Evangelists that â—rote of set purpose both the History of Christs â—ife and Doctrine if they had left out any part of it â—hat was of necessity to salvation Protestants thereâ—ore that believe all the Gospel do believe so much â—s may bring them safely to salvation If Christ himâ—elf be not a sufficient Teacher nor the Gospel it self a â—ufficient Doctrine of Life Then whither shall we go to seek it Then Peter himself was not the Rock â—or a true Christian by Christs Teaching And then â—he Pope could not derive that from Peter which he â—ad not But Peter himself thought and taught oâ—herwise He saith Lord whether shall we go we know that thou hast the words of Eternal Life For my part I will take Peters counsel and go to Christ for the words of Eternal Life which are purposely recorded by four Evangelists in the Gospel Let who will go to the Pope for another Gospel to supply the supposed defects of this for I will not In Act. 22. 26. and other places Paul preacheth so much of the Gospel as might have made true Believers and all that the Protestants receive The Church of Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them were a true Church Rom. 1.7 and all the Doctrine that Paul writeth to them we do believe Paul telleth the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20.27 that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole councel of God and this is summed up in Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ vers 21. And whatsoever Paul hath written to these Ephesians or any other Churches or persons we believe But what should we talk any more with such an arrogant unreasonable sort of men that dare maintaine that the belief of all the Holy Scripture is not large enough to salvation Atheists and Infidels say of the Scripture that it is too big to be all true And Papists say that it is not big enough to bring a man to heaven that believeth and obeyeth it Shall the Holy Ghost endite a Volume as big as the Bible and when he hath done shall any pretending to be Christians perswade the world that he that believeth all this shall be damned if he believe not the closet Traditions which the Romane Bishop pretendeth to be the keeper of Nay see the strange contradictions of this giddy fiction They lock up this Scripture it self from the common people in an unknown tongue They damne the translating of it as the root of all Heresies and burn men to ashes for using the Bible when they cannot keep it unknown any longer they translate it themselves as far as they can to their own advantage and put it forth with their perverting Annotations and yet when they have all done they condemne any that read it without a special licence from their Ordinary which in England and France they sometime grant to avoid suspicions but in Spaine Italy c. too few if any at all And when they have written voluminously to prove that the Scriptures are not necessary to the people for salvation and that Ignorance is the mother of devotion they come back again and dispute against the Protestants that the whole Scripture is not sufficient to salvation and he that believes but the Scriptures is not in a safe way to salvation It seems then that the Popes Canons are more necessary then the Scripture For a man may be saved without the knowledge of Scripture but not without the knowledge of the Canons of the Pope Yes that he may too if some of them mistake not if they will but implicitely believe that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church and that the Pope is the infallible soveraign of the Christian world and believe some Articles of the Creed upon his credit he may be saved without either Scripture or Canons so he be but ready to believe and obey whatever shall be offered to him by the Pope for the time to come Moreover Christ and his Apostles do frequently promise Remission and salvation to all that truely Repent that love God in Christ that mortifie the flesh c. but all this do the Protestants and their Religion teacheth them to do it Paul concludeth that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.11 But the Protestants are in
Christ Jesus and their Religion teacheth and engageth them so to walk therefore there is no condemnation to them that do so and they may with the same Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Challenge all the Papists in the world It is God that justifieth who shall condemne us Paul telleth Timothy that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 therefore they may make us also wise to salvation And he addeth that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works vers 16 17. It were endless to recite all that proveth the salvation of them that believe and obey the holy Scriptures But this all true Protestants do I shall therefore leave this taske and next hear what the Papists can say to the contrary and what they are able to produce to prove that we are not in a safe way to salvation Obj. 1. There is but one safe way to Heaven The Protestant Religion is not that one way Therefore not a safe way The Minor is proved thus That Religion which the Church hath owned from the Apostles dayes till now is that one way The Protestant Religion is not that which the Church hath so owned therefore it is not that one Religion The Minor is proved by parts 1. As to Doctrine 2. as to Discipline 3. as to worship 1. The Church ever since the Apostles dayes hath maintained the Doctrines of 1. Free-will to good or evil 2. of Predestination upon foreseen faith 3. of mans merits 4. of Justification by Inherent Grace 5. against the certain Perseverance of all the Justified and consequently against their certainty of salvation 6. Vowed Chastity and Monastical Life In Discipline the Church ever held 1. The Popes Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction 2. The Government by Bishops over Presbyters 3. Ordination by them and not without them 4. Pennance and Confession of sin 3. In matter of Worship the Church hath still used 1. Chrysme to the Baptized 2. Imposition of hands in confirmation 3. The sacrifice of the Altar 4. The Cross 5. Holy dayes 6. Fasting dayes All which the Protestants have cast off Therefore they are not of the same Religion Answ 1. To the Major Proposition of the main Argument I answer The word safe referreth to some Danger that we are safe from The way may be called safe therefore either in respect of sin or damnation Also this way may be called one in respect of the Essentials of Religion or else in respect of some inferior truths and duties that are not of absolute necessity to salvation And so I say that there is but one Religion as to the Essential and absolutely necessary points in which a man can be safe from Damnation And there is but one Religion as comprehending all the Integral parts in which a man can be safe from sin But yet that Religion which in the Essentials and Absolutely necessary points is but one may yet consist with errors in lower and lesser things in the minds of those that hold it and yet be a safe way to salvation though not so safe as to freemen from all sin And consequently there may be differences among true Christians that shall be saved though there be nothing but perfect Harmony in the entire Doctrine of Christian Religion as delivered from Christ and his Spirit Because no man holds that Doctrine entirely and perfectly without any error or ignorance and therefore there will be much difference among those that shall be saved To the Major of the Pro-syllogisme I answer Implicitely and in Generals the Church hath owned the perfect truth in all ages because it hath Believed that all that God saith is true and that the Scripture is his word But explicitely and particularly the Church hath not held all the truth of Religion in any one age since the Apostles For every man on earth hath been Ignorant and the most knowing men erroneous in some things seeing we are all imperfect and here know but in part And so one particular Church might erre in one thing and another in another thing as the differences about Easter Rebaptizing the Millennium Infants Communicating c. shew they did And of the same Church one Member might erre in one thing and another in another thing it being as certain that no two men on the earth are in all things of the same minde as that none on earth are perfect in knowledge To the Minor I answer that the Religion called Protestant is the same in all points absolutely necessary to salvation which the Church hath still owned And in other inferior points the Churches having not been all or alwayes of one minde some ages were more pure and others more corrupt The Protestant Religion is neerer to that of the purer times then the Papists is It is the same in the Essentials it is the neerest it in the Integrals it is more remote from latter corruptions introduced in times more remote from the Apostolical purity To the particular instances of our differences from the former Churches I answer particularly 1. For Free will to God if you mean a natural freedome which is the wills self-determining Power so the Protestants maintain it as well as the Fathers If you mean a moral freedom from ill-inclining habits which is properly a right-disposition so the Fathers maintained it not Obj. Let Scultetus in Medulla Patruâ— and others of your own Writers be judge who still number this inter naevos Patrum Answ Scultetus and Calvin and others might mistake the Fathers sence and think that they spoke of moral Freedom when they spoke but of natural which is inseparable from the will And its like that they did so seeing the Fathers maintained Original sin which is that pravity of humane nature which is clean contrary to moral Free-will 2. And if the Fathers were for a Free-will in a moral-Ethical sence so is one part of the Protestants as much as they were And if they were in the right so are those Protestants If in the wrong then the other part of the Protestants are in this in the right 3. This is a point that men may differ in as much as the Fathers did from us and yet be in a safe way to salvation 4. The Dominicans and the Jesuites differ about it as much as we and the Fathers yea they cannot yet agree what natural free-will is 2. For Predestination upon foreseen faith 1. There is no Declaration of the Churches minde in those times about it but what is found in the wrigtings of particular Doctors 2. We confess that men are Elected to Glory and Justification from guilt upon foreseen faith But we say withall that they are Elected to that faith and that God did foresee it as a thing which he intended to give and not as a thing which corrupted unregenerate
where that is cuâ—ed and I think far better without it then with â—t By all this therefore it evidently appeareth that a Papists do most vainly charge us with novelty 〈◊〉 call for a Catalogue â— the professors of our Râ—ligion when the noâ—ty is theirs and theâ—selves do yet profess â— Religion though to â— they have added thâ— corrupting Leprosâ—â— Though we cannot â—â—der take to prove that thâ— Church was perfect nor never will be till it coâ— to heaven yet we have oft proved that it was maâ— Ages without their Popery and are ready to undeâ—take the further proof Of which the next Dispâ—â—tion shall give you a tast There is a Railing Pamphlet extant called â— brief confutation of certain absurd heretical 〈◊〉 damnable doctrines delivered by Master James Ushâ—â— in a Sermon preached before King James at Wansteâ— Jun. 20. 1624. The Author calls himself Paulâ— Veridicus Its printed at St Omers 1627. Because take the same way against the Romanists as this Reverend Bishop of Armagh taketh and hath led me iâ— that Sermon I think my self the more obliged 〈◊〉 consider of what is said against it The first onset of this Mr Maledious pag. 9.10 11 Is against our assertion that we are of the same Reâ—gion and Church as the Grecians Aegyptians Christians Aethiopians c. and that all these are not â— be damned as Hereticks and unchurched because they â—re not subjects of the Pope To this 1. He conâ—â—sseth that even the Greeks themselves are not subâ—ect to the Pope and that they soon departed â—om the seeming union made in the Councel of â—â—lorence about the year 1439. 2. He confesseth â—at their doctrine about the Procession of the Holy â—host a patre per silium and not a patre filioque was â—ch that when they had explicated it they were â—und to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in â—e same matter and for such were admitted â— He affirmeth that he findeth not that in any subâ—â—antial point they do dissent from the Romane â—atholike Church excepting the matter of Primacy Let us first observe the consequences of this much â— From hence it followeth that the Greek Churches â—e guilty of no Heresie but non subjection to the â—ope of Rome 2. And that therefore indeed they â—re no Hereticks 3. And therefore it is not of neâ—essity to the being of a Church or Catholike Chriâ—ian to be subject to the Pope And that the Pope â—r Romane Church is not to enter the definition of â—he Catholike Church for as the Greeks may be Caâ—holikes without subjection to Rome so may others â— And therefore they are no General Councels â—here all those Churches are absent as at Trent Constance c. And that its a false excuse of Bellarâ—ine and the rest to say that the Greeks and the rest â—re Hereticks or Schismaticks 5. And therefore it â—eclareth to all the world both that the Popish deâ—gne and Religion is carnal and selfish to exalt â—hemselves above the whole Church of God and â—lso that they are more then barbarously tyranniâ—al censorious and most extreamly schismatiâ—al that will presume to cut off from Christ and the Church the greatest part of the Christiâ—â— in the world even those that themselves confess â— be in all other things Orthodoxe and that meâ—â— because they will not be the Popes subjects â— now proceed to the next The substance of his Answer consisteth of tâ—â— gross untruths in a publike matter of fact wherâ— many millions of men are able at the first hearing â— prove him a bold false witness making falshood â— prop of his ill cause The first untruth which â— layeth down is that the Grecians do claim that â—â—preamacy to their own Patriarke of Constantinople which they deny the Pope and therefore if it be hâ— it is as bad in them as the Papists and so they are â— Protestants To which I say it is not true whatever any private or particular man may say its weâ— known that it s not true of their Church in commâ—â— nor found in any of their Church confessions â— utterly and ordinarily disclaimed by them Thougâ— John of Constantinople did claim the title of Universal Bishop because of the Emperors residence there yet did he not get it much less to be the Universal Governor and yet much less is it now claimed whâ— the Christian Empire is removed To be Episcâ—pâ— prima sedis is as much as is desired by the Patriarcâ— himself which yet he is content to leave and taâ—â— the second place though neither of them concerâ—eth an Universal Episcopacy Can they read such books â— Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de primatu Paâ— Parham and many other of the Greeks and yet belieâ—â— themselves in these fictions Why do we read or hear nothing from the Patriache of Constantinople inâ—iting and perswading us all to submit to his Governâ—ent as we and all the Christian world almost have â—een solicited by the Popes Emissaries to submit our â—elves to him A short Reply may serve to such â—mmodest false assertions as this nicknamed Veriâ—ieus maketh the chiefest part of his confutaâ—ion The second untruth which constituteth this part of â—is answer is that The Grecians Moscovites and Egyptians do in one only point dissent from Rome and â—n no point at all agree with the Protestants sin quanâ—um such and dissent from their Catholike Church This one great falshood containeth two not small ones in it and each of those two contain abundance more 1. That all these Churches differ from you in no one point but the Popes supreamacy is a falshood beyond all modesty For besides the supremacy they believe not your pretended Infallibility nor do they pretend to the like of their own They believe not your Purgatory they own not your pardons for easing the pains of Purgatory nor prayers for the dead to that end nor the application of the treasury of the Saints Merits to that end or for satisfaction to the Justice of God They own not your Transubstantiation They have the Scripture in their known languages They worship God in their Liturgies in their known languages the Moscovites in the Moscovian tongue the Georgians in the Iberick the Arabians in the Arabick and so the Carmanians Slavonians Greeks in theirs They administer the Eucharist in both kinds and detest your Sacrilegious withholding of the cup They reject your confirmation so do they your extreme Unction They admit Priests to live with their wives which were married before ordination They reject tâ—e Religious use of graven Images or Statues They teach that the holy Scriptures are a sufficient and perfect rule of faith they believe that they should not be lockt up from the people They maintain that God is to be worshiped in understanding and they aâ—hor your praying by Beads and tale They think not to wash away sin or drive away the devil by holy water They take not Traditions to be one part of Gods Word necessary to supply the defects
their consciences 〈◊〉 when they have faln into it and know not the waâ— out again to have recourse to their faithful judicioâ—â— Guides for advice herein for the safety of their souâ—â— and so far to confess as is necessary to such advice aâ—â— safety But we do not believe that we are bound to tell the Priest of every sin no nor of every â—â—â—â—ous sin for in some cases we may have a fitter cure will not go to a Pyhsician for every prick of a pin â— cut finger which many neighbors or my self can â—re as well as he I will not so far needlesly trouble â—m Nor will I go to a bad unfaithful Physician â—hen I can have a better nor yet to an ignorant â—an because he hath got the degree of a Doctor of â—hysicke when I may go to an able man that proâ—sseth not Physick You know the Applicatiâ—n Its next said They Euangelical councels and works â— supererrogation You not Rep. We acknowledge â—hat there are many very good works 1. Which â—re the duty of some few Christians upon some speciâ—l occasions and not of all or most 2. Which are so â—he duty of those few as that yet many of them are â—aved that perform them not being not made of the â—ame necessity to salvation as some other duties are And we see not how any man can reasonably imagine â—hat there is any work more excellent than others which yet is not a duty when God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart and might and â—trength and to imploy all talents to the utmost for his Glory and that any Duty can be neglected without sin is as absurd How the Greeks and we differ in this we shall better know when you shew and prove it to us He next adds They the Merit of good Works you not We acknowledge that Good Works are pleasing to God through Christ and rewardable and they say in sence no more We thinke not meet to quarrel about the meer name They renounce and abhorre the Popish Merit of condignity ex proportione operis as is before said In the next place the confuter alledgeth his proofs of all these differences from us and consent with them The first proof is out of Act. Theolog. Witteâ—berg in Crispin de statu Eccles in these words Thâ— Greek and Romane Church are divided onely in the contoversie of Primacy and variety of Ceremony Repâ— I have not Crispinius now by me and therefore 〈◊〉 make no other answer but this that if he be truelâ— alledged yet 1. Abundance of great differences 〈◊〉 about Sacraments Orders Traditions c. may be comprised in that of Ceremony 2. Else your own Writers will tell you that this is a mistake His second proof is from Sir Edwin Sands Europâ— Specul To which I say 1. How unworthily did you conceal the multitude of differences mentioned in the same Author in the same place between you and thâ— Greeks and say there was but one 2. By Purgatory Sands tells you after he means not your Purgatory And it s known the Greeks deny it Though they think that the Saints have some less degree of glory distant from the face of God before the resurrection 3. About Transubstantiation and the Mâ—ss Sands is mistaken The Greeks hold a kind of Real presence but not Transubstantiation And the Mass of the Papists doth abundantly differ from theirs as in the denyal of Transubstantiation elevation c. may appear and is at large by many of ours eâ—pressed which may save me the labor of a recital Next the ignorant Priest would by a Syllogisme prove the Bishop a Papist and in the making of his Syllogisme he is out before he could reach the conclusion and begins again and yet would not blot out his former error so wary is he that he lose not a line of his own writing The mended Syllogisme is his Those who embrace the Communion of the Greciâ—n Church notwitstanding the error of supremacy â—annot in reason refuse the Communion of the Romane â—or the same But Mr. Ushers Church embraceth the Communion of the Greek Church notwithstanding that Error Therefore c. Repl. 1. To the Major it is â—alsly supposed that we refuse your Communion for â—hat Error alone It is for that with abundance more 2. To the Minor I answer by denying it and say you shamelesly slander the Greek Church They mainâ—ain not any Power of Governing the whole Church as the head of it and Christs Vicar general nor any infallibility c. as you do Next he will prove that Mr. Vshers Church can have no Union or Communion with the Greek Church at all and that by this Syllogisme That Church which is a member of another Church that other Church must also be a member of it But the Greek Church is no member of Mr. Ushers Church therefore Mr. Ushers is no member of the Greek Church The Minor he proveth from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople and Respons Basil Ducis Moscov Rep. 1. The part is not a part of another part a member is not a member of another co-ordinate member but of the whole 2. I say the proofs of your Minor are vain It is not two mens sayings that â—an make the Greek Church and the Protestants so dis-joyned as not to be members of the Universal Church If Italy tell France and France again tell Italy that they are no part of Europe it is not therefore true If Canterbury tell York that they are not a part of England it is not therefore true Every childe is not a Bastard that is so called by an angry brother If Patriarch Jeremiah fit yoâ—â— turn which I know not for I have not seen him why may not we as well plead the consent of Patâ—iarch Cyrill whose Protestant confession you may see in Alstedius's Euclucopaedia and elsewhere Next he comes to the Abassines where after the mention of their circumcision he as falsly affirmeth that In all other things they profess the faith of the Catholike Church acknowledging the Pope the supreme head thereof and Christs Vicar upon earth which he proves by a confession exhibited to Gregory the 13. and recorded by Possevine Rep. This is to make the foundation like the superstructure and defend falshood with falshood If you were so ignorant your selves as not to know the Romane jugling about that confession you could not imagine the learned Bishop so ignorant Not onely your own Godigam de rebus Abassinorum may tell you but the generality of your faction may sure inform you by this time that all your cunning industry cannot get the Abassines under your Papal Yoak And if you should prevail for the time to come that 's nothing to the time past The Abassines to let pass their errors wherein they differ from you and us do communicate in both kinds they believe the souls of Infants departing unbaptized to be saved because they spring from faithful parents They reject Statues â—â— massy
cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum est i. e. With the ancients there was no mention of Purgatory or exceeding rare And the Greeks believe not that it is to this day And as long as there was no care about Purgatory no man sought for indulgences for all the estimation of indulgences dependeth upon that If you take away Purgatory what use is there of indulgences indulgences therefore did then begin when men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory So far Bishop Fisher their Martyre Polidore Virgil reciting these words next to them addeth Quae tu forte cum tanti sint Momenti ut magis certa ex ore Dei expectabas Perhaps you expected to have had these things as more certain from the mouth of God seeing they are of such moment A sufficient hint that he had more in his mind if he durst have spoken out Yet note that the profit of indulgences is expressly sworn to in the new Trent Creed as part of their Belief This passage of Fishers was alledged by Bishop Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge and the like from Cajetans confessing that the beginning of indulgences is not known What the adversaries can say against these citations you may see confuted by Mr. Sing in his Rejoynder in Defence of Bishop Vsher against the Jesuite pag. 81.82 83. That the use of the Sacrament in one kind is a new invention is commonly confessed by them See Albaspinaeus a sober Bishop of theirs in his observations after his notes on Optatus cap. 4. de Communione Laica pag. 10.11 shewing the novelty of the now Romish Communion And Gregor de Valentia the Jesuite confesseth that minime constat it is not known when the custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind onely began but that it was not by any Decree of a Bishop but crept in by some custome of the people Of which also see Bishop Vsher ibid. and his Defender Mr. Sing p 78.82 83. About the beginning of Monkery see Polidore Virgils confess lib. 7. cap 1. pag. 414.415.416 And that Monachi primo omnium introduxerunt in Ecclesiant Dei vota sacra vestimenta profana simul religiâ—sa secerunt Monkes were the first of all men that brought into the Church of God sacred vows and made common or profanâ— garments become Religious pag. 424. Of the beginning of forbidding Priests to marry see the same Polid. Virgil. li. 5. cap. 4. pag. 293 c. Of Peters supremacy the samâ— Polidore saith l. 4. c. 6. p. 240. Veruntamen existunt etiam nunc c. There are some now that contend that Peter had power over all the Apostles of which it belongeth not to us to determine who are onely enquiring of the original of Priesthood but some think the contrary because Paul seemeth to deny it c. Where he addeth more reasons Of the Original of Cardinals and the changes of the Electors of Popes see him also l. 4. c. 9. where also he saith pag. 252. Verum cum postea Bonifacius 3. ab Imperatore Phoea impetrasset ut in omnes Episcopos praerogativam haberet omniumque caput perpetuo foret jam tum Romanus Pontifex multo quam antea unam cum suo urbano sacerdotum senatu cunctis sine controversia prestare authoritate caepit ac simul illi presbyteri quibus Tituli dati quibus Christianorum animas cutandi munus delatum fuerat to Cardinalium nomine velut supremae illius dignitatis proprio cum primis honestari caepit Here you have a hint of the Original of the very new frame of the Romish Church Many more points of the Romish way doth he in that Book discover to be novel And in opposition to all their way if you will see how he describeth the Reformed Religion peruse his narrative of the occasion of the Reformation pag. 410. cap. 4. li. 8. where he saith Ita licentia parta loquendi secta brevi tempore mirabiliter crevit quae Evangelica dicta est eo quod haud ullam asseveret recipiendam esse legem quae ad animarum salutem pertineat nisi quam Christus aut Apostoli dedissent i. e. Having once leave to speak that sect did marvailously increase which is called Evangelical because they affirm that no Law is to be received which belongeth to salvation but what is given by Christ or the Apostles Thus you see what the Protestant Religion is and whence called Evangelical and wherein it principally differeth from Popery from the mouth of a Papist himself an Agent of the Popes with the King of England H. 7. An Archdeacon and at last the Dean of Pauls in London from whence he removed because of the entrance of the English changes under H. 8 And though he say that it then begun meaning Luthers particular Reformation yet what is like to be the end of it in the next words he subjoynes his Prognostick Mansurum ut videtur quoad Christus ipse populum suum culpâ rectorum it a in duas sectas sejunctum rursus coegerit a quo istud optimus quisque maxime petere precarique debet ut ne major indidem fiat Religionis labes Its like to remain till Christ himself shall again bring together his people who by their Rectors fault are thus divided into two Sects from whom every good man ought especially to beg and pray for it lest Religion as daily decay more and more The novelty of their doctrine de efficacia Sacramenti ex opere operato is not onely by subtile Scotus but many more of their own confessed to be new More of their corruptions are by their own Writers confessed to be novelties and therefore it is great immodesty in the Papists to pretend the Antiquity of Popery though we easily grant them the Antiquity of their Christianity In so much as they agree with us they may prove their Religion to be ancient but its new in â—he points wherein we differ and most new in the greatest differences Bishop Vsher in his Answer to â—he Jesuites challenge and in his book de Statu â—uccessione Ecclesiarum hath proved the novelty of â—he main body of their corruptions especially the points of whose antiquity themselves most boasted of and this distinctly and fully to their perpetual â—onfusion beyond all reply If therefore the Romanists would have us return â—o their communion not to their subjection for that we never owed them let them but cast off their novelties and return to the ancient faith and practice of the Romane Church and we shall do it speedily â—nd do it gladly They shall see that we are so far from affecting an unnecessary separation that we â—ill embrace them in a lawful communion with all our hearts I cannot better express my hearty deâ—ires of this then in those hearty words of Hier. Zanchy Vol. 3. Thes de Eccles Milit. Thes 19. Col. â—40 Non enim ab Ecclesia Romanâ simpliciter â— omnibus defecimus sed in illis
present the far purest and renounce communion with them all and proclaim them Hereticks or Schismaticks and sentence them all to the flames of Hell Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Christians that have gone before them yea that dare unchurch and damne to Hell the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years For what do they less when they unchurch and damne all that acknowledge not their new made universal Bishop which the Primitive Church never did And when they make that to be essential to the Catholike Church which the first Catholike Church did never know I know there be some Enthusiasts and Anabaptists and such giddy persons that do as the Papists do condemn all the Churches of Christ except themselves But yet the Schisme that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papists who have set the Christian world into a flame of dissention and make it their very business daily to bâ—ow â—t up and do nourish so many Colledges of Jesuites and other orders to that end What notorious impudency is it then in these men to tell us that we are schismaticks separate from them and aske us how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation and why we will not be of our forefathers Religion and do not observe how they condemne themselves by all these questions What more evident then that the Papists have separated from all other Christians in the world How dare they condemne the far greatest part of Christians on earth to eternal torment yea and by plain consequence though they will not acknowledge it the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years were it but one soul that they should presume to censure they might well bethink them of an answer to Pauls Question Who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master doth he stand or fall When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome he knew of none then that would justifie the judging of all the world and say They are my servants or subjects and therefore I must judge them Do the blind Papists think that any sober considerate impartial Christian can be of their mind and damne the most of Christs Church on earth meerly because they will not be subject to the Pope of Rome If this Article be so necessary to salvation Why do not we find it in any ancient Creed Why must we not say I believe in the Pope of Rome as well as I believe in God Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romanists that is meant by the holy Catholike Church why would not the composers of the Creed tell us so And why did none of the ancient Churches understand and expound it so And why did no age add the word Romane and call it the holy Romane Catholike Church 2. And then withal besides the present Schisme which they have made they have laid the ground of a perpetual schisme For they have made a new definition of the Catholicke Church and made it another thing then it was before and they have made a new head and center of its unity so that all the old sort of Christians to the end of the world that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and center must needs be of a different body from the Romanists And if these men say that it is the rest of the Christian world that first withdraws from them 1. Let them prove that the Greek Abassins the rest of the Christian world that deny subjection to them except these in the West were ever under them 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore I mean their forefathers to countenance the Romish usurpation tyranny they withdraw only from that usurpation separate from Rome only as it is a faction not as from a Church If we be drawn into a schism separation from all the Christian world by the fraud of Rome is it unlawful for us to repent return to the unity of the Catholike Church and to renounce the Schism that we were guilty of This is our great sin we are schismaticks because we will not continue schismaticks we are Schismaticks by casting off the Schism of Rome because we will not be Schismaticks by continuing to separate from all the Churches else on earth 3. But let us come to the tryal with them who laid the first Schismatical Principle Was it not they that first defined the Catholike Church as equipollent with the Romane and first made the universal Headship of their Pope to be the center Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apostle do so Did they give us such a definition of the Catholike Church Or did the Church do so for many a hundred year after them Prove this well and take all and we promise to turn Papists without delay The plaine truth is this The Catholike Church for many hundred years after Christ was that Body of Christians who were united or centred only in Christ the head and held communion in the fundamentals or great and necessary points of faith and worship and had no mortal head or Center But the worldly greatness of the City of Rome occasioneth the inflation and proud usurpation of her Bishop and he will needs make himself the Center of union and universal head when there was no Center or head but Christ before And is not this the vilest Schisme that men can tell how to be guilty of suppose that the King of Spaine having his Dominions remote one part from another some in Europe and some in the Indies that for five or six hundred years the Indies should acknowledge no other head but the King of Spaine and the Governors of each Province should receive their several Commissions immediately from him and stand in no regimental subordination to one another but onely be bound by the King to have communion and hold correspondence for their mutual safety and the common good If now after so long time the Vice King of Mexico shall by Degrees make himself the sovereign of the rest first claiming onely the first place in their Assemblies because he is Governor of the greatest City and then requiring them to do nothing without him or his consent and at last proclaiming himself the head of the Indies under the King of Spaine and that none are subjects to the King but those that profess themselves also subjects to him but all the rest are rebels and traytors and to be used accordingly exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and use them as such And all this upon pretence that Spain is so far off that the King there is invisible and inaccessible to them in the Indies and therefore the King hath given him a Commission to be his substitute as being more visible and accessible If now the rest of the Presidents Governors and Provinces shall refuse to acknowledge the Headship of this man and shall declare that they dare
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
successors For they must succeed him in the cause if they will succeed him in the effects Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible But the Papists say the Catholike Church is infallible therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own all the doubt is of the consequence which I prove thus either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholike Church But both these are against the Popes infallibility Therefore 1. For the real no man can possibly know all their minds nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a minde therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to as its usual in all such Bodies or Assemblies Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth is and hath been against the Popes infallibility That it is so now is well known seeing all the Greeks Abassin Armenian Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papists 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. mihi 201. Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer non a Graecis solum sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Romanâ— Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur Atque habebant pro se illi quidem Imperatorum arma Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent That is Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world and the greater number of Churches besides the Arms of Emperors were against the Romane priviledges as they call them the Popes power So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men that not onely call themselves the whole Church as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels but also would make the simple people believe that before Luthers time there were scarce any that denyed their pretended power we may see from themselves then where our Chruch was before Luther so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations are our Church even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession And therefore this may stop their mouthes that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world 2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council And I have shewed before that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope deposed and condemned him This Bellarmine Canus and the rest of them do confess and therefore I need not say more to prove it Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre is proved fully both by the errors that they have committed and by their contradicting one another It s too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodoxe have had Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils then can be answered by the contrary minded Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed decree for adoration of Images And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary against the said Council of Nice though the Popes Legates contradicted them So did the Council of Paris anno 825. who examined judged and reprehended the Council of Nice and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it and therefore Bellarmine saith They judged the judge of the whole world Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It s commonly known how Nazianzene complained that He never yet saw a Council have a good end but things were made worse by it and not better And Hierom in Epist ad Galat. saith That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many The Council of Neocesarea confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice as saith the Council of Florence sess 7. condemned second marriages contrary to Scripture 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuseth them by plaine forcing their words The fourth Council at Carthage forbad Bishops to read the Gentiles Books which yet the Apostle makes use of and the Church hath ever since allowed The Council of Toletane 1. Ordain that he whâ— instead of a wife hath a Concubine shall not be kept from the Communion which Bellarmine also falsly excuseth The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors which Bellarmine confesseth and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Popes authority Whereas Pope Adrian approved them and the seventh Council judged them genuine Adrian saith Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere he receiveth the sixt Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus and decreed the contrary The Council of Trent is notoriously erroneous and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag 3. about the Canon of Scripture The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them See Doctor Sutline li. 2. de Concil cap. 1. What Gregor Nazianz. And â—ierome say of them I toucht before Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra Augustine saith li. 3 cont Maximni c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense taâ—quam praejudicaturus profere concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detinenis He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis Concilia plenaria priora a posterioribus emendari That is Former Councils that were full have been mended by later Bellarmines deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies are not worth the repeating Isidore saith Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors stâ—tentia invenitur illius
concilii sententia magis tenentur cujus antiquior pâ—tior est authoritas That is As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated and though the Popes Legates concur may yet erre in the faith if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees So that when they say that All the Church cannot err and therefore a General Council cannot erre their own meaning is that one man cannot erre but All the Church viz. a General Council without him may erre Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches or Fathers for six hundred years after Christ Therefore it is not now to be received The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times that there needs not any more to be said That which I shall produce to this pupose shall be anon to prove the following point and this together In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell Chamâ—er Bishop Vsher Doctor White who with many more have fully proved this Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement or the judgement of his Church then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture and of controversies about matters of faith For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to nor doth at all belong to him It is not the Pope as a private Doctor or as the Bishop of a particular Church which is made by them the subject of infallibility but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture and to judge of all controversies of faith into whose judgement at least with his Clergy our faith they think must be resolved If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct And this leads us up to the third Question which we have now to deal with Quest 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane pretended Authoritative judgement Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest I shall therefore say but little to it now reserving a fuller handling it if necessary to a fitter season Only I shall here adde a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth and then I shall adde a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement that is without it Arg. 1. If the Pope or his consistory must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge But the consequent will be denyed by themselves therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work and so of his consistory It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world therefore the consequence is good He cannot make known his determinations to all If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve should have recourse to him for resolution O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented What a concurse would be about his Holiness doors What time would he have to resolve those millions of men If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia or at the Antipodes before they go or send to Rome for Resolution and receive an answer the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution And if they live to see the return of their messengers they must take it on the trust of their words that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself nor know what he is or what is his minde but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates And if the Pope can delegate his power to others and make so many others also infallible then infallibility is not proper to himself and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible who are sent by Christ as these are that are sent by him Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge then all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office For sure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth But he must unavoidably neglect I mean omit that work which it iâ— impossible for him to perform Therefore What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following Quest 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ For a Romane Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ the successor of Saint Peter the head of the Church And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ who is the Saviour and principal head and who is supposed to send him Quest 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ For what is a Church but a society of Christians that is men professing the Christian Faith And how can they know that such men are Christians or profess that faith before they know what that faith is And how can they know that they are to
and therefore took him not to be infallible and he parallell's him with the Ancient Hereticks Marcion Apelles Valentinus Basilides as bringing in error under pretence of Tradition as they did And saith And for them that are at Rome they do not in all things observe those things which were delivered from the beginning and do in vain pretend the Authority of the Apostles as may be seen in that about Easter and about many other Divine mysteries there are some diversities with them and they do not equally observe all things as at Hierusalem they are observed As also in many other Provinces many things are varyed according to the diversity of places and names and yet no breach of the Churches unity and peace for this Which now Stephen hath dared to do breaking the peace with us which his ancestors kept in love and honor and moreover defaming Peter and Paul as if he had this Tradition from them And in this I have just indignation at the open and manifest foolishness of Stephen that he that thus boasteth of the place of his Bishopricke and contendeth that he holdeth the succession of Peter upon whom the foundations of the Church are laid doth bring in many other Rocks and maketh new buildings of many Churches while by his authority he defendeth that there is Baptisme And as to the confutation of Custome which they seem to oppose to truth who is so vain as to prefer custom before truth Or that seeing the light will not forsake the darkness Except that when Christ that is the truth was come the most ancient custom would have in any thing helpt the Jews that leaving the new way of truth they remained in Antiquity Which you Africans may say against Stephen that having knowledge of the truth you have forsaken the error of custome But we do both joyn custome to truth and to the custome of the Romanes we oppose custome but of the truth from the beginning holding that which from Christ and his Apostles was delivered to us Nor can we remember any beginning of this Yea thou art worse then all the hereticks See then how ignorantly thou darest to reprehend them who strive for the truth against a lye For who should more justly be angry with the other he that defendeth Gods enemies or he that consenteth But that it is manifest that the ignorant are haughty and angry while for want of judgement and speech they easily turn to indignation so that of no man more then of thee doth Gods Scripture say An haughty man breedeth strife and an angry man heapeth up sins Prov. 29.22 For what strifes and dissenssions hast thou made through the Churches of the whole world And how great a sin hast thou heaped on thy self when thou hast cut off thy self from so many flocks For thou hast cut off thy self deceive not thy self For he is truely the schismatick who maketh himself an apostate from the communion of Ecclesiastical unity For while thou thinkest to suspend all from thy communion thou dost onely suspend thy self from the communion of all Can there be one Body and one spirit with such a a man whose soul perhaps is not one so slippery and mutable and uncertain is it And yet is not Stephen ashamed to patronize such against the Church and for the defence of hereticks to divide the brother hood and also to call Cyprian a false Christ and false Apostle and a deceitful worker who being conscious that all these were in himself did by prevention object all that to another by a lye which himself deservedly ought to hear So far Firmilianus The question is not whether Stephen of Rome or the Eastern Bishops were in the right but whether these passages do not sufficiently declare that they had then no conceits of the Popes infallibility and that when he excommunicated other Churches they took it but as an excommunicating of himself and therefore plainly called him a Schismatick In the Council of Carthage 87. Bishops decreed expresly against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Cyprian in Council speaks thus Let every man speak his judgement judging no man nor removing any man from the right of communion that thinks otherwise For none of us takes himself to be a Bishop of Bishops or by a tyrannical fear doth compell his Colleagues to obey seeing every Bishop hath by licence free choice of his own liberty and power and can neither be judged of another nor can judge another But let us all expect the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ who onely and solely hath power to set us over his Church in Government and to judge of our actions If this be not as plain as need be spoken against the Papal usurpation I know not what can be accounted plain Yea Cyprian and the Council say the like to the Pope himself These things dear brother we speak to thy conscience for the common honor and for simple love But we know that some men will not lay down that which they have once drunk in nor easily change their purpose but saving the bond of Peace and concord among Collegues will retain some things of their own which are once grown into use among them Wherein we do neither use violence nor give Laws to any seeing that every Ruler or Bishop hath the free arbitration of his own will in the administration of the Church as one that must give account of his doings to the Lord. If this be not plain still against Papal and all Archiepiscopal government of Bishops I know not how a man should speak plain The Council of Carthage saith Gratian Dist 99 saith Even the Pope of Rome must not be called the universal Bishop Gregory called the great Bishop of Rome but a few years before Boniface claimed the universal Episcopacy wrote thus against John of Constantinople who would have had some such title None of my predecessors would use this prophane word viz. Universal Bishop because if one will call himself universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is stoln from others But far be it from a Christian soul that any should falsly ascribe to himself that whereby he diminisheth any thing from the honor of his Brethren To consent to that unjust speech is no other thing then to fall from the faith One thing we owe to the unity of the faith and another to suppress pride And I say boldly that he who calleth himself universal Pastor or desireth so to be called surpasseth the Antichrist in pride So Epist 188. l. 6. He saith I have said that he cannot have place with us if he corrected not the vanity of that supersticious and ambitious word which hath been invented by the first Apostate And to speak nothing of the injury done to your honor if a Bishop be called universal that universal once falling the universal Church must also fall Here it is especially to be noted that this very reason by which Gregory condemneth universal Episcopacy
is now used by the learned Papists to prove the Popes infallibity For they argue that the Pope cannot err de fide in Cathedra beâ—ause else the universal Church should fail with him if he fail The same Gregory in Epist 78. saith It is a thing too hard to endure that our Brother and fellow Bishop should be alone called Bishop in contempt of all the rest And what other thing doth this arrogancy portend but that the time of Antichrist approacheth already in so far as he imitated him who disdaining the company of Angels assayed to ascend to the top of singularity A man would think that all this should be plain enough to resolve us beyond all further doubting that the Popes Universal Episcopacy is new But to tâ—â— the Papisâ— have no thing to say but a foolish pretence that John of Constantinople would have been the sole Bishop on earth and have had no Bishop else but himself alone which the Pope never arrogated Ans A silly shift which supposeth all the world to be so unreasonable as to be satisfied with any thing or else would make them so A shift that hath not a word of proof to support it but contradicteth the full course of History and the words of Gregory themselves which all shew that it was but an universal Episcopacy to which all other should be subject which John of Constantinople did challenge if so much And all their shew of proof of the contrary is because Gregory here saith that He would be alone called Bishop But that 's not as if directly in terms but onely by consequence he is supposed to lay such a claim in that he claimed the title of universal Bishop But I now see that the Papists will make a nose of wax of their own Popes Writings as well as of the Scriptures and that the Pope hath no more the gift of speaking intelligibly than Peter Paul or Christ himself is by them supposed to have And therefore what should they talk any more of a living judge when that living judge himself cannot speak so as to be understood Platina saith that Bonifacius tertius a Phâ—ca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione c. That Boniface the third obtained of Phoâ—as the Emperor but not without great contention that the seat of the blessed Apostle Peter which is the Head of all Churches should be so called and accounted of all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople did seek to challenge to it self So that it was the same place or name which the Bishop of Constantinople would have had which Boniface after got and not as Bellarmine feigneth a quite different thing Nay I cannot perceive any probable evidence that Boniface himself had any thought of that Universal Jurisdiction which now is arrogated but onely to be the Greatest and Highest of all Bishops and in that sence called the Head or the universal Bishop If they knew the Pope to be the supreme infallible head of all the Church why did the Council of Calcedon the fifth general Council examin Leo's Epistle and profess to recive it onely on its agreement with former doctrine Yea why did this Council condemne Pope Vigilius his judicious sentence de 3 capitulis Yea and anathematize all that condemned not Theodorus of whom Vigilius was one and this in a Doctrinal Point Whether Hereticks may be condemned after death Yea they pronounce the Pope and his adherents defenders of impiety and such as cared not for Gods decrees or the Apostles pronunciations or the Fathers Traditions If these 165. Bishops had believed the Popes infallibility they would rather have craved his Definitive sentence And why did the Council of Calcedon also Decree without the Popes consent that the Bishop of Constantinople was equal with him and the 5-sixth general Council confirm it Any man of understanding that readeth over the Decretals of the several Popes shall find besides all other errors so many false expositions of Scripture even common reason and the Papists themselves being judges that there needs no other proof that they are too fallible Augustine in l. 2. Contr. Donatist saith Ipsa concila qua per singulas regiones c. That is Who knoweth not that the very Councils themselves which are held in several Regions or Provinces do without more ado yield to the authority of fuller Councils which are made out of the whole Christian world And that the full Councils themselves which were before are oft mended by the later when by some experiment of matters that is opened which before was shut up and that is known which lay hid and this without any smoak of sacrilegious pride without any inflation of arrogancy without any contention of livid envy with holy humility with Catholike peace with Christian charity This he brings as a majore to shew the Donatists the invalidity of Cyprians authority telling them that it is the holy Scriptures that are undoubted and of unquestionable credit but not the writings of any Bishops since no nor of Councils themselves This place of Austin doth confirm the French Papists as well as the Italian that they have nothing to say against it that without meer impudency can be thought to be of any weight What is vainly said by them you may see answered in A.B. Laud's Book against Fisher and A.C. Pag. 240 241 242. In Austines Book against Petilianus the Donatist the very question debated is How they may know where the true Church is And is it not a wonder that Austin never remembred to direct them to Rome or to the Popes infallibility if that had been the approved way Here then what way Austin went Cap. 2. pag. mihi Edict Paris 141. Quaestio câ—â—te inter nos versatur ubi sit Ecclesia utrum apud nos an apud illos Quid ergo facturi sumus in verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in verbis capiris sui Domini nostri Jesu Christi puto quod in illius c that is The question handled between us is where is the Church with us or with them What must we do then must we seek it in our words or in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ our head I think in his who is truth it self and best knows his own body 1 Tim. 3. The Lord knoweth who are his Cap. 3. p. 142. Sed ut dicere caeperam non audiamus haec dico haec dicis sed audiamus haec dicit dominus c. That is But as I began to say Let us not hear I say this and you say that but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are certainly the Lords Books to whose authority we both consent we both believe them we both obey them there let us seek the Church there let us discuse our cause Auferantur ergo illa de medio c. Away with those things from among us which we bring against one another not out of the Divine Canonical Books but from
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
spirit But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Romane cause For he immediately addeth that Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi audierunt ejus doctrinam ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut doâ—uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta dicta Christi approbaretur That is This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is onely meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Ghost and also saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his doctrine and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ might be approved This he proveth from Scripture and concludeth that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected because there is not the like cause and that Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretick of what state or condition soever he be Not excepting the Pope himself Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable then the Church of Rome is not infallible for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility Their Saint Maud saith that the Romane Church shall ere long Apostatize from the faith totally and openly which did obscurely Apostatize of a long time before Their Saint Elizabeth saith That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead that the Apostolike seat is possessed with pride and the flocks go astray The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication the Latin Church or the Ship of Peter whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin with which both Adam the Pope and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory But I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case already I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony with the words of Chrysostom or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math. and his own certain expressions elsewhere In the Imperfect Comment Edit Commel an 1617. in Math. 20. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901 it is said as followeth Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem primatus terrestris fructum posuit confusionem caelestem Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem sequatur humilitatem terrestrem quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terra inveniet confusionem in caelo ut jam inter servos Christi â—on sit de primatu certamen That is He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility and the fruit of earthly Primacy he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth shall find confusion in heaven That so a mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy And afterward he addeth Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere neque ratio est neque causa quia neque justum est neque utile Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti labori dolori quod majus est periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei nec times uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter convertat eum in secularem That is But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy there is neither reason nor cause because it is neither just nor profitable For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude labor grief and which is more to such a danger as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God nor feareth it that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy he may turn it into a secular One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostomes works but some hereticks I answer When they have use for it they can magnifie it Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book especially what he saith of some ancient Copies which have the errors onely in the Margin written by some Arrian hand and withall that it is very observable that the errors are so intermixed that yet you may take them out and not maim any of the sence but leave the rest entire yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes But whos 's so ever it is it is ancient and commonly much commended But let that go which way it will as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. he saith They that seek Primacy are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest state The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18. I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial by this smal taste of the judgement of former tmes whether the Romane infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon or resolve it into And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations even when it was at the highest he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes that will give him further information or in Bishop Vsher de Success stat Eccles he may find enough in narrower room The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause but I can find so little in any of their writings that 's worthy to be taken notice of more then what is answered before that I shall not need to stand long upon this They tell us that if our Church be not infallible then people
they reckon amongst penal works 23. Fasting also and Almes deeds they teach to be satisfactory works 24. That one man may satisfie for another but less suffering is required of him that satisfies for another 25. That the satisfactory and penal works of the Saints may be communicated and applyed to others 26. That the vertue of Christs blood is applyed to us by the Priests absolution 27. That by vertue of the Prâ—â—sts absolution eternal punishment is turned into temporal which also the Priest imposes according to his discretion 28. That the words of absolution are not onely a sign but also a cause of remission of sin or that they do effect justification for by the Priests absolution is sin driven away removed ex operâ— operato as a cloud by the wind 29. That a man cannot be reconciled to God without a Sacramental absolution 30. That Sacerdotal absolution hath that force of justifying because many desiring reconciliation and believing in Christ are damned onely because they died before they could be absolved by a Priest or as they otherwise express their meaning do perish for that onely they could not have a reconciling Priest 31. To Papal absolution we refer the Jubilees and their sale of indulgences 32. Also in the year of Jubilee which they have reduced from the hundredth tâ— the fiftyeth and thence to the twenty fifth they promise full remâ—ssion of all sins to those that visit the Temples of Peter and Paul and the Lateran Church 33. They assert that there is a treasure of overflowing satisfactions in the Church not onely of Christ but also of the Saints which the Pope by indulgences can apply both to the living and dead by which they are delivered from the guilt of punishment before God 34. That souls are freed from Purgatory by indulgences 35. They confess there is no need to adde the satisfaction of the Saints to the satisfaction of Christ which they cannot deny to be infinite and alwayes overflowing yet they to whom gain â—s godliness think meet to add them 36. Neither do they bestow indulgences for a few dayes or years but for many thousands of years from whence it is manifest they do but make a jest of the Article of the day of judgement which according to their own opinion will put an end to Purgatory and all temporal punishments 37. To conclude in all their Sacramental penance they make no mention of faith at all and of Christ scarce any 38. For Repentance Penance which they will have to be a plank after shipwrack they say consists on the penitents part in contrition auricular confession and satisfaction on the Priests part in Sacramental absolution as the act of a Judge whose words are I do absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 39. That that is a pious prayer which some are wont to use in Monasteries after absolution given for sin let the merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Virgin Mary and of all Saints the Merit of Order and the burthen of Religion the humility of Confession the contrition of heart the good works which thou hast done and wilt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ bestead thee for remission of sin and increase of merit and grace and for the reward of Eternal Life Amen § 10. Of extream Vnction 1. THat the extream Unction is truely and properly a Sacrament of the New Testament and indeed an ordinary one 2. That this Sacrament doth confer grace making us acceptable ex opere operato doth restore health to the sick and blot out sins if any remaine 3. That by this Unction which they apply to the eyes to the ears to the mouth to the loynes and to the hands God doth grant to the sick whatsoever is wanting by that fault of the sences 4. That by this Sacrament a man may sometimes be saved who should otherwise plainly be damned 1. That Ordination is truely and properly a Sacrament of the new Law conferring to the Ordained Grace making him acceptable ex opere operato 2. There are seven or rather eight Sacraments of Order all which are truely or properly called Sacraments viz. The Order of Porters of Readers of Exorsists of Servitors of Sub-Deacons of Deacons and Presbyters and Bishops 3. In every one of is given to the Ordained the seven fold Grace of the Spirit yea Grace making them acceptable and that ex opere operato 4. That anointing is required in Ordination Of Marriage 1. That Matrimony though it were instituted in Paradise is truely and properly a Sacrament of the new Law 2. And therefore does confer grace upon the married making them acceptable ex opere operato 3. That the Church has power to constitute impediments that shall hinder marriage 4. That the Church has power to dispense with the degrees of Consanguinity forbidden of God and to make more degrees which shall not onely hinder marriage but break it 5. That marriage confirmed not consummated is also dissolved in respect of the Bond by the entrance of one of the parties into a vow without the consent of the other 6. That the solemn Vow of Chastity and holy Orders are an impediment both hindring marriage to be made and breaking it being made 7. Also difference of Religion does not onely hinder marriage to be made but also break it being made 8. That marriage contracted between Infidels when either is converted to the faith is broken viz. because that marriage was not a Sacrament 9. That the Church of Rome did rightly prohibit marriage of old to the seventh but afterwards to the fourth degree of Consanguinity according to the Canonical rule of reckoning but the fourth degree of Canonical reckoning is the seventh and eighth in the Civil Law 10. The Spiritual kindred which ariseth forsooth from Baptism and Confirmation may hinder marriage to be made and break it being made § 11. Of the Effects of Grace NOw follow the Effects of Grace or the degrees of Salvation such are vocation justification c. 1. Where first the Papists do egregiously erre in expounding the word grace for when the holy Spirit speaking of these effects of Divine grace saith we are justifieâ— by grace and saved by grace c. By grace they understand not the free favour of God in Christ but the gift of grace inherent in us as if the Scripture did not say we are called justified and saved by the same grace we are elected and redeemed by 2. And then when they divide the grace of God into eternal grace which they call the everlasting love of God and temporary such as the benefit of vocation and justification are again they divide this temporary grace into grace freely given and grace making acceptable both which they will have to be a quality inherent in us as if either all grace which they call temporary did inhere in us or that which doth inhere in us