to Salvation and were some of them saved So that he acknowledgeth in some sense the Visibility of the Church Ecclesia vera erat in Papatu sed Papatus non erat vera Ecclesia Alii cautiùs Papatum dixerunt fuisse in Ecclesiâ non Ecclesiam in Papatu Prideaux Lect. de Visibil Eccl. p. 136. even Roman which Protestants deny not who grant that the true Church was in or under the Papacy although the Papacy was not that Church Neither is there any contradiction in this for a Leper is a true Man and as truly Visible as one that is clean Leprosie is not a distinct Body but a Disease cleaving to it In like manner Popery is not of it self a distinct Church but a corrupt humour in latter Ages predominant in the true Visible Church of God. Nevertheless he denies first the Papacy i. e. the Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine and Worship introduc'd of late by the Popes and their adherents to be any part of the true antient Christian Catholick Faith by which our Ancestors were saved any more than Leprosie is any part of a Man. Secondly he denyeth that there is alwaies and at all times in this true Visible Church a visible Company or State of People actually and personally divided from the rest that profess the True Faith perform Religious Worship and exercise Church-Discipline in open and conspicuous manner wholly free from the Corruptions and Abuses of such as have defiled the Church For 't is one thing to be a True Visible Church another to be free from all such Errors and Corruptions as may being wilfully persisted in endanger Mens Salvation and therefore need Reformation The Church of the Jews was the true yea the only true Church of God yet in the time of Elijah and after in our Saviour's days they were generally ten Tribes of twelve over-run with Idolatry and Superstition The like we say of the Church of Rome in the Ages next before Luther when not only gross Ignorance but many palpable Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Government did visibly appear which many eminent Professors sufficient The Answer to D. White pag. 354. as a Jesuit confesseth to prove the Churches Visibility under Persecution who lived and died in the Communion of that Church openly opposed lamented and bewailed as S. Bernard See the Articles of Reformation proposed to the Council of Trent by Ferdinand the Emperour and Charles the Ninth Apud Goldast constitut Imp. tomo 2. p. 376. and tomo 3. p. 570. Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius Cameracensis Bishop Grosthead with innumerable more although they were over-born by the predominant Party then bearing rule who could not indure to hear of Reformation tho much desired by many true Catholicks and promised by Adrian the Sixth and other Popes before the calling of the Council of Trent But it is very disingenuous to quote out of any Writer a line or two and not to add with it his explained sense and meaning As for Mr. Perkins who in his Reformed Catholick which I have not now by me saith That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholick Church his Words if his admit of the same Answer But I dare appeal to any Christian whether he can possibly believe that any learned Protestant Writer yea any man in his wits Juels Defence pag. 45 46. should think that the Gospel preached by our Saviour and the Apostles asserted by the Antient Fathers and Martyrs should first appear in the World when Luther and Zuinglius began to preach For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel Faith and Church of which Luther Zuinglius or any mere mortal man tho pretending to be Infallible is the Author and Founder Did not I believe the Doctrine generally own'd by the Protestants to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Antient Fathers I could not satisfie my own Conscience as to the profession of it The true meaning then of some Protestant Writers could be only this That the Gospel or Christian Religion did in Luther's days begin first to appear more eminently freed or reformed from those after-grown Errors and Corruptions it was in some later Ages mis-figured with being reduced to the prime Rule of Faith Garenz de Sergio de Conciâ—â—â— 706. Aquin. 2. qu. 1. art 7. resp ad 4. the Scripture and its best interpreter Primitive Antiquity And is it not an unspeakable Blessing that we enjoy such a Reformation For I can scarcely think that any sober Romanist will deny that the first were the best and the last the worst Ages of the Church and that there was after the Apostles days and the first 5 or 600 years a manifest declension of the antient purity of Doctrin and simplicity of Devotion altho there still remained a true Church as to essentials The Question concerning the Visibility of the Church stated BUT that we may not beat the air I shall first of all enquire into the true state of the Question Protestants do not as Bellarmine grants affirm the Church to be wholly and absolutely Invisible or utterly hid from the eyes of all men in any Age but comparatively only not being alwaies equally Visible They acknowledg that God ever had and will have a Church in the World which shall make in some degree a Visible profession of Christian Religion even under Persecution Thus it was in the days of Athanasms and Hilary See their words below tho not so illustrious and conspicuous for they say that the Church may be reduced to a small number the Orthodox Pastors may be violently thrust out of their Churches and the best Christians forced to worship God privately in corners And will any man deny but this detracts much from the Visibility and conspicuousness of the Church They of the Church of Rome grant all this The Jesuit Mr. White answers doth not avow yea disowns it that the Church is visible Defence of the Way p. 354. i. e. that it is a Company of Christians so illustrious as it not only may be but actually is known to all men living at all times for saith he Ecclesia aliquando obscuratur tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum c. Epist ad Vincent 48. Firmiores partim exulabant partim latitabant Ibid. Diligenter animadverti debet non sic accipiendum esse quod dicimus Ecclesiam esse semper conspicuam quasi velimus eamomni tempore dignosci posse aequè facilé Novimus enim illam aliquando errorum schisinatum persecutionum fluctibus esse agitatam ut imperitis quidem nec satis prudenter rationes temporum rerumque circumstantias aestimantibus cognitu fuerit difficilis quod tum maximè accidit cùm Arianorum perfidia in orbâ— pâ—enè tâ—to dominabatur Analys Fid. l. 6. c. 4. I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies especially in time of Persecution such an outward worldly and prosperous estate
the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrific'd Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon If Christ should be offer'd by himself or others often more than once ver 26. then must he have often suffered But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead which our Adversaries affirm Yea if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over for sacrificing any living thing and such is Christ to God Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut plane destruatur ipsa etiam substantia consumatur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed as the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass if they deny it then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd if they should attempt it the thing is impossible for Christ being now impassible and in a glorify'd State can die no more as we read Rom. 6.9 When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè without bloudshed they yield the cause for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction as Bellarmine grants De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed for without shedding of bloud there is no remission If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or a commemoration of his death termed 1 Cor. 11.26 a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sacramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup we should not oppose them but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud really corporally and carnally as it was on the Cross is quite another As for Bellarmin's Reply that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass it signifies nothing For I ask Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice or Christ himself his Body and Bloud Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Priests manducation or eating and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only de missa l. 1. c. â—â—â— But a true Sacrifice requireth a consumption of its substance as is above by him granted Ergo. who is a living Person yea liveth for ever If Bread onely 't is blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin If Christ himself who is a living Person be truly and properly sacrific'd he must be truly and properly slain As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion I answer That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Communion of the Bloud of Christ And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order thereunto So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary Nor Communion in one kind only As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution example and command of Christ himself as also the Apostolical tradition of St. Paul that 't is a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me so our Lord at the first institution of it Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians commending it to the observation of the whole Church Laity as well as Clergy joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon Let a man examine himself c. What man An Apostle only or a consecrating Priest No. But any ordinary Christian capable of this Sacrament Well What is then to be done Let him eat of that bread as it is his necessary and indispensable duty to do but is that all No. For he addeth And let him whether Layman or Clerick whether Consecrator or not also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye Christians in general eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew forth as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not the Lords death till he come Doth it not look like Antichristianism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter Panis vinum ad essentiam sacramenti pertinent Bellarmin de Euchar lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil Trident. Panis vinum non tam essentiales quam integrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur Bellarmin de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur mutilate or in any substantial part as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknowledg'd to be to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian Clerick or Laick as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one they may both for both are equally commanded both are as necessary as either The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church from which as we see they have manifestly departed In a word If the Pope and his Councils have power to alter and dispense with yea countermand Christ's express Laws and Institutions Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum but it is made as a learned Traveller observes a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men which directly tends to promote Atheism for which crime Italians are notorious Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith without which no
from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
the Aquarii who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist Epist 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur argueth in this manner Where there is no Wine in the Cup the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd for we see the bloud to be shown ostendi in the Wine And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words Give us this day our daily bread to the sacramental bread The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he saith Veracissimum sanctissimum creat corpus suum sanctificat De coena Dom. Who continually even to this present day doth create sanctifie and bless his Body distributing the same to godly Receivers Now it 's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created sanctified or blessed The words of Athanasius are very remarkable Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh Ad Serapion De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann V. Câ—prian de coena Dom. August de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt nisi manducaveritis carnem c. Aug. Tract 27. in Joan. ubi plura that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal but spiritual For to how many men was his body enough to eat that it should become the food of the whole World But therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven that he might draw us off from a corporal sense and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words I speak to you are spirit and life as if he had said my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicated to every one Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread Mystagog lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6 c. Except ye eat is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually Christs Body is given thee and under the Type of Wine his Bloud Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud In like manner Dionysius Areopag and Basil in his Liturgy But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen As saith he In Laudem Gorgoniae Orat. in Baptis the Altar is by Nature a common Stone but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table and as the Eucharistical Bread is at first common Bread but when the Mystery i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it is called and is the Body of Christ As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety and nothing changed in body hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace so the Water in Baptism when it 's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it 's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism the Ordination of a Priest or the Consecration of an Altar Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius which is to be seen in the Florentine Library * Which is published since this Author wrote See the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux in Append. It is quoted by Damascen contra Acephalos Etiamsi Natura panis permansit Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas ad Serap de SS Comment in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis Domini Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus non corpore as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnesseth as also in the University-Library at Oxford writeth after this manner Before the bread be sanctify'd we call it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it we call it the Lords Body altho the nature of bread remain These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation In another place the same Father discourses after this manner If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd c. much more our bodies to sin Adding That we ought to climb up into Heaven when we receive the Communion if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body yea rather above the Heavens for saith he in another place Wheresoever the carcass is there will the Eagles be gather'd together The Lord is the Carcass because of his death and this is a Table for mounting Eagles not for pratling Jays I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Disciples breaking bread and giving it to them saying Take eat this is my body c. adds As ye have received the similitude of my death so drink also the similitude of my precious bloud This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place Christ is touch'd by Faith not bodily Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony Our Saviour saith he In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Jerom in Psal 50. Dei tui corpus sanguinem mente continge cordis manu suscipe in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names not natures of things and applied that to his body which belonged to the symbol or sign of it and to the sign what appertain'd to his body which he did that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace For he that is Christ that called what is by nature a Body Wheat or Bread the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature Dial. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but adding Grace to Nature And when the Eutychian Heretick would hence draw an argument that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration another after it so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead Theodoret replieth upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are taken in your own Net for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature but remain in their former substance form and appearance Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance but in their substance also This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation I will add the words of Gelasius who was as some say Bishop of Rome but however one that liv'd towards the latter end of the fifth Century
in the body thinketh the more that the body so like its own body hath sense also The like we find in his 49th Epistle Who doubts that Idols want all sense yet when they are placed aloft in an honourable sublimity by the very likeness of living members although dead and without sense they affect our minds the veneration of a multitude being added thereunto which crazy and pestilent distempers the Scripture healeth saying They have eyes but see not Whether Images in Popish-Churches have not the very same influence and effect on ignorant and superstitious Women let impartial men and such as have travelled abroad amongst them determine The same Saint Austin quoteth and commendeth a saying of Varro De Civitat Dei Lib. 4. c. 9. 31. that they who brought in Images for the People both took away the Fear of a Deity render'd base and contemptible by representations of wood and stone and added Error i. e. false and unworthy apprehensions of God. To all this it will I suppose be answered First That the Fathers inveigh against making Images of God or false Gods not Saints I reply 1. Some of them expresly condemn all Images 2. Do not Roman Catholicks though some of their own Writers condemn it make Images or Pictures of God the Father in the likeness of an old Man and of the Holy Ghost of a Dove True say they but we do it not to represent the nature of God but certain properties and actions appertaining to God I do not wonder they say they do not what cannot be done to wit to represent by an Image the infinite invisible and incomprehensible nature of God But herein they say what even the Heathens said of their Idols For Hermes Trismegistus quoted by Cyril Xenophon by Minutius Foelix Olympius by Sozomen confessed Hist Lib. 7. c. 15. that it is impossible to signifie the incorporeal God by a Body and that the form of God cannot be seen that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelt in those corporeal Images but they were not the Powers themselves It 's granted Ne facias nisi tibi Deus jusserit Tertul. de Idololat c. God and the Holy Ghost did appear in such likenesses what 's that to us We have an express command not to make to our selves any likeness of any thing in Heaven c. Is not God the Father with the Holy Ghost in Heaven Secondly They answer V. Concil Constant 6. Can 82. apud Caranzam that they give religious worship to Images not for themselves propter se but for the sake of the Persons they represent The Heathens as we have seen above said the very same If Romish worship of Images be lawful it will be difficult to condemn or convince the Heathens of Idolatry The Jews did not worship the Calf for it self but as a Representative of God. Lastly They affirm that they yield to Images a mean low and inferiour worship not what belongs to God onely I answer that as we have shewn above they give to the Images of God and Crucifixes the same Divine worship they yield unto God and Christ themselves To say they give Images Latria and yet an inferiour kind of such religious worship is to contradict themselves for all Latria as such is summus cultus the highest worship a creature can give if they give them an inferiour religious honour it is not Latria Art. 6 Concerning the Popes Supremacy I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catholick Faith The Popes Supremacy over all Emperors Kings Bishops Councils Churches and Christians throughout the World. Concerning the Fathers before the Nicene Council called above 300 years after Christ we need not make any strict enquiry seeing Aeneas Sylvius who was Pope himself afterwards confesseth Epist 288. that before this Council aliquis sed non magnus some but no great respect was given to the Roman Bishops in Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Tatianus Athenagoras I find no mention of any Supremacy in the Bishop of Rome Come we then to the Antient Father Irenaeus He in his third Book Cap. 12. quoting the words of the Church of Jerusalem ☞ Acts 22 23 25. saith These are the words of that Church from which every Church had its beginning If every Church V. Epist Concilii Constant 1. c. 9. Epist ad Damasum then the Roman How can she then be Mater Magistra the Mother and Mistris of all Churches as is now pretended by our Romanists This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome for threatning or attempting at least to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia Lib. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 15. for not observing Easter on the same day he did as Eusebius relateth At the same time lived Polyerates the renowned Bishop of Ephesus with whom many Catholick Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatned Excommunication but resolutely persisted in the Tradition and Custom received from his Predecessors particularly John the Evangelist as we find in Eusebius lib. 5. Hist c. 23. Hence it is evident that Polycrates as also Irenaeus did not look upon the Bishop of Rome as Prince and Sovereign Head of the Church or more infallible than any other Bishop It 's true Irenaeus had a great reverence for the Roman Church and testifieth to her honour that in his days the Apostolick Doctrine or Tradition remained pure and incorrupt which he opposed to the Heretical Novelties of the Valentinians But this no way proveth that she had Supreme Jurisdiction over all Churches But in regard it would be long as he saith to reckon up all Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Ephesus c. Lib. 3. cap. 3. to whom he giveth the same testimony of purity of doctrine he instances in Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem in regard of its more powerful principality known to all But these words plainly enough relate not to the Roman Church immediately as a Christian Church but to the City of Rome which at that time was the Imperial City and Head of the World. Alas What powerful Principality could the poor persecuted Church of Rome enjoy then living under Heathen Emperours It is not therefore meant strictly and properly of an Ecclesiastical but Civil Power and Principality of the City of Rome V. Concil Chalcedon infra Epist ad Roman in which the Church of Rome sojourned as St. Ignatius writeth to them whereby through concourse of all Nations it was rendred more conspicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Sylvius before mentioned confirm the same In Clemens Alexandrinus I find nothing concerning this matter I will go on to Tertullian Run through saith he the Apostolical Churches If ye be near Achaia ye have Corinth if Macedonia Philippi and Thessalonica si Italiae adjaces habes Romam If ye live near Italy ye
have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8◠ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
I grant also adds he that sometimes the Church is obscured as S. Austin saith with multitude of Scandals and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuite Greg. de Valentiâ When we say the Church is alway conspicuous this must not be taken as if we thought it might at all times be discerned alike easily For we know that sometimes it i.e. the Church the Mountain Isai 2.2 is so tossed with the waves of Errors Schisms and Persecutions that to such as are unskilful as the far greater part of Christians ever are and do not discreetly enough weigh circumstances of times and things it shall be very hard to be known which then especially fell out when the falshood of Arrians bare rule almost over all the World. Therefore we deny not but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some time than at other some yet this we avouch that it alway might be discerned by such as could wisely esteem things So he And is this all they would infer from Mat. 5.14 15. Ye are the light of the world A City that is set on an hill cannot be hid c. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernable by a few discreet quick-sighted persons Is this the Visibility they so much contend for Well it 's here granted us that the Church is not alway easily visible or discernable to all but only to a few discreet Persons If this will satisfie them we shall readily grant that the Protestant Church under the Persecution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernable yea was or is hardly visible to such as are unskilful and do not wisely enough weigh circumstances of times viz. of Oppression and Persecution Yet this we say that it might have been discern'd even in the next Ages before Luther not only in the Waldenses Wicklevists Albigenses and Bohemians how odious and contemptible soever they are render'd to the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church by such as can discreetly judg of things and times What great matter then can these men make of the Visibility of the Church they so much boast of But is all this Contention about nothing truly it is no easie thing to resolve what it is our Adversaries would have more than is already granted by us I will give the best account I can find out of their own Writings what it is they aim at Bellarmin stateth not the question Ecclesia est â—â—tus hominum â—â—a visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel regnum Galliae Bellarmin de Eccles Milit. lib 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia visibilis est i. e. sic in luce hominum conspectu posita ut quovis seculo evidenter internosci quasi digito monstrari queat congregatio illa quam esse veram Ecclesiam determinatè oredere possis ac debeas Haec autem Ecclesiae proprietas universos Haereticos pessimè habet Anal. Fidei lib. 6. pag. 30. but somewhere saith that The true Church is a Company of men as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France Spain or the State of Venice Gregory de Valentiâ above-mentioned affirms that the Church is Visible i.e. is so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age that Congregation or Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately or particularly believe to be the true Church This property of the Church saith he exceedingly troubleth all Hereticks But it would exceedingly trouble him were he alive or any man else to reconcile this with his former concession For if the true Church be so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age it may be evidently discerned and pointed at by the finger how is it that as he is forced to grant in times of Persecution and over-spreading Error as under the Heathen Emperors and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresie it is very hard to many to see where the true Church is yea none do discern it but such as prudently weigh circumstances of times and things which the far greater part of men neither do nor can Who of our Adversaries if he had lived in the days of Hilary would not have taken the Arians for the true Church Did not all or the far greater part of Bellarmin's Notes of the true Church belong to them only as Multitude Succession temporal Prosperity external Glory efficacy of Doctrine converting Ad ann 358. or rather perverting almost as Baronius grants the whole World Would they have taken those few for the true Catholick Church who separated themselves from their heretical but supposed infallible Head and Guide of the universal Church Pope Liberius Ad ann 357. v. Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 9. Liberius post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus atque ita restitutus est Ecclesiae Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes Hieron in Catal. In Fortunatiano Subscripsit Haeresi Arianorum Et in Chronico ait Liberium taedio victum exilii in Haereticam pravitatem subscripsisse Liberius is declared to be a Heretick by the Sixth Seventh and Eighth General Council and Pope Agatho and Pope Leo the Second Patet ex lib. de Romanis Pontificibus multos Clericos Romae à Constantio necatos esse qui noluerunt cum Liberio communicare Baron ad ann 357. parag 49. Baronius the Cardinal acknowledges that he communicated with the Arians and in his own Letters still extant he professeth that in all things he agreed with them Yea farther S. Hilary Athanasius and S. Hierome write that he subscribed to the Heresie of the Arians and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers make it an essential qualification of a Catholick or Member of the true Church to hold Communion with the Bishop of Rome and to live under his Government who instead of being an infallible Guide to others may fall into damnable Heresie himself I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church whether they that joyned with Liberius or such as separated from him Here I cannot but observe which Cardinal Baronius takes notice of that when by the favour of the Emperour Constantius and the intercession of the Arian Bishops Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishoprick many Clergy-men chose rather to suffer death than to joyn in Communion with him whom they themselves account Martyrs or at least dare not condemn as damnable Hereticks and Schismaticks the appellations they bestow upon Protestants for their not communicating with the Roman Bishop But I have not yet done with Valentia Non usque adeò ipsi volumus Ecclesiam esse conspicuam ut censeamus aut oculis cerni aut evidenti
Durand Rationale lib. 6. c. 72. Turrecremata de Consecrat Distinct 2. num 4. Ad annum Christi 304. Nomine Christianorum deleto qui rempub evertebant in the days of Dioclesian the worst and last persecutor of Christians such havock and prodigious destruction was made of the Christian Church that several Trophies and Monuments as Baronius grants were set up in Spain in memory of the total extirpation of Christianity superstitione Christi ubique deletâ Where was then the conspicuous as Costerus phraseth it and illustrious state of the Catholick or particular Roman Church Surely had not the Church of Rome her self as well as other Christian Churches been in a great degree invisible as to the knowledge of the Roman Emperour and his Inquisitors in all humane probability the name of Christians as they boasted had been wholly rooted out I might add the state of the Christian Church even Roman Ingemuit totus orbis se factum esse Arianum admiratus est Dialog contra Luciferianos under the prevalency of Arianism and its heretical Head Pope Liberius when as St. Hierom writes the whole World sighed and wonder'd how it became Arian When the Catholick Bishops were banish'd from their Sees and the Orthodox Christians forsaking the Churches worshipped God in cryptis in private houses and corners Concerning which deplorable times St. Hilary writeth in this manner to such as communicated with the Arians Malè voâ—â—â—s parietum amor cepit malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedisiciisque veneramini Montes mihi lacus carceres sunt tutiores Addit Rarumesse apud Orientem invenire aut Episcopum aut populum Catholicum Lib. contr Auxentium Quae nunc Ecclesia Christum liberè adorat Siquidâ—m si pia est periculo subjacet Nam si alicubi sunt pii sunt atem ubique tales permulti illi itidem absconduntur c. Epist ad solitariam vitam agent Vid. Apolog. ejus ad Constant de fuga You are ill taken with the love of walls you ill seek or reverence the Church of God in Houses and Structures Mountains and Prisons and Dungeons are safer He adds that 't was hard to find in the East a Catholick Bishop or people Athanasius saith as much or more What Church saith he now adores Christ freely Seeing if it be pious it is in danger For if there be some pious and studious of Christ as there are every where many such they also as the great Prophet ELIAS are hid thrust themselves into holes and caverns of the Earth or wander in solitude These things being undeniably evident I desire to know whether in those days the true Church was not only visible but very conspicuous to the sight of all men so that it might be evidently distinguish'd and as it were pointed at with the finger as Costerus and Valentia affirm But what need is there of many words in this case Pauiò ante mundi finem externus status Ecclesiae Romanae cessabit publicum fidelium cum eâdem commercium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim obtinebit tamen tunc pii corde Papâ Ecclesiâ Romana communicabunt Rhemenses in Annotat. in animo cum 2 Thess 2. Revel 12. when our Adversaries themselves grant that a little before the end of the World when Antichrist shall come the external state of the Roman Church shall cease and that the publick worship of God shall by persecution be suppressed and that the truly pious shall communicate with the Pope only in heart and soul The difference then betwixt them and us cometh only to this that what we say hath been they say shall be hereafter whilst it is agreed on both sides that an illustrious conspicuous visibility is no essential property or inseparable note of the true Church Texts alledged for Visibility as meant by the Papists answered I now come to examine the places of Scripture mention'd in your Letter to evince the contrary The first and principal urg'd by Valentia and many other is Matth 15.14 15. Ye are the light of the World. A City that is set on an Hill cannot be hid Neither do men light a Candle to put it under a Bushel c. To which may be added Isa 2.2.60.20.61.9 Dan. 7.14 quoted in your Paper To all which the same Answer may be applied My reply is that those words do not prove a perpetual conspicuous and illustrious visibility of the Church in all Ages to all persons which our Adversaries contend for First Because the words are not spoken at least directly of the Church general or successive in all Ages but of and to the Apostles personally Ye are the light of the World. And seeing they were commanded by our Saviour to teach all Nations we may reasonably suppose that they were under a special protection of divine Providence until they had fulfill'd the work committed unto them But the case of ordinary Pastors and Teachers of the Church is not the same with that of Apostles Secondly Suppose we understand the words of the Church general or successive which we grant to be a light to the ignorant World and like a City set on a Hill yet it cannot be deny'd yea our Adversaries grant it that this light of Apostolick doctrine in the Church may be obscur'd or eclipsed by error Aug. Epist ad Vincentium supra scandal and persecumay be obscur'd or eclipsed by error scandal and persecution as the Sun and Moon sometimes are tho they be glorious and most visible lights In like manner a City set on an Hill may be so clouded by foggy mists and vapors that it may become for some time invisible at least not so visible or conspicuous as that any man may point at it with his finger The other Similitude of Mens lighting a Candle and setting it on a Candlestick that so it may give light to all in the House signifies the clearness universality and diffusiveness of the doctrine taught by the Apostles But that any one particular Church Greek or Roman should be such a Candlestick as can never fail or be remov'd as well as that of Ephesus and many other Apostolical Churches wholly rooted out by Mahometanism Revel 2. or which should be as our Adversaries too grosly affirm more visible and discernable to all men than the light it self viz. of the Gospel contain'd in the Scripture plac'd in the Candlestick i. e. the Church this I suppose no prudent man will take to be our Saviour's meaning in those words That they make their Church the Candlestick and its Authority more visible to us than the truth or light of the holy Scripture is so notorious I will not stand to prove it * Quae sit vera scriptura quis ejus verus sensus non possumus scire nisi ex Testimonio verae Ecclesiae Bellarmin de Notis Eccl. lib 4. c. 2. In a word A Candle tho burning clearly on a Candlestick
salvation is to be had or expected are errors and corruptions of it contrary to the doctrine that the holy Apostles have deliver'd to them and us in their Writings So that I may justly ask them Where was your Creed and Church before Pope Pius who was hardly so old as Luther I might add several other Doctrines and Practices as contrary to Scripture if I understand any thing in it as Darkness is to Light particularly Concerning some practices in the Roman Church which are against Scripture As 1. Service in an unknown Tongue that unreasonable service of God in a Tongue the people do not-understand Can any thing be more plainly contradictory to the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. Doth not Saint Paul there condemn all Speaking whether in Sermons Prayers or Thanksgivings in the Church in an unknown Tongue ver 2. Unknown not to God who knows all things even Sermons in Latin Greek or any Tongue else but to Men. He prefers Prophecying i.e. Preaching or expounding the Scripture before Tongues i. e. strange and not understood by the Hearers for this very reason because he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue speaketh to God not unto men for no man understandeth him howbeit in the Spirit i.e. by a miraculous gift of the Spirit Ver. 3. as the gift of Tongues was he speaketh mysteries i. e. profound and admirable Truths But he that prophesieth or preacheth in a known Tongue speaketh unto men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort He that speaketh in an unknown Tongue edifieth himself Ver. 4. not the Church But Saint Paul would have the whole Church edifi'd or profited by whatever is spoken Hence he commands ver 26. all things to be done to edification and forbids any one to use his miraculous gift of Tongues in the Church unless he interpret what he saith or another for him that so the Church may receive Edifying i.e. spiritual profit being built up in their most holy Faith. Is it not as clear as the day at Noon that according to St. Paul's doctrine there is no profit or edification redounding to the People by whatsoever is spoken in the Church in an unknown Tongue Neither doth he in that Chapter speak only of Sermons Papists themselves are not so absurd as to preach in Latin to their people or private Conferences as Bellarmine would evade he speaketh generally of whatever is spoken in the Church it must be in a Tongue known to the people that so the people may be profited by it in regard else they are not edify'd or profited at all Neither doth he speak of Sermons only but Prayers and Thanksgivings hence ver 15 16. I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also So that in St. Paul's judgment it 's necessary to pray and sing Praises Psalm 47.7 as David saith with understanding Then he adds Else when thou shalt bless God with the Spirit i.e. by an extraordinary gift of strange Tongues bestow'd by the Spirit on many in those days how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen to thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest Where two things are as plain as if they had been written with a Sun-beam First That St. Paul in that Chapter discourseth not of Sermons or Conferences onely but Prayers and Hymns Secondly Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Hieron in Epist ad Galatas lib. 2. in praefat That the unlearned cannot as they ought say Amen to Prayers or Hymns of Thanksgiving they understand not We use as the ancient Church did to say Amen to Prayers not to Sermons or Conferences So that Saint Paul expresly condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue used at this day by the Roman Church in her Latin Service And there is ground to think this is one reason why they suffer not the Laity to read the Scriptures lest they should by them discern this amongst other of their palpable erroneous and corrupt practices This may be a second instance that the Romish Religion is not Apostolical Denying the use of the Scripture to the Laity V. Claudium Espenceum in Titum cap. 2. For what can be more contrary to our Saviour's command John 5.39 Search the Scriptures c And that of Saint Paul Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom and spiritual understanding Yea to the very end of Gods giving the Scriptures than to forbid the generality of the people to read them lest they should by it become Hereticks i.e. Protestants Did Saint Paul write his Epistles to the learned or Clergy only at Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. and not to the whole Church Yea doth he not adjure them at Thessalonica to cause his Epistle to be read 1 Thess 5.27 not onely to the Rulers or Elders of the Church but to all the holy Brethren or Saints Might they hear what was written to them but not read it Were they not Greeks and did not Saint Paul write unto them in their own vulgar Tongue To what end if not that they should read it Otherwise surely he would have written to them in Hebrew or Syriack for he had the gift of many Tongues But say some Politicians The common people are apt to mistake and to wrest the Scriptures to Heresies and their own destruction To which I answer First Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitatis oriri c. Index libror. prohib Reg. 1. If the Scriptures be so apt to be misunderstood and do more hurt than good why should we look upon them as a singular blessing of God to his Church Secondly Do onely unlearn'd men wrest the Scriptures We know the old Hereticks as Arius Nestorius Pelagius c. were neither unlearn'd nor Laicks Thirdly Why did St. Paul if the Scripture be so dangerous to the common people command his Epistle to be read to all the holy Brethren Might they not mistake his true meaning by hearing it read as well as reading it Lastly I answer The Church of God is not to be govern'd by the late Policies of men but by the Laws of Christ and the example of the Primitive Church who altho many damnable Heresies arose in those Ages Cyril contra Julian lib. 6. and were colourably maintain'd by the Scripture Hom. 2. in Matth. Chrysost Hom. 3. in Lazarum Hom. 9. in Coloss Hieron Epist ad Eustochium Salvinam Celantiam in Epitaphio Paulae as Julian the Apostate objected yet never forbad any man to read the Scripture but exhorted and encourag'd the Laity even Women to do it A Licence to read the Scriptures would have been looked upon in those days as a prodigious Novelty Because many people receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood unworthily to their own damnation may therefore the Laity be wholly and generally kept as well
His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius Lib. de duabus Christi Naturis The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis vini Imago similitudo c. In ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus Permanent tamen in sua proprietate We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess celebrate and take in his Image i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature so that great mystery of the Incarnation whose Vertue they represent shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229. I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin Tract 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal 33. saith the same Lib. 3. de Doctrin Christ cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite parare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum sed credimus Augustin Serm. 33. in Lucam Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu side digerendus Tertul. de Resur who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith Transubstantiation As first That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper carnal oral but figurative and spiritual sense not by the mouth of the body but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious we must understand it as a figurative and improper form of speech he instanceth in those words Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. Figura est ergo It is therefore saith he a figure requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly and profitably remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Domini As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is saith he Cibus non dentis aut ventris sed mentis meat not of the mouth or teeth but mind In like manner Cyril Catec Mystag 4. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention Secondly He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud Tract 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table saith he some receive to life others to damnation but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life none to death To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me whence he that dwelleth not in Christ proculdubio questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation because being unclean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ Whosoever eateth me shall live by me In another place Non dicitur qui manducat dignè sed qui manducat me Cajetan in locum He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud altho he daily receive indifferently as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith Sentent 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster initiantur cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man persevering such to eat the Word made flesh seeing he is the living bread it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai affirms the same saying That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament because then they should have everlasting life Thirdly Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth In signis diversis cadem fides Aug. Tract 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas Lib. 20. cont Faustum c. 21. that our Fathers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel i.e. Christ for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them and that Rock St. Paul says was Christ Tract 26. on John. Contr. Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation which before Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofitable Fourthly Saint Augustin Epist ad Dardanum writeth Epist 57. Tolie à Corporibus locorum spatia nusquam erunt Christus ubique per id quod Deus est in coeâ—o autem per id quod homo est c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily taketh up a space answerable to its quantity and saith That to deny a body to take up space is to deny it to be a true body And adds That the body of Christ is not every-where but in a certain determinate place Whereby he utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the possibility of eating and chewing or which is all one the swallowing down whole Christ's body that it should be in a thousand places at once and should be contain'd whole under the least piece of Wafer Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees who denyed the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum vobis commendavi c. Compare Cyprian de unctione Chrismatis Christus tradidit Discipulis figuram corporis sui Augustin in Psalm 3. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos Epist 23. Sprite or Spirit But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles Ye shall not eat this body ye see nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
hasten to my fourth and last Assertion which was this That there is scarcely any point in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists especially of them before-mentioned made by Pope Pius and the late Tridentine Council Articles of Faith but we are able to produce many eminent Writers and some of their own Church who condemn them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned were not the generally received and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman much less Catholick Church but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it The Numbâ—r of Sacraments I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments The Canonists as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist 5. de Poenitentia V. Rhe … num 〈◊〉 in Tertul. de Poenitent Loc. Commun lib. â— c. 4. 5. In qu. Gent. Diâ—t 26. qu. 3. say That Penance was not ordained as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are a Sacrament by Christ but is an Institution of the Church onely Canus affirmeth it 's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds 4. Dist 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called conferring Grace Hugo de S. Victore denieth that extreme Unction is a Sacrament Holcot quoted by Cassander Consult art 13. saith Confirmation is no Sacrament De Sacrum Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Alexander Halensis is of opinion that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel See Dr. Field of the Church In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper as Protestants do Transubstantiation Secondly As for their new Article of Transubstantiation Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth Dist 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5 De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest 3. Lib. 4. Dist 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration which was Luther's Opinion is possible neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture Nay saith he it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth that the substance doth leave the accidents and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches i. e. his Roman Churches determination Scotus quoted by Bellarmine saith that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure P. Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen believed it not For he saith if it be demanded what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud is made by Consecration whether formal or substantial De Verit. Corp. Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Maries days declares that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantiation it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence which we grant and no more Yea he used to say That if he had been at Pope Innocent's Elbow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith he could he thought have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it In Can. Missae Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent and the Infallibility of the Church you must suppose Roman which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us To which Durand agreeth 4 Dist 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness saith he to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament unless the bread be converted into it He adds that the Opinion of Transubstantiation held by Lutherans is liable to fewer difficulties but it must not be holden since the Church of Rome hath determined the contrary which is presumed not to err in such matters Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibility V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantiation not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture which he saith cannot be found In like manner Cameracensis professeth he saw not how Transubstantiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church making it a matter of Opinion not Faith and inclining rather as Alliaco to Consubstantiation Aquinas himself acknowledgeth that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally but sacramentally only which overthroweth Transubstantiation Ferus is very moderate in this point Seeing saith he it 's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or not Tom. 3. Disp 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself quoted by Suarez confesseth that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point This is my Body Supra in Part. 3. summ qu. 75. art 14. secluding the Authority of the Church are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation Of the same Opinion was Scotus The same Cajetan noteth that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth So if I be not much mistaken doth Cardinal Bellarmine who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body maintains onely a Translocation adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it which as easie to discern is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body properly so called Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation proving out of the Scriptures and antient Fathers that the Bread and Wine are not properly but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud This Book is still extant and no wonder condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies wherein he affirms that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter corporally but spiritually spiritualiter With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury appointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion still extant in Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Oxford and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity Panis ille est corpus Christi figurate
c. Fulber Epist ad Adeodatum Epist ad Heribaldum To these may be added Bertram de corpore sanguine Domini to Charles the Great who about seven hundred years ago in a just Treatise impugneth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to whom you may add Fulbertus Carnoton Berengarius Hincmarus in vita Remigii Rabanus Maurus Purgatory As for Purgatory and its Appendix Indulgences whose most gross abuse defended by the Pope first opened Luther's mouth against him much need not be said in regard as we have seen above Roffensis the Popes Martyr and Alphonsus de Castro to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil confess they are late Novelties of which in the antient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention The modern Greek Church as appeareth peareth from their Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire Lumbard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences The later Schoolmen Albertus Al. Halensis Durand Cajetan quoted by Bishop Usher and Dr. Field in his Appendix say that Finalis Gratia c. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in Gods Children Answer to the Challenge p. 179. Part. prima summae Tit. 10. c. 3. Opusc 15. c. 1. De Indulg lib. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Primus in Purgatorium extendit Indulgentias V. Chemnit Exam. de Indulg 742. 100 Gravamina what need then of any Purgatorian fire Antoninus acknowledgeth that concerning Indulgences nihil habemus expressè c. We have nothing expresly or clearly delivered either in Scripture or the antient Fathers This same is affirmed by Cajetan and Durand Agrippa de Vanitate Scient cap. 61. saith that Pope Boniface VIII first extended Indulgences to Purgatory they were opposed before Luther by the University of Paris Wesselus Wickliffe Hus Jerome of Prague Savanorola yea the States of Germany complain to the Pope of them as intolerable burdens cheats and incentives to all manner of wickedness Add Platina in Boniface 9. Urspergensis Chron. p. 322. Art. 4 Image-worship Worshipping of Image was V. Polyd. Virgil. de Invent rerum lib. 6. V. Cassand infra See Vspergensis Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. Westminst ad Ann. 794. Cassand Consult art de Imagin The work of Mens Hands may not be adored no not in honour of their Prototypes p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagin as is notorious first Decreed though not with Latria in the second Nicene Council about the year 794 but was opposed and condemned by the General Councils of Constantinople and Frankfort in which last were three hundred Bishops called by the Emperour and Pope whose Legates were there present as the Bishop of Rhemes reports apud Alanum Copum Dial. 4. and Suarez grants it in 3. Part. Thomae qu. 25. disp 54. This worship of Images was confuted also by Albinus or Alcuinus out of the Scriptures as Hoveden relates in continuat Bedae ad ann 794. Moreover by the Book of Charles the Great if it be not the same with the former which is still extant in the Vatican and acknowledged to be genuine by some learned Papists Agobardus Bishop of Lyons wrote against worshipping Pictures or Images So did also Jonas Bishop of Orleans in his Book de Cultu Imaginum cap. 5. allowing them onely for Ornament in Churches but detests the giving them any part of divine Honour as accursed wickedness Peresius saith as much Gerson de defect viror Eccles Holcot de Sapientia Lect. 158. Miraudula Apol. qu. 3. condemn bowing before them Durand de ritib. Eccl. Catharinus de cult Imagin grant that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry See our Churches Homily on the Peril of Idolatry Polydore Virgil saith De Invent. rerum lib. 6. c. 13. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. all the Fathers condemn'd worshipping Images Bellarmine himself granteth that the worship of Images as defended and practised by the Roman Church i.e. with Latria or the same worship we give to the Prototypes cannot be maintained without such nice distinctions of absolutely and relatively or accidentally univocally or analogically properly or improperly as scarce themselves much less the weak common people can understand or if they do can hardly avoid Error in practising them Peresius more plainly They are a scandal to the weak who cannot understand them but by erring Hence the Cardinal accounteth it not safe to teach their Votaries publickly to give Divine Honour or Latria to the Image of Christ for his sake De Trad. p. 226. V. Biel. in Canon Missae Sect. 49. Part 3. qu. 28. Art. 3. Instit Mor. Tom. 1. l. 9. Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Sect. 4. Vasq in qu. 25. disp 110. c. 2. See Orig. in Cels l. 6. 8. Arnob. lib. 6. Apud Bellar. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. V. Aug. de fide symb cap. 7. Biblioth Patrtom Tom. 5. pag. 609. Concil Trident. Compare Origen Lib. 7. in Celsum Nevertheless it 's undeniable that this is the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome declared by their Oracle Aquinas and constans opinio as Azorius speaks the constant Opinion of their Divines defended by Valentia Suarez and that as the sense of the Council of Trent Vasquez the Jesuit to defend this Adoration blushed not to write that it is lawful to worship the Sun yea God bless us the Devil himself so the worship be directed ultimately to God and his Honour whereas it 's notorious that the Heathens might and did in this very manner defend their gross Idolatry The very making of the Images of the Trinity is condemn'd by Abulensis Durand Peresius and others yet defended and practised by the Roman Church Walafridus Strabo called it Superstition and blockishness hebitudinem to worship Images I will end that I be not too tedious with the words of Jonas Bishop of Orleans as an Answer to our Adversaries Reply That they place no Divinity in their Images but worship them onely in honour of God and of him whose Image it is seeing they know there is no Divinity in Images they are the more to be condemned for giving to an infirm and beggerly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus it being so consonant with Jonas as making one sentence De Pict Imag. p. 237. They which answer as our Roman Catholicks now do they think no Divinity to be in the Image they worship but that they worship it in honour of him whose image it is are easily answered because if the Image they worship be not God neither is it to be worshipped in honour of the Saints who use not to arrogate to themselves Divine Honour He adds That the Images of Christ and the Apostles were expressed by the Antients after the custom of the Gentiles V. Euseb supra rather for love and memory than for any religious honour or
Antient Fathers Clem. Rom. Epist ad Corinth Justin Martyr ad Diognet Origen in cap. 3. ad Rom. Ambrose in Rom. c. 4. 9. Basil de Humil. Theodoret de curand Graec. affect lib. 7. Chrysostome in Galat. c. 3. Hesychius in Levit. l. 4. c. 3. with others but by Aquinas in Galat. 3. lect 4. in Rom. 3. lect 4. Pighius de justific Cardinal Contarenus The Antirdidag Coloniens Anselm apud Hosium Tom. 1. Confess Cathol Bonaventure 4. dist 15. qu. 1. Jansenius Concordant c. 20. p. 157. Gerson lib. 4. de Consolat Theolog. prosa 1. 5. That good Works merit Eternal life is in like manner decreed by the Council of Trent But Waldensis Sacramental Tit. 1. c. 7. saith He is the better Catholick that simply denieth all Merit and confesseth that Heaven is obtained by Grace onely The like is affirmed by Ferus lib. 3. Com. cap. 20. in Matthaeum Stella in Lucam c. 8. Ibid. c. â—â— Marsilius de gratuita justif P. Adrian and Clitoveus apud Cassand Consult Art. 6. Faber Stapulensis in cap. 11. ad Roman Petavius the Jesuit in effect denieth all Merits which he saith Dissert Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. depend on Gods Grace and free Promise Bellarmine after his long dispute about Justification by Works and Salvation by Merits confates all he had said in these few words De Justif lib. c. 7. Tutissinum est c. It 's the safest way propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae in regard of the uncertainty of our own righteousness on which the certain knowledge that we have any Merits at all is grounded and the danger of pride and vain glory periculum inanis gloriae to place our whole trust totam fiduciam ☞ in Gods mercy onely in solâ misericordia Dei. Can any Protestant say more in opposition to Merits and Justification C. Contarenus Epist ad Card. Farnesium by our good own Works Let our very Enemies be Judges I might add Greg. Ariminens 1. dist 17. qu. 1. art 2. Durand 2. dist 27. qu. 2. p. 400. Scotus lib. 1. c. 17. qu. 1. in solutione quaest 6. See Brerewoods Enquiries Ch. 26. Contaren Instructio Christ Rhemish Annotat. in 1 Cor. 14. Prayer in a Tongue not understood by the People is defended and practised in the Roman Church yet censured and disapproved by Cardinal Contarenus Cajetan and Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. confess it were better for Edification of the people for Prayer and other sacred Offices to be performed in the Vulgar Tongue Of the same Judgment were Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. Cassander defensio officii pii viri cont Calvin p. 141. Haymo and Sedulius in 1 Cor. 14. Biel in Can. Missae Lect. 62. 7. Auricular Confession so severely urged by the Roman Church is denied to be necessary by any Divine Law by Peresius a Tridentine Bishop de Tradit part 3. consid 3. Petrus Oxoniensis apud Caranzam in Sixto By Cajetan Bonaventure Rhenanus Erasmus with many others It were easie but I suppose needless to add any Points more These are sufficient to evince that besides other Doctrines some Articles of the present Roman Catholick Faith so decreed and made by the late Council of Trent were never Universally owned and received as such by the visible Catholick Church in all Ages no not by all such as lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church not long before Luther's time but were openly opposed contradicted and condemn'd by them What is already said is as I conceive a full and satisfactory Answer to Roman Catholicks demanding of us some Professors of our Religion before the Reformation It being strange if it be from the Apostles and have been in all Ages that we can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it before the Reformation For here we have produced the Writings of Eminent Professors of it to wit of the Prophets Apostles Holy Fathers and many of their own modern most learned Writers As to the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles many of their own Writers Lindanus Peresius Soto Andradius c. confess Panopl lib. 3. c. 5. De Tradit Cont. Brent l. 2. c 68. Orthodox explic 1. 2. Canus Loc. Tom. l. 3. c. 3. that all or most of their new Trent Articles of Faith to wit Seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences c. have little or no ground at all in Scripture but are unwritten Verities depending on Tradition onely to wit of their Roman Church We can shew what we believe as necessary to Salvation from the Scripture which they as they confess in many Points cannot Yea what soever we believe as Articles of Faith contained in the Primitive Creeds they dare not deny All our dispute is about Points either not at all to be found at least with any convincing evidence in the Bible or plainly contradicted by it The Protestant Religion then is the true antient visible Catholick and Apostolick Religion professed and taught by the Apostles in and by their Writings Iren. lib. 3. c. 1. Quod praeconiaverunt postea per Dei voiuntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam sidei nostrae futurum for what they first preached they afterward by the will of God set down in their Writings that so in them we might have a sure foundation to build our Faith upon as Irenaeus saith Father we have produced also the Writings of the Antient Farthers who lived in the Ages near the Apostles and have made it evident that they were either wholly ignorant of the new additional Articles of the present Roman Catholick Faith or much doubted of them or utterly condemned them It 's true these Writers were not known by the name of Protestants as some may object and no more were they known by the name of Papists But if they professed as to be sure they did that Doctrine or Religion onely which is delivered and declared in their Writings Who will deny that they were although not nominally yet really Protestants and Professours of our Antient not of their new-minted Roman Religion made as to some parts of it to wit Transubstantiation Purgatory c. and framed in late Councils near twelve hundred years after the decease of the Apostles To their usual Question then Where was the Protestant Church or Religion before Luther I Answer First That it was there where their whole Religion cannot as they grant be found to wit in the Holy Scriptures Secondly It was Dr. White sub Papatu non Papatus as Bishop Usher saith well where their Church was in the same place though not in the same state and condition The Reformation or Protestantism did not make a new Faith or Church but reduced things to the Primitive purity Plucked not up the good Seed the Catholick Faith or true Worship but the after-sown Tares of Errour as Image-worship Purgatory c. which were ready to choak it Did the Reformation in Hezekiah's or Josiah's days set up a new
Church or Religion different in essence from the old one Had it not been a ridiculous impertinency for one that knew Naaman before whilst he stood by to ask where is Naaman and being answered this is he for the Enquirer to reply it cannot be he for Naaman was a Leper this man is clean Was not Naaman formerly a Leper and now cleansed the same person A Field of Wheat in part weeded is the same it was as to ground and seed not another In like manner the true visible Christian Church cleansed and unclean reformed and unreformed is the same Church altered not as to Essence or substance but quality or condition That the true Visible Church of God may be generally over-run with corruptions in Worship Errours yea Heresies we see not onely in the Jewish but Christian Churches of Corinth Thyatira c. and all the Eastern Churches yea almost the whole World in Athanasius his days is so undeniable a truth Ad ann 358. Totus mundus abiit post Pelagium Bradwardin de causa Dei in praefat that Baronius and others of our Adversaries are forced as we have seen above to grant it Why should it then seem to them impossible or incredible that the Church of God in the blind and unlearned Ages before Luther should in like manner be over-run with many pernicious Errours in Doctrine and corruptions in Worship If so as Nicolas Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius and others of their own Church confess and bewail V. Caranzam de Conciliis p. 786 789. why might not the King of England as well as Hezekiah or Josiah redress these Abuses and suppress these Errours in his own Dominions Why might not other States and Princes do the same especially when Reformation of them by a free General Council not enslaved to the Popes will and pleasure though promised could not be obtained V. Concil Pisanum Sess 16. 20. Was it necessary for fear of making a new Church or Religion that the Church of God must for ever lie under those defilements and corruptions If not may not our Reformers justly say What Evil have we done Not to be too tedious This Question Where was the Protestant Church in the Ages before Luther ariseth from several mistakes First From want of distinguishing betwixt a true visible Church and a sound one The Roman Church from which Luther and others received their Baptism and Ordination We grant to be a part or member of the Catholick Church but it was unsound and subject to many Diseases i. e. corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Discipline which like ill humours endangered its very life The Reformation wherein Luther with many more were instrumental was not Poison to destroy its Vitals but purgative Physick to remove its distempers and to preserve them Secondly It 's a mistake that they will not distinguish betwixt the avowed and universally owned Doctrines of a Church and the Opinions or practices of some few or many in it In the Churches of Pergamus or Thyatira there were some and possibly not a few who held the Doctrine of Balaam and were seduced by that wicked Jezabel pretending to be a Prophetess and infallible yet these Doctrines were not properly the Doctrines of those Churches but of a party in them The like we say of the Errours in the Church of Rome that they were never universally owned and allowed no not by many eminent Professours and Writers of her own Communion as we have made evident Thirdly It 's a great mistake when they demand that we shew the Protestant Religion and Church distinct and separate from the Catholick in all Ages when we affirm and prove that not onely in the Apostles days but for near five hundred years after the true Apostolick Faith was at least as to substance kept pure and uncorrupt Would they have us to shew Protestants protesting against the antient and Primitive Faith As for their New Tridentine Articles of Faith they were to be sure not some of them then in being to be protested against Fourthly It 's a gross mistake to think that all who live in a true but corrupted Christian Church are either bound to approve of those corruptions or at all times necessary to separate actually and personally from the Church for their sake See Bull against Can. This Protestants condemn in Donatists and Brownists or Separatists The Errors and corruptions of the Roman Church were a long time growing in or upon her The Tares were not seen as soon as they were sown but after they were grown up God forbid we should condemn to Hell all our Forefathers that lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church In the Prophet Elijah's Isaiah's Jeremiah's days the true Visible Church of God was corrupted both Princes Priests and People severely reproved yet the Prophets advised none to separate therefore from the Temple and Worship of God although no doubt their mind was that all as far as was possible should keep themselves free and undefiled from those prevalent corruptions Likewise our Blessed Saviour forsook not the Temple and although he warned them to take heed of the leaven i. e. false Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees yet in regard they sate in Moses his Chair he commands the people to do as they said i. e. according to the Law and consequently to go and hear what they said Much very much as Austin and other Fathers tell us is to be born rather than to make a Schism in the Church of God. On this ground no doubt many of our Forefathers before the Reformation continued till death in the Communion of the Roman Church that so they might enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments although they mourned for and groaned under the overflowing predominancy of many Errors and superstitious Observations in their days heartily desiring yea openly requiring a removal of them but could not obtain it The Jesuit whom Dr. White answered acknowledgeth that the Church is not actually seen at all times Pag. 379. yet it may be discerned with prudent and diligent enquiry in regard even in times of its greatest obscurity or persecution there were always some Eminent and known Members of it He ands although it have not always an outward and illustrious Estate and cannot where persecution rageth practise publickly the Rites of Divine Worship yet the Church never did or shall want an inward Estate or subordination to Pastors c. If this be as he grants sufficient to make good the perpetual visibility of the Church we can easily evince the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion under Papal persecutions from the Writings of those times as the Reader may in part discern from what we have collected But in regard they so vehemently urge us to shew some Professours of the Protestant Religion divided and separated from the Roman Church we though it be no way necessary as we have seen above mention the Wicklevists Lollards Bohemians Waldenses
See Bishop Vsher de success Eccl. and Albigenses who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own resisting Popery even unto bloud Onely I must mind our Adversaries these persons were rather fugati violently driven out of the Roman Church by Excommunications armed with Fire and Sword than fugitivi fugitives or voluntary Separatists As for their condemning them as Hereticks it signifies little or nothing for that 's the matter in question and seeing the Pope and Court of Rome as Saint Bernard Pope Adrian Bernard de Concil Adri. in legatione ad Principes Germaniae Polycrat lib. 6. cap. 24. Sarisberiensis and others acknowledge were in those days charged as the source and original cause of all disorders and abuses in the Church it 's most unreasonable their known Enemies should be admitted as their Judges in their own cause The truth is some of the Popish Writers of those days have accused Wickcliffe the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting horrid and self-contradicting Opinions Vsher de Success Eccl. that no ingenuous and impartial man can possibly believe any thing they say of them I verily think their great fault or Heresie was that they were victus populus Dei as they said conquered quelled and subdued by force of Arms not Arguments So were the Catholicks under the Heathen and Arian persecuting Emperours Certainly no prudent Christian will take Prosperity Victory outward Pomp and Power to be certain notes or perpetual properties of the true Church and right Believers nay Adversity and persecution rather as our Saviour intimates when he assures his Apostles they should be hated of all men for his Names sake and that the time would soon come when whosoever killed them should think as the Crusadoes and their Military Saint Dominic no doubt thought they did God service It 's sufficient to our present purpose that we shew some who held with us against the present Doctrine of the Papacy But here I expect their usual Objection That many of the Writers and Persons we alledg did not in all things agree with the Protestants though in some particulars they consented True no more did they in all things agree with the present Roman Church If some who believed not the Popes Supremacy the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Merits Purgatory c. were yet Members as of the Catholick so Roman Church and were saved which I suppose no Papist will deny Why are we Protestants condemn'd as Hereticks to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes and Canonized Saints have done I challenge any Papist to shew me one National or Provincial Church I might go farther in the whole World that for at least twelve hundred years after Christ did in all points believe as the Trent Council have decreed or professed that Catholick Religion which Pope Pius hath summ'd up in his Creed We may ask them Where was your Tridentine Faith and Church before Luther Was Pope Leo the Great for receiving the Communion in one kind Was Pope Gregory the Great for worshipping of Images or for that proud profane Antichristian and foolish name as he calls it of Universal Bishop Were Cyprian Saint Austin the Council of Chalcedon the Affrican Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome and subjecting all Churches to the Popes Universal jurisdiction Were these Tridentine Papists Was P. Gelasius for Transubstantiation Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholicks Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it or so soft a head as to believe it I shall onely add That it is no wonder if many good Men and learned did not at once see and discover in an Age wherein Ignorance and Superstition abounded all these Errours Abuses and corruptions which infected the Church of God but did in some things not altogether so gross and palpably wicked as others errare errorem seculi follow the current of the times To end I hope Sir by what hath been said you plainly perceive that those Doctrines and Practices Protestants have rejected were never any part of the true Primitive and Catholick Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Councils Yea that in the later and as is confessed worst Ages of the Church were never received and visibly professed by all true Catholicks whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion See Brerewoods Enquiries The most and best that can be said is that at first some of them were the private Sentiments and doubtful Opinions of some Worthy Men as Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. in the fourth or fifth Century Which after many Ages by the Policy and Power of the Pope and his Party were obtruded by the Councils of Lateran Constance Florence Trent c. as Articles of Faith on this Western part of the World but not without visible opposition and open contradiction I have shewn how multitudes of learned and pious Men did complain of them and write against them and others as the Waldenses and Albigenses forced by violence and persecution separated themselves as the Orthodox Christians did under the prevalence of the Arians actually and personally from them besides others who cordially yet for fear of persecution more privately and secretly i. e. in some sense or degree invisibly renounced and detested them I shall here add that indeed this is more than we are in reason bound to shew for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholick Church and to denominate the Roman a true though corrupt part or member of it V. Augustin de Baptismo contra Donatist l. 1. c. 8. 10. B. Vsher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith. that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian Creeds although she superadded as Hay and Stubble thereunto many additional or traditional Points and erroneous practices whereby consequentially the foundation of Faith was much shaken and undermined yet so as some amongst them not erring wilfully upon a general repentance might be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty However undeniable it is that many Eminent Writers and Professors in the Ages before Luther never owned them as Theological truths much less Articles of Faith but visibly openly and couragiously resisted them even unto bloud These and not the Popish domineering Party termed by some the Court rather than the Church of Rome were August Epist ad Vincent as the persecuted Catholicks under Liberius and the Arian Emperours in the strict and most proper sense the true visible Catholick Church which remained discernible though more obscurely in firmissimis suis membris as Saint Austin speaketh in these her most firm and invincible members Others who maintained promoted and tyranically imposed these Errours as points of Faith were in respect of these introduced corruptions like an impostumated Wen growing by little and little on the body of the Church or like a