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
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
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
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
ratione intelligi posse ipsam etiam Ecclesiae quasi essentiam veritatem aut etiam proprietates ejus omnes Non enim arbitramur palam aspici aut evidenter cognosci posse quod ulla congregatio sit reverà coetus rectè colentium Deum c. Imò verò haec in illa ipsa congregatione hominum inesse quae vera est Ecclesia non nisi obscurâ fide credimus c. Anal. Fid. l. 6. p. 30. who in the same place farther granteth that the Essence and Truth of the Church i.e. true Faith Holiness and the like are not visible neither can be evidently known or believed to be really in that company of men it self who are indeed the true Church Is not this the Protestants Invisible Church Who sometimes say that it is one thing to see that which is the Church viz. the Persons publickly professing true Religion in it and another to see that it is a true Church which depends upon the sincerity of their Profession known only by God who searcheth the heart Nothing can be more evidently true than this For suppose I see and what can I see more a Company of men baptized into the Name of Christ meeting together in Churches to serve him to read pray receive the Sacraments as the Arians and other Hereticks did and many prohane Persons or Hypocrites daily do is this sufficient evidence to assure me that they and not others who perform the very same outward acts of divine Worship tho more privately are the only true Church to which I am bound under pain of Damnation to join my self How is it then true that he saith a little before that the Church is so visible that in any age that Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately and particularly believe to be the true Church In short The Persons and outward profession of the Members of the true Church are visible Hieron in Comment in Psal 130. Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate ante 20 enim annos omnes Ecclesias has Haeretici possidebant Ecclesia autem vera illic erat ubi vera fides erat Apud Bellar. de Eccles Milit. lib. 3. cap. 2. cap. 9. but that which makes them a true Church is still invisible so that I am still to seek for the true Church especially seeing 't is granted by Bellarmine Turrecremata Canus Soto and others that wicked Men and Hypocrites are only nominal or equivocal Members of the Church that they are rather in or within than of the true Church as dead Members or ill humors are in humane bodies I will only add Costerus a noted Writer amongst them Christ saith he would have his Church not only Visible but very conspicuous that the grace of God which in this Congregation and not elsewhere is preserved and conferred may be known unto all men whence he hath made her like to a City placed on a hill and to a Candle set on a Candlestick Here we may plainly perceive that a mere Visibility of the Church will not content our Adversaries unless it be very conspicuous so as that all Persons may know it The truth is their Principles oblige them to no less For first they say that God would have all men to be sav'd and come to the knowledge of the truth and that therefore he affordeth all men sufficient means to come to the truth Secondly They deny that the Scripture in regard of its imperfection and obscurity is sufficient to this end but that the teaching of the visible Church is the Rule of Faith which all persons especially those that are ignorant and unlearn'd must by an implicite faith in all things adhere to Whence thirdly it unavoidably follows that if God afford all men sufficient means to come to the knowledge of the truth in order to salvation and the teaching of the true Church be the ordinary means appointed thereunto then the Church must be in all ages and places not only visible to some few discreet wise persons as Valentia saith but very conspicuous and clearly discernable to all even the most ignorant and weak-sighted like a City set on an Hill c. Lastly They affirm where lies the Mystery that their Roman Church is the only infallible teaching Church in and by its Head the Pope to whose determination as Pope Boniface solemnly determin'd and pronounc'd all are bound de necessitate salutis to submit Subesse Rom. Pont. omni humanae creaturae declaramus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis Extravagant de major obed Vnam sanctam Cum omnia planè dogmata ex testimonio Ecclesiae pendeant nisi certissimi simus certitudine scil infallibili ut ibidem ait quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta erunt prorsus omnia De Eccles milit lib. 3. cap. 10. The perpetual illustrious and glorious visibility of this their Church as for other Churches they are not at all sollicitous what becomes of them is that they so earnestly contend for Their great Champion Bellarmine well perceiv'd this when he said that in regard all points of faith depend upon the testimony of the Church i. e. their Roman Church unless we be most certain which is the true Church all things in Religion will be altogether uncertain Arguments against the Church's being always conspicuous or easily discernable But that this kind of glorious illustrious and conspicuous visibility necessarily and perpetually belongs to any particular or their Roman Church is visibly and palpably false as the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories evidence In Elijahs days there was a true Church of God in Israel yet it was so far invisible that the Seer or Prophet himself could not see it Whence he complains that he was left alone altho God assures him he had reserv'd to himself 7000. 1 King. 19.18 that never bowed the knee to Baal Let them not think to evade by saying that the Church of Israel was a particular Church for so is the Church of Rome which by all their infallibility can never be made the Catholick or Universal Church In the time of our Saviour the chief Priests with the consent of the generality of the people condemn'd and crucify'd him as a Blasphemer and a false Prophet whilst only some few persons obscure and contemptible in the eyes of the World as Simeon Nicodemus c. believed on him I desire to know amongst whom the true Church was then to be found Etsi non nisi duo fideles remanerent in mundo in iis salvaretur Ecclesia Forta litium fidei lib. 5. quoted by B. Ives p. 83. and that in a conspicuous and illustrious state Do not some of your own Writers affirm that there was no true faith to be found on Earth I mean at the time of his crucifixion but in the heart of the Virgin Mary To descend lower
may in time want snuffing and so may the most Apostolical Church in after-Ages need Reformation The second place is Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church if he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican Now saith the Letter It were very hard to be condemn'd for a Heathen or a Publican for not hearing a Church that hath so closely lain hid that none could hear see feel or understand it for 900. years First I answer That these words prove not the Church visible or palpable to all men Heathens and Infidels enquiring after the true Church but at most to Christians only who live under the Church's government and submit to her Censures Secondly The words relate to a particular Christian Church of which a person is a member for it were absurd to imagine our Saviour should oblige any Christian if his Brother should offend him to tell the whole Catholick Church throughout the World his offence per literas Encyclicas Yea it 's plain and undeniable the place respects not the whole diffused number of Christians no not in any particular Church but the Governours only Now our Adversaries will not I hope say that any particular Church except their own much less its Rulers or Representatives shall be eminently visible and conspicuous to all Christians at all times Certainly our Saviour in this place does not promise any special privilege to the Church of Rome more than Antioch Ephesus or any other Apostolical Church to whom that Precept of telling the Church doth equally belong some of whom are long since utterly extinguished by the overflowing of Mahometanism How can they then from this place infer that any particular Church shall be perpetually visible and conspicuous to the World exercising Church-Government over its members Nay farther How could the Christians belonging to their Roman Church when under the persecution of Dioclesian or Constantius at which time the Shepherds being smitten the sheep were all scatter'd the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted tell the Church or make complaint to the Governours of it when they scarcely knew where they were to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint Our Saviour's Precept then supposes the free exercise of Church-government which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercis'd or supposed I might add Acosta de Temp. noviss lib. 2. cap. 15. Telesphorus de Magnit tribulat pag. 32. Aquipontanus de Antichrist pag. 23. That their own Writers Acosta Telesphorus the Hermite and others confess that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and publick service of God shall be buried the Church-doors destroy'd the Altars forsaken the Church empty c. Now I appeal to the conscience of any man whether at that time it would be possible in case of Scandal to tell the Church when the Church shall be forc'd to hide it self and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppress'd and dissolv'd by the violence of Persecution Lastly Whereas 't is objected that the Protestant Church hath so closely lain hid for 900. years that no man could see or understand it this is very falsly affirm'd as I shall shew afterward unless such as profess'd the Religion of the Scriptures Ancient Fathers and Councils protesting against some new Roman additional Articles impos'd of late by Pope Pius and the Tridentine Council were no true visible Church of God. The last place viz. 2 Cor. 4.5 If our Gospel be hid c. is least of all to the purpose for there Saint Paul plainly speaketh not of the Church but of the Gospel or Christian Faith Hieronym in Nahum c 2. Chrysost Hom. 49. in Matth. Nunc nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nimirum ex quo obtinuit haeresis Ecclesias nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Irenaeus cont Haeres lib. 2. Quae praeconiaverunt pestea per Dei voluntatem scripserunt c Costerus Enchirid. cap. 1. Alphonsus de Castro cont Haeres grant this which is clearly deliver'd by the Scripture to which as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge we ought especially in times of Heresie and Persecution to have recourse for our establishment in the truth and if the Gospel first preached and afterwards written by the Apostles for what they first preached they afterwards by the will of God as Irenaeus saith wrote be hid to any it 's hid to them that perish whose minds the Devil hath blinded Doth not this place expresly confute our Adversaries who affirm that the Gospel as reveal'd by the Scripture is dark obscure and invisible to the Laity that so they may hang their faith by a blind and implicite obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority of their Church or Popes who may be as some of them have been notorious and manifest Hereticks So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service The Fathers alledg'd for the Roman visibility consider'd I come now to the Fathers quoted in your Letter and first for Chrysostom's saying * Hom. 30. in Matth. It is easier for the Sun to be extinguish'd than the Church to be darkned I wonder any sober men should require us to believe that on Chrysostom's Authority which they do not believe themselves For the Romanists Valentia and others as we have seen confess that the Church even their Roman Church may be obscur'd or darkned as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperours in times of prevailing Heresie and Persecution So that Chrysostom must even by them be understood of a total not partial Eclipse or darkness for in that place he treateth of times of persecution wherein all grant the Church may be darkned and saith the Tyrants are gone and perish'd but the Church remaineth unconquer'd As to the places quoted out of Saint Austin Tract in Joan. de Unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 7. I answer That he speaketh of the state of the Christian Church as it was in his days in its external lustre and glory retaining the Primitive Faith without addition or detraction It was indeed strange blindness in the Donatists he writeth against not to see the true Church which as a Mountain or light on a Hill was then plainly visible before them all over Africa yea the whole World but to dare to restrain it to pars Donati the faction of Donatus as now the Jesuits restrain it to the Popish party was plain impudence Nevertheless St. Austin doth not say that the Church should always and in all after-Ages remain in that visible prosperous and illustrious state yea contrarily he confesseth that it is sometimes obscur'd thro the multitude of scandals Aliquando obscuratur Epist ad Vincentium 47. Ecclesia non apparâ—bit impiis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus Epist 80. ad Hesychium Vide de Baptist contra Donatistas lib. 6 cap. 4. Enarrat in Psalmum 10. that it is like the Moon that may be hid that it shall not appear by reason of the
unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
tormented in the fiery flames of Purgatory The same Father in another place hath these words Hom. 5. in Genesin He that in this present life shall not wash away his sins shall find no consolation hereafter this is the time of combating that of crowning I shall onely add what he writeth in his second Homily upon Lazarus quoted by Bellarmin When we are departed hence it is not in our power to repent or to wash away the sins we have committed V. Cyril Alexand in Joan. lib. 12. c. 36. Thus we have seen that the Greek Fathers in the first Ages of the Church were not of the present Roman Faith as to this new Article of Purgatory I might descend lower were it not needless for 't is confess'd by some of the Romish Writers V. Polyd. Virg. de invent rerum lib. 8. c. 1. Alph. de Castro c. 8. p. 572. particularly Roffensis the Pope's Martyr in Henry VIII his days That in the ancient Fathers especially the Greeks there is either none or very rare mention of Purgatory Neither saith he did the Latin Fathers all at once receive it neither does the Greek Church at this day believe it This Concession is true for the Greeks in their printed Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople Ann. 1438. in his Censure of the Lutheran Confession and Cyril Patriarch of that Church in his Confession of Faith sent by him to Cornelius Hage Ambassadour for the States of Holland at Constantinople An. 1630. deny any purgation of sins after death by fire in Purgatory which say the Greeks in their Apology was condemn'd by the fifth General Council altho it is not now to be found in the late Editions of the Councils From what hath been said I hope it is evident First That there neither is nor ever was any Catholick or universal consent of all Christian Churches as to this new Roman Article of Faith viz. Purgatory Secondly That Bellarmin the Jesuit doth but abuse the World in quoting the Greek Fathers as owning it For is it probable that the Romans should understand their meaning in their Writings better than themselves It 's true some of them as Origen Gregory Nyssen c. mention Purgation of Souls from sin by Fire but it makes nothing for the Popish doctrine of Purgatory For First Origen's Purgatory is universal which all Prophets Apostles Origen in Exod. Hom. 6. the blessed Virgin must pass through not some onely neither very good nor very bad but of a middle sort as Romanists hold Secondly The Purgation Saint Basil Gregory Nyssen and others speak of is not before the Resurrection V. Origen in lib. Regum p. 36. Contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 241. Cyrilli Catech. l. 15. pag. 168. Ego puto quod post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento nos eluente purgante Origen Hom. 14. in Lucam but at the end of the World by the fire of Conflagration which shall purge as some think the whole Creation so that at last all men even Devils too shall be saved as Origen held who turn'd Hell into Purgatory Such Sentences of the Fathers will not at all be serviceable to our Adversaries purpose So much for the Greek come we now to the Latin Fathers I shall begin with Tertullian who in his Apologetick Cap. 47. mentions onely two places to which Souls go Hell and Paradise In his Book De Testimon Animae Cap. 4. He thus bespeaketh the Soul We affirm thee to remain after death and to expect the day of judgment Expectare diem Judicii proque merito aut cruciatui destinari aut refrigerio utroque sempiterno and according to your behaviour to be destinated to torment or comfort and both eternal As for temporary torments in the fire of Purgatory before the day of Judgment Tertullian takes no notice of them In his fifth Book against Marcion Cap. 6. commenting on that famous place 1 Cor. 3. he rightly understandeth the Gold Silver Hay Stubble not of sins venial or mortal but Doctrines worthy or unworthy of the foundation i. e. Christ or Christian Religion Strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agrees Clemens of Alex. in his fourth Book Cap. 34. against Marcion as also De Anima Cap. 35.55 he saith The Souls of all good Christians are in Abraham 's bosom in refrigerio a place of refreshment until the Resurrection as many of the ancient Fathers thought when they shall receive plenitudinem mercedis the fulness of their reward Not as Papists now teach any of them in Purgatorian torments It is farther observable that he there distinguisheth that place from Hell or any part of it as Purgatory is supposed to be And discoursing on those words apply'd by Romanists to Purgatory Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing He affirmeth that all Souls abide apud inferos till the Resurrection Which utterly overthrows the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and renders all their Masses Indulgences c vain and unprofitable From the Master let us pass to his Scholar Saint Cyprian who in his Epistle to Demetrian saith that at the ending of this temporal life we are severed into the receptacles either of eternal death or immortality Ad aeternae mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur p. 166. And in his Book De bono mortalitatis he comforts the Christians generally in a time of raging Pestilence with these considerations That the servants of Christ when they die depart as Simeon desired in peace Enter into Paradise go to Christ begin to reign with Christ that when they are taken out of the storms of this World they gain the haven of Rest and eternal security Securitatis aeternae portum petimus Lastly That after death the righteous are call'd ad refrigerium to refreshment not torment in Purgatory fire whither some are sent by the Romanists and the unrighteous to punishment All which expressions are utterly inconsistent with this new Article of Faith as every man not blinded with prejudice may easily discern To the same purpose in his Epistle to Antonium he adviseth in contradiction to the bitter doctrine of Novatus that pardon and peace should be granted to Penitents in extremis at or a little before their death Because saith he apud inferos exomologesis fieri non posset in Hell or the state of death or in the grave as the word Inferi is sometimes taken there can be no satisfaction made by suffering penance or punishment for sin It 's true in the latter end of the same Epistle he saith It 's one thing to be presently admitted to the reward of Faith or heavenly Glory and another to be purged from sins by being long tormented in fire But this testimony is no good proof of the Roman Purgatory in regard he there speaketh expresly De die judicii of the day of Judgement after the Resurrection whereas our Adversaries
Church condemns them as Hereticks and rejecters of Purgatory Secondly It 's undeniable that he did not hold the Purgation of sins after death no not by the fire of Grief much less material fire to be an undoubted truth or Article of Christian Faith De Purgat lib. 10. cap. ult as Bellarmin in that place affirmeth it to be But in regard the words of Saint Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian are much urged by some as clearly confirming the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory where he writeth Aliud est statim fidei virtutis mercedem accipere aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emendari purgari diu igne It's one thing presently to receive the reward of Faith and Vertue another for one being long tormented with grief for his sins to be cleansed and purged a great while in fire To answer this place we are first of all to observe the occasion of these words Saint Cyprian a little before takes notice of an Objection of the Novatian Hereticks against the receiving the Lapsi such as for fear in time of Persecution like Peter denied Christ They alledged that if such might be admitted to Absolution and the Communion of the Church none would be Martyrs or lay down their lives for the faith of Christ Saint Cyprian answers not so for altho a time of Penance and then Peace is granted to Adulterers yet Virginity and Continency did not languish or decay in the Church Then follow the words above mentioned Aliud est c. It 's evident enough then that the Fire here mentioned is not to be understood of any proper and material Purgatorian fire which Papists plead for but Metaphorical or of the fire of Grief as St. Austin expounds the Fire 1 Cor. 3. which place most probably Saint Cyprian here alludes unto in regard such as fell away in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church until they had undergone the grief and shame of a publick As Bellarmin grants de Purgat lib. 1. cap. 5. long and severe Penance termed Exomologesis So much Saint Cyprian's own words intimate It 's one thing presently to receive as Martyrs did the reward of their Faith and Vertue a great encouragement to Martyrdom another to be cleansed longo dolore with long grief and which are Paraphrastical of his former words to be long purged with fire To this I shall add that it was the Opinion of many of the Ancient Fathers as Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Lactantius Biblioth l. 6. annotat 345. Ambrose with others quoted by Sixtus Senensis that none except Martyrs were immediately upon their death admitted admitted to the presence of God ad oscula Domini to receive the Crown of Eternal Glory but were kept in loco invisibili as Irenaeus or in abditis receptaculis in some secret invisible places until the day of Judgment sollicitously expecting then to receive their final Sentence this is pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini as Saint Cyprian there phraseth it Thus I hope I have given let the Learned Reader judge a true and fair interpretation of Saint Cyprian's words which do not import any proper fire to purifie Souls before the day of Judgment so that upon the view of what is abovesaid we may conclude that the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is no part of the Antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith but in the Fifth Century in Saint Austin's days began to be a doubtful and uncertain Opinion only So much at present for Purgatory I should now make some enquiry in the Writings of the Antient Fathers after Indulgences the fuel that feeds this Purgatorian Fire Lib. 80. Tit. Indulgentiae De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinem quia nec Scriptura expressè de iis loquitur Durand l. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Ambr. Hilar Aug. Hieronym minimè de iis loquuntur Idem ibid. Roffensis assert Luther confut art 18. But I am much discouraged in regard Alphonsus de Castro a learned and earnest Papist who lived near Luther's time and knew what was the first occasion of his opposing the Church of Rome to wit the abominable abuse of these Indulgences by the Pardon-mongers He I say in that very Book which he wrote against Heresies and Luther by name hath informed me Inter omnes est c. that amongst all the Points in dispute betwixt Protestants and Papists there is not one which the Scripture hath less clearly delivered and of which Antient Writers have spoken less than concerning Indulgences The Popes Martyr Roffensis confesseth the use of them was sero receptus in Ecclesia of late received by the Church Of Purgatory he saith there is especially amongst the Greek Writers ferè nulla mentio almost no mention of it Now Indulgences as is granted are grounded on Purgatory they must stand and fall together So long saith he as there was no care or fear of Purgatory no Man sought for Pardons for on it depends all the credit of Pardons Take away Purgatory and what use of Pardons When therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Church who now can marvel at Pardons that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of them Pardon 's therefore began after that they had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory Thus he Antoninus Sylvester Pierius Ostiensis the Lovain Divines Polydore Virgil Cajetan and others of whom more hereafter say as much so that it will be labour in vain to search for them in the Writings of the antient Authors Here I cannot but wonder our Adversaries do not blush to boast of their present Roman Faith and Church as if they were the same only the same with the antient Primitive and Catholick one and to accuse us Protestants of Novelty Heresie and setting up a new Faith and Church under the Banner of M. Luther whereas they not we are guilty of those Crimes by introducing new Articles of Faith Purgatory and Indulgences amongst the rest which we only protest against Art. 4 Concerning Invocation of Saints I now come to Invocation of Saints and Angels a grand Article of the Roman Faith according to Pope Pius his new Creed Eximium adorationts genus Bellarm. de Beat. Sanct. concerning which I shall in general take the boldness to say that for above three hundred years after Christ there cannot be produced out of the genuine Writings of one antient Father one clear and pertinent testimony for Invocation of Saints or Angels Besides my own little observation I have good Vouchers for this Assertion to wit the most Reverend and learned Primate Usher who read over all the Fathers and Mr. Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints V. Molinaeum de Novit Papis p. 388. apud Chemnit in Exam. p. 6. 13. Apol. 2. yea Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth this to be truth who as also Cassander never used in private Devotions to pray to
under the subtle Usurpation and tyranny of Popery The answer given by the Proctors of the Romish Court to this Canon as that of Chalcedon Hunc Canonem Ecclesia Romana non recipit Coriolanus p. 285. Ad An. 381. l. 38. or any other that opposeth their Dominion is The most holy Church of Rome approveth or receiveth not that Council or Canon for all Councils saith their great Cardinal Baronius have more or less Authority as they are approved or not allowed by the Roman Church or Pope An Answer which scarcely deserves a reply and sheweth what esteem our Romanists have of even General Councils if they cross their ambitious designs I cannot omit that famous Synodical Epistle sent by the Bishops of Africa of whom St. Austin was one to the Bishop of Rome Pope Celestine which is an invincible Bulwark or Sea-wall against the inundation of Papal Supremacy It would be tedious to transcribe the whole Letter which is still extant and written directly against this new Article of Codic Canon Ecclesiae Africanae in fine not Catholick but Roman Faith. They first desire the Pope not easily to give Audience to such as appealed from them to him Ab aliis excommunicati ab aliis ad commumonem ne recipiantur sine synodo provinciali Concil Nicaen Can. 5. or to receive into his Communion such as they had as Apiarius a most scandalous Presbyter amongst others deservedly excommunicated Which was say they contrary to the Nicene Canons which respect Bishops as well as inferiour Clericks They tell him that the Canons of the Church had prudently provided that all Controversies should be determined in the places where they arose where the Grace of the Holy Ghost would not be wanting to direct unless any one can believe that God will inspire any one man the Pope with Justice i. e. just or right judgment and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council The African Bishops thought no Christian man could believe this but there are Roman Catholicks who have made it an unquestionable truth that though all Councils may err yet the Pope being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot The Afriâ—â—n Fathers go on How can a transmarine Sentence at Rome be firm and good V. Cyprian Epist 55. to which the necessary presence of Witnesses either in regard of Sex or infirmity of Age and many other impediments cannot be had That any should be sent from your side as Legates suppose à Latere we do not find in any Council of Fathers nor in the authentick Canons of the Nicene Do not send upon any ones request your Clericks as inforcers to wit of your Sentence upon Appeals lest we seem to bring the smoaky Pride of the World into the Church So these holy Bishops I had almost said Prophets without fear or flattery wrote of old to Christ's Universal Vicar at Rome As for the condemning Appeals to the Pope therein they trod in their steps and use almost the very words of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and his Colleagues to Cornelius Bishop of Rome â— Epist 55. vel â—ab 10. Epist 3. ad â—ornelium to whom he wrote in this manner Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis c. Whereas it is decreed by all of us in some National Council of Africa and is both just and fit that every cause Ecclesiastical should be there heard where the fault was committed and to all Pastors a part portio gregis of the flock of Christ not all the flock to one is entrusted which every one ought to rule as he that must give an account to God not the Bishop of Rome Cornelius it becometh not those whom we are over to run about to other Churches aiming particularly at the Roman and by their subtle and fallacious rashness to divide the Concord of Bishops and dissolve the Unity of the Church but there to plead their cause where Witnesses and Accusers may be produced against them Epist 68. The same St. Cyprian in another Epistle adviseth and encourageth the People of Spain not to receive Basilides again as their Bishop although he had been at Rome with Pope Stephen by whom he was he saith unjustly and as he supposed in a surreptitious manner restored for he had been deposed to his Bishoprick Can any one now believe that Saint Cyprian held the supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops and Churches to be his lawful right or which is more incredible an Article of the antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith as Pope Pius hath declared it Surely he must then be a Person of very Catholick i. e. Universal Faith to believe any thing Hen. 1. Hen. 2. apud Matth. Parisien And what did Henry VIII as other Kings of England before him worse than Saint Austin and the whole African Church in forbidding Appeals and forbidding his Legates in their own Kingdom Why might not England do this as well as Africa Well however our Adversaries will relish it Can. 22. the Council of Milevis another African Council forbad all Appeals to transmarine Churches aiming no doubt especially at Rome under pain of Excommunication out of all the Churches of Africa and another at Carthage Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. decreed that no Bishop whosoever no not the Roman should be called the Prince of Bishops but onely the Bishop of the first Seat or See. Gratian the Roman Canonist according to his excellent faculty of translating giveth us the meaning of the Canon thus That no Bishop is to be called the Prince of Bishops but the Bishop of the first Seat i. e. the Pope Glossa quae corrumpit textum I will onely add the Testimonies of two Bishops of Rome The former is Pelagius the 2d Gregor lib. 4. Epist 36. 38. who writing to his Rival for the Supremacy the Bishop of Constantinople saith Nullus Patriarcharum c. none of the Patriarchs and so neither the Roman may use or assume the Title of Universal Bishop for hereby the name of Patriarch is indeed taken from all the rest which saith he far be it from the thought of any faithful Christian This is upon Record in the Popes Canon Law. But his Successor Pope Gregory the Great Dist 99. Cap. Nullus Patriarcharum Lib. 4. Epist 34. speaketh out more plainly who writing to the Empress against John Bishop of Constantinople his Rival saith In this his Pride in affecting the Title of Universal Bishop appeareth the approach of Antichrist Wherefore I beseech you by the Almighty God give not any consent to this perverse Title In like manner Epist 32. to the Emperor Peter himself is not called the Universal Apostle Feed my sheep it seems proveth it not None of the Roman Bishops ever assumed though offer'd to them Lib. 4. Epist 38. ad Joann Constantin In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere Greg. M. ad Sabinian lib. 4. Indict
86. 97. in himself i. e. his own body and bloud really and yet in the Sacrament not onely every Easter but every day quotidie populis immolatur he is immolated or offer'd to the people He saith not to God but to the people For Sacraments if they had not some similitude similitudinem of those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not at all be Sacraments Hence the names of the things signified are communicated to them Here Saint Austin plainly affirmeth that Christs body and bloud are immolated or offer'd up in and by the sacramental Signs not really properly and substantially but per similitudinem by way of similitude or representation in regard the sacramental Symbols as he saith secundum quendam modum after some manner not proper but figurative Epist 23. are his body and bloud or as Saint Ambrose hath it in imagine in an Image or representation but there in He … at Gods right hand in veritate Lib. 1. de Offic. c. 48. in Psal 38. in truth where he pre … 〈◊〉 his very body and bloud by way of interpellation to the Eyes of his Father as our Advocate In another place As often as the Pascha the Christian Passover is offer'd In Psal 21. Compare in Psalm 75. Memoriâ quotidie nobis immolatur Cùm hostia frangitur sanguis in ora fidelium infunditur quid aliud quam Dominici corporis immolatio significatur Aug. de Cons dist 2. doth Christ so often die No yet anniversaria recordatio quasi repraesentat quod olim factum est The Anniversary recordation at Easter doth as it were represent what was done long since and so admonisheth us as if we saw Christ hanging on the Cross So much for sacrificing Christ in â—â—e Mass or Sacrament which the antient Fathers own not allowing only with Protestants an improper offering of him by way of Image representation similitude memorial and communication Art. 8 Concerning Communion in one kind I come to the last Article before-mentioned of the new Roman Creed Receiving the Communion in one kind in bread onely Evangelistae ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Jesum Apol. 2. prope finem Epist 54.56 63. lib. de Lapsis Cypr. de coena Domini Here it is needless to quote many Testimonies seeing our Adversaries themselves confess that herein they have departed from the practice of all the antient Fathers We have already seen in Justin Martyr that both Bread and Wine were administred to all that were present at the Sacrament yea he there informs us that the Deacon carried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated Bread and Wine to such as were sick and absent In Cyprian's days it 's undeniable that the Sacramental Cup was given to the people yea Infants Bibimus de sanguine Domini ipso jubente Christ commanding us we drink of his Bloud I might alledge Ignatius ad Philadelph Origen Hom. 16. in Num. Tertul. ad Uxorem lib. 2. Cyril Hierosol Catech. c. Ambrose lib. 1. de Offic. c. 41. de Sacrament l. 4. c. 4. Jerome in Sophon c. 3. 1 Cor. 11. Chrys Hom. 18. in 2. ad Corint Theodoret in 1 Cor. 11. Dionysius Carthusian in 1 Cor. 11. Austin in Levit. qu. Theophylact. 1 Cor. 11. Paschasius de Coena Dom. with many more but it 's needless as we shall shew by and by Lyra in Proverb 1.9 and Carthusianus grant it Assert 3 Several Articles of the Romish Faith are not 600 years old I come to my third Assertion That some of the Articles before-mentioned in Pope Pius's Creed and declared by him to be parts of the Primitive Catholick and Apostolick Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians to salvation cannot be proved to be such by the Testimonies of any eminent Writers for above one thousand years after Christ I instance First In the Article concerning their seven Sacraments It was first made an Article of Faith by the Council of Florence 1439. V. Cassand Consul Art. 13 Chemnit in Examen Perkins Demonstr Problem Licet Primitiva Ecclesia c. Concil Basil Licet ab Initio Christianae Religionis c. Trent Council Can. 1. Sess 5. No antient Writer for one thousand years after Christ ever taught that there were seven Sacraments nec plura nec pauciora neither more nor less and that extreme Unction Matrimony with the rest were they Peter Lombard who lived An. 1160. first taught this Doctrine which he could not prove although he endeavoureth it in other Points by the Testimonies of the antient Fathers But of this more below Secondly In the Article concerning Communion in one kind The Councils of Constance and Trent confess that the Primitive Church administred the Eucharist to the people in both kinds as Christ did yet non obstante as if this were little to be regarded they decree the Laity shall not receive both yea anathematize such as say it is necessary from the Institution practice and command of our Saviour Do this c. Drink ye all of this The same is acknowledged by Bellarmine Valentia Costerus and others of their most eminent Writers Consult Art. 13. Cassander confesseth that the Primitive Church at least in all her publick Administrations gave both Elements to the people for one thousand years after Christ Part 3. qu. 80. Art. 12. V. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. Alph. de Castro De Transubst rara apud antiquos mentio p. 572. c. 8. The present Roman Custom in Aquinas his days was but in quibusdam Ecclesiis in some Churches only Thirdly Transubstantiation as Scotus and Biel in Can. Sect. 4. acknowledge was first made an Article of Faith by Pope Innocent in the Lateran Council not much above four hundred years ago Fourthly Opuse de Imagin Worshipping of Images with Latria came in as Camarinus granteth one thousand years after Christ The second Nicene Council condemns it Fifthly V. Caranzam in Concil Nicaeno 2. Art. 2. Alph. de Castro lib. 8. p. 572. V. Concess fidei Cyrilli Patriarchae Constant Dr. Field against Higgons The belief of Purgatory and use of Indulgences were serò recepti in Ecclesia lately received by the Church as we have seen Roffensis and Alphonsus de Castro two zealous Papists affirming It 's notorious that Purgatory was first made an Article of Faith in the late Council of Florence about three hundred years ago which the Greek Church owneth not at this day nor ever did Who can now but wonder at the confidence of our Adversaries who boast of their Antient Catholick and Apostolick Religion accusing Protestants of Novelty and Heresie setting up a new Faith and Church because we protest against and reject these erroneous Novelties they would impose upon us and all Christians as Catholick Truths necessary to be believed to Salvation Assert 4 Several Articles of the Roman Faith condemned by eminent Writers before Luther and by some of their own Communion since But I
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
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
Gangrene or Leprosie spreading it self by degrees over it the cutting of this Wen the curing this Gangrene the cleansing and removing this Leprosie our Adversaries most unreasonably and absurdly condemn as destroying the antient Catholick Faith and setting up a new Church under the Banner of Luther which we detest and abhor Contrarily we not they contend earnestly for the antient true Catholick Faith once and once for all delivered to the Saints in opposition to their late subintroduced Novelties of Transubstantiation Image-worship Purgatory c. which as we see by Pope Pius his new Creed they will needs add as Articles of the Antient Primitive and Catholick Faith to the Nicene Creed necessarily to be believed and professed by all Christians under peril of Heresie and Damnation If the Pope and Church of Rome may make as many Articles of Faith as they please surely in time we may have a Creed as large as Aquinas his Sum. I shall only add my earnest Prayer that God would enlighten you with his Holy Spirit that you may see the truth and renouncing all secular ends and private interests cordially embrace it Theodoret de curand Graecor affect Serm. 1. in regard as an Antient Father long since said It becometh not wise Men rashly to give up themselves to their Fathers Customs but to endeavour to find out the Truth Amen Your faithful Friend FINIS Books lately printed for James Adamson I. A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered In Quarto II. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith writ by Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester before the Reformation about the Year 1450. III. Doubts concerning the Roman Infallibility 1. Whether the Church of Rome believe it 2. Whether Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever Recommended it 3. Whether the Primitive Church Knew or Used that way of Deciding Controversies IV. The Salvation of Protestants asserted and defended in Opposition to the Rash and Uncharitable Sentence of their Eternal Damnation pronounced against them by the Romish Church by J. H. Dalhusius Inspector of the Churches In the County of Weeden upon the Rhine c. V. The present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome or an account of the Books written on both sides in a Letter to a Friend In Quarto VI. Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead In Quarto VII Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthios Interpretibus Patricio Junio Gothofredo Vendelino Joh. Bapt. Cotelerio Recensuit notarum spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colomesius bibliothecae Lambethanae curator accedit Tho. Brunonis Windsoriensis dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis His subnexae sunt Epistolae aliquot singulares vel nunc primum editae vel non ita facile obviae In Quarto VIII Pauli Colomesii Observationes sacrae Editio secunda auctior emendatior accedunt ejusdem Paralipomena de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis passio sancti Victoris Massiliensis ab eodem emendata editio quarta ultima longe auctior emendatior Octavo IX The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in three Parts viz. 1. Into Turky 2. Persia 3. The East-Indies In Folio A brief Historical Account of the Behaviour of the Jesuits and their Faction for the first twenty five Years of Queen Elizabeths Reign with an Epistle of W. Watson a Secular Priest shewing how they were thought of by other Romanists of that time Quarto The Argument of Mr. Peter de la Marteliere Advocate in the Court and Parliament of Paris made in Parliament in the Chambers thereof being assembled An. Dom. 1611. for the Rector and University of Paris Defendants and Opponents against the Jesuits Demandants and requiring the Approbation of the Lectors Patent which they had obtained giving them power to read and to teach publickly in the aforesaid University translated out of the French Copy set forth by publick Authority and printed at London 1612. Quarto
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
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
yet renounced and with some reluctancy forsaken for Christ's sake and the Gospels Such a man saith St. Augustine is saved yet as it were by fire urit enim eum dolor for grief burneth him as Latin Authors speak So that by Fire in that place 1 Cor. 3. This learned Father did not so far as I can perceive understand any proper and material fire but Metaphorical onely Then he immediately adds Whether therefore in this life only men suffer these things i. e as I said before this figurative fire of grief or also after this life some such judicia judgments or punishments follow the sense of Saint Pauls words quantum arbitror as I think abhors not from truth So that Saint Austin doth not peremptorily assert it as a point of Catholick Faith to be believed necessarily to Salvation that there is any such to wit grief after this life but leaveth it uncertain and delivereth it as his opinion onely Thirdly It is worthy of our observation that they who held amongst whom Saint Jerom was one that all Christians In fine Comment in Isaiam not Hereticks or Schismaticks who professed faith in Christ should how wickedly soever they had lived and died be at last saved an Opinion detested by Saint Austin and earnestly confuted by him in several places of his Works did bring this very Text 1 Cor. 3. to prove it He that buildeth on this foundation i. e. faith in Christ and the p rofession of it wood bay stubble i. e. a wicked and barren life shall be saved yet so as by fire Saint Austin labouring to bring men off from this dangerous Error so plainly contradicted by the Holy Scripture in many places 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Forsitan verum est lib. 21. de Civit. Dei cap. 26. is sometimes not unwilling to grant that it is possible that some of the weaker sort of Christians departing out of this life under the guilt of some lesser sins might be purged some way or other from them after this life which the Greeks at this day who deny the Romish Purgatory grant but he is far from believing or urging it on others as an Article of Catholick Faith of which to be sure he would never have spoken in so doubting and uncertain a manner neither will any learned man deny but that some of the Ancient Fathers as Saint Chrysostom St. Jerom with others noted by Sixtus Senensis were of Opinion that men dying grosly wicked yea and Devils too saith Origen should at last be saved or might at least have their punishment in Hell mitigated by the Prayers and Alms of their surviving Friends which Tenet is now condemned even by the Papists themselves Fourthly It is considerable that Saint Austin ad Dulcitium expresly affirmeth that the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. Ergò utriusque opus probabit 3. is such as not onely he that buildeth on the foundation Wood Hay Stubble but also he that buildeth or layeth on Gold Silver precious Stones must pass through For Saint Paul immediately adds the fire shall try every mans work then he adds the tentation of tribulation ignis est is fire i. e. in a figurative and metaphorical sense as it is written Ecclesiasticus 27. The Furnace trieth the Potters Vessels and just men the tentation of tribulation which he explains thus He that mindeth the things of this life 1 Cor. 7. careth too much for them if yet for Christ's sake he be at last willing to forsake them shall be saved but quasi per ignem as it were by fire quia urit eum dolor rerum quas dilexerat amissarum sed non subvertit neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate munitum incorruptum because the grief of the beloved things he hath lost burneth him but subverts or consumes him not being preserved incorrupt by the stability of the foundation to wit Faith in Christ Then he adds Tale aliquid c. some such thing i. e. burning in the fire of grief for of it he before spake to happen also after this life non incredibile est is not incredible He saith not as Bellarmin must be believed under peril of damnation and whether it be so or no quaeri potest may be enquired after and either be found or lies hid to wit that some not all of the faithful by a kind of Purgatory or Purgative fire per ignem quendam purgatorium whether figurative or proper and material he resolveth not by how much the more or less they have loved these perishing good things shall by so much the sooner or later be saved but not such of whom it 's said by St. Paul 1 Cor. 6.9 they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God unless they be pardoned here upon their true repentance Can any ingenuous Person believe St. Austin took this Purgatory Doctrine whatsoever it be or our Adversaries will have his meaning to be for an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith Lastly St. Austin expoundeth that place the Romanists urge much in maintenance of their Purgatory Matth. 5.26 Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing as Protestants do that is thou shalt never come out thence as donec until is taken Matth. 1. last and in other places So Dulcitius had interpreted that place which S. Austin approveth of and applieth to this present Controversie From all that hath been said I infer First That the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. is not the Popish Purgatory fire neither did Saint Austin so understand it Secondly That the true sense of that place is as he confesseth very difficult dark and obscure Thirdly That whatsoever Saint Austin inferr'd from it Whether that there is after this life a proper or only a figurative fire of Grief it is no part of the Antient Catholick Faith but a truth if a truth which a true Christian may be ignorant of without peril of damnation Quaripotest It may be questioned or sought after and possibly never be found out but lie hid Fourthly That therefore Saint Austin was no Roman Catholick Lib. quarto Dialog cap. or of Pope Pius's faith I might add that even Pope Gregory the Great confesseth that the Fire 1 Cor. 3. may be understood of temporal affliction but I shall not descend so low at this time To these express places quoted out of Saint Austin Bellarmin replies 39. Apud Bellarm lib. 10. c. 5. de Purgatorio that he doubted not of Purgatory but of the quality of the punishment and sins there to be purged But it 's evident from his own words above recited First That he understood not the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. the principal place alledged by our Adversaries in a proper and natural sense as they do but moral and Metaphorical not of material but figurative Fire the fire of Grief The Greeks in their Apology deny not Pardon or purgation of some sins after death tho not by material fire for which nevertheless the Romish
us any thing De praescript c. 8. Arnobius Lib. 3. contra Gent. The first God is enough to us in him we worship all that is to be worshipped Lactantius agreeth with him Invocatio supponit omnipraesentiam lib. 6. p. 183. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. 17. for he adviseth all men to look up and adore nothing worship nothing but the Majesty of God our Father and Maker Eusebius Caesar Demonstr lib. 1. c. 5. lib. 3. c. 3. sheweth that the Jewish Church directed their Adorations to God onely and for Christians he affirmeth lib. 4. c. 6. that they prayed to God onely in the name of Christ not of Saints or Angels as their Mediator For seeing saith he it is peculiar to Christ as the great High Priest to frame for us spiritual Sacrifices in praises and thanksgivings and because as a Priest he hath offered up himself a perfect Sacrifice to God for us V. Origen supra Psalm 20. Si cultus tantum dicatur non soli Deo debetur sed religio c. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 1. De Praep. lib. 12. c. 7. hence we say to him let him remember all thy sacrifice c. Here we see Propitiation is the ground of Intercession As for Angels he granteth to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honour according to the dignity of their excellent nature so do we but reserveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all religious honour or worship to God only This is the very Doctrine of Protestants The due honour of Saints he explaineth thus We go to their Sepulchres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Prayers not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsis to them as Trapezuntius falsly if not perfidiously translated it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at them which is another thing But let us hear the testimony of Athanasius the truly Great who every where in his Orations against the Arians Orat. tertia in Arian proveth as the rest of the Fathers unanimously do Christ to be true God by this argument especially because he is prayed to V. Novatian de Trinit c. 14. Si homo tantummodo Christus cur in orationibus invocaeur c. Quomodo adest ubique invocatus cum haec hominis natura non sit sed Dei which were of no force if any Creature Saint or Angel might be in any sense invocated Particularly in his fourth Oration against the Arians from that Prayer of Saint Paul God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you He inferreth Christ to be consubstantial with the Father For no man is a true Catholick which appeareth hereby a Papist is not would pray to receive any thing of God and Angels or any Creature Neither saith he hath any Christian as yet then Invocation of Saints or Angels was unknown and unpractised amongst all true Christians used this form of Prayer or words God and an Angel we may add Saint grant it you Laus Dec Virginique Mariae in fine Tom 2. 3. Bellarm. See Dr. Brevint's Saul and Samuel at Endor Whether Papists use not such forms of words in their Prayers is too notorious to be proved to any who are acquainted with their Books of Devotion Then taking notice of one of their chief Arguments now pressed by our new Roman Catholicks for proof of their Invocation of Angels to wit the words of dying Jacob The Angel that delivered me out of all my distresses bless the Lads Athanasius as the other Fathers unanimously expounds them not of any created Angel but of the Son of God who is God and the Angel of the Covenant whom Jacob saw face to face at Peniel and termeth God. So Euseb Hist lib. 1. cap. 2. Ambrose in Psalm 43. Novatian de Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. Hi agnoscunt se esse creaturas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Orat. 3. in Arian He addeth David prayed to none for deliverance but to God To thee O Lord have I cryed c. and concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is evident the Patriarch Jacob joined none in his prayer to God but the Word whom he therefore calleth the Angel because he alone revealeth the Father Do not they then willingly abuse themselves and others who take Athanasius for a Roman Catholick or Invocation of Angels for an Article of the antient Catholick faith held by all sound Christians in all Ages or that the Angel appearing to the Old Patriarchs was a created Angel I will add his Contemporary Saint Hilary who altho he granteth which Protestants deny not that the Angels pray for the Church Militant here on Earth yet he no where alloweth Invocation of them but on Psalm 29 and 124. he adviseth all Christians to pray to God in regard he is Omnipresent in all places ready to help which is not true of Saints or Angels In like manner on Psalm 140. he saith In maledicto est religio creaturae Hil. de Trinit l. 8. p. 106. Magnificentiae Dei est orari It pertaineth to the magnificence or Prerogative of God to be prayed unto Hitherto the Coast is clear and we have the unanimous consent of the Fathers for about 340 years after Christ against Invocation of Saints Angels or any Creature Whence we undoubtedly conclude that it is tho a part of the present Roman yet not of the true antient and Catholick Faith believed semper ubique apud omnes always in all places by all sound Christians for such Doctrines as Vincentius Lyrinensis rightly notes are onely truly Catholick that is Universal as the name it self Catholick signifies To proceed Basil the Great Hom. 3. in Hexaemeron all Honour Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is due to God onely In Psalm 7. he saith Our hope is to be placed in God onely In Psal 18. That if any man worship the Creature beside tho with the Creator he giveth not glory to God but the Creature and in Psalm 45. Instead of Saints and Angels he telleth us that in all our necessities God is our onely Refuge In his Funeral Oration on Gordius he acquainteth us with the true ends of those commendatory or commemoratory Solemnities observed on the Natalitia or Festivals of the Martyrs to wit to glorifie God and to stir up the people to imitation of their Virtues but no mention find we there of praying to them I am not ignorant that out of Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen c. their Funeral Orations some Rhetorical Apostrophes to and Compellations of the Saints deceased are urged for Invocation of Saints by Bellarmine and others To which I answer First That in the most Primitive and antient Fathers we as we have seen find them not from the beginning it was not so Secondly That Rhetorical flourishes of Eloquence are no safe and sure grounds to build an Article of faith upon as Theodoret grants Non ego dogmatum regulam ea duco Dial. 3. quae in Ecclesia
Panegyricè dicantur The Fathers in their Panegyrical Orations and popular Sermons as Sixtus Senensis a Papist acknowledgeth spake often affectuum impetu orationis cursu rapti Biblioth lib. 6. Annotat 152. such things as taken according to the literal and strict sense cannot be justified To give one instance amongst many Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration on St. Basil saith of him Now in Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I suppose for he was not certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offereth up Sacrifices for us Yet no Papist will say that he celebrated Mass or as we speak the Holy Encharist or consecrated it in Heaven as that phrase of Offering Sacrifice is sometimes used by the Fathers In like manner he saith of his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he did in Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fight for his Flock on Earth Thirdly Many of their expressions are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wishes So Nazianzen in his Oration on Basil Thou Mountague of Invocation of the Saints O sacred and divine Head respice nos quaeso de caelo look on us from Heaven So Billius a Papist falsly translates it In the Greek the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O si or utinam nos de caelo respiceres O that or I wish thou mightest look down from Heaven on us So that it is rather a Wish than a true Prayer This is certain Nazianzen in the Oration above-mentioned no where prayeth to his own Father 4. They speak doubtfully and uncertainly so Nazianzen making an Apostrophe to the Soul of Constantius puts in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thou hast any sense or knowledge of our affairs I am compelled to speak to him as present More plainly in his Oration on his Sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there be such a reward bestowed on pious Souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou hast any knowledge or regard of our affairs receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not orationem my prayer for he no where prays to her or Saint Basil or his Father but my speech sermonem which certainly he would have done had he been a right Roman Catholick But who can imagine or believe that Nazianzen Basil and other of the antient Fathers would have spoken concerning the Saints departed their knowledge of humane affairs so doubtfully and uncertainly if they had in the least believed that Invocation of Saints in Heaven was an Article of Catholick Faith necessary to be believed under peril of Heresie and Damnation Credat Judaeus Apella non ego But before I go on I will take particular notice of a place quoted by Bellarmine out of Saint Basil's Oration on the 40 Martyrs in these words Qui aliquâ premitur angustiâ ad hos confugiat c. He that is in any affliction or strait let him fly to these i. e. these Martyrs To this I answer First That Bellarmine abuseth his Reader with a false Latin Translation which is not unusual with him In the Greek it is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not let him but he doth fly to them Here is matter of fact or practice they did so But here is no approbation advice or counsel of Saint Basil that they should do so Secondly He exhorts them to join their Prayers unto and with the supplications of the Martyrs Here then we find Intercession by them not Prayer to them Thirdly It is to be considered that these 40 Martyrs were all Cappadocians of that Country Montague of Invocation of Saints and so being as I suppose not long since deceased might retain some particular remembrance of the place of their Nativity and near Relations There is not the same reason of praying to Saints who never knew us nor we them Fourthly In that very place Saint Basil affirmeth that these 40 Martyrs not severally but all together were at the same time with divers persons in distant places which whether it be a truth or no I appeal to the judgment of any learned Papist They in some things reject the sayings of the Fathers as well as we Lastly He speaketh only of the place and time of their annual Festivity which will not amount to a sufficient ground of Invocation in any place and at any time of need of any Saint I now pass on to St. Chrysostome who Hom. 44. in Gen. Hom. 5. in Matth. Hom. de Profectu Evang. and elsewhere exhorteth his Hearers not to rely on the Intercession of others but to go immediately to God themselves propounding to them the Example of the Woman of Canaan Hom. 12. in Matth. who was never the better for the Apostles Intercession who intreated not Peter or James to beg for her but went directly to Christ herself and received a better answer from him Then he addeth V. Ambrose infra There is no need of Intercessors with God. I come to Theodoret who in his Comment Coloss 2. hath these words which give a deadly blow to this new point of Faith to wit worshipping Angels mentioned and condemned by Saint Paul in that Chapter v. 18. They saith he who defended the Law persuaded the Colossians to worship Angels saying that the Law was given by them Observe their reason is not because they were Gods or Creators of the World but deliverers of the Law as Saint Stephen noteth Acts 7. This Errour saith he remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia wherefore the Synod of Laodicea not far distant from Colosse forbid by a Law or Canon praying to Angels and to this day adds he are to be seen the Oratories not of any Heathenish Idol but of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel This they advised pretending or under a shew of voluntary humility for they said God himself could not be seen or comprehended neither could be approached unto and we must gain his favour through the Angels Thus Theodoret. Here we have the Original of the worshipping of Angels to wit certain Hereticks condemn'd by Saint Paul by the Council of Laodicea and Theodoret. We may note also that the Argument used by the Romanists to establish this pretended Article of Faith is borrowed from Hereticks to wit that God being infinite and incomprehensible it becometh not the humility of sinful Creatures to make immediate addresses to him but to use the Intercession of Angels the favourites of God. Cardinal Baronius is so netled with this testimony of Theodoret that notwithstanding his pretended reverence of the Fathers he saith plainly Theodoreti pace dictum sit non assequitur mentem Pauli Ad Ann. Christi 60. sect 17 22. Let it be spoken by the good leave of Theodoret that he understandeth not St. Paul 's meaning But by Baronius his leave I think Theodoret though no Cardinal understood St. Paul's meaning as well yea far better than he The Canon of the Council of Laodicea related to by Theodoret we find expressed in these words It becometh
another Article of Pope Pius his Roman Catholick Faith to wit worshipping of Images Concerning which it is certain that the Christian Churches for three hundred years after Christ had in them no Images to worship The Temple at Jerusalem had none Philo de Leg. ad Caium To which purpose it is remarkable what Aelius Lampridius * In the Life of Alexander Severus Lib. 7. Epist 109. an Heathen Historian writes When Adrian the Emperour had commanded that Temples should be made in all Cities without Images it was presently conceived that he did prepare those Temples for Christ Secondly That worshipping them came in above six hundred years after Christ for Pope Gregory the Great himself allowed not of worshipping Images as is manifest from his Epistle to Setenus Quia eas adorari vetuisses omnino laudavimus c. Lib. 9. Epist 9. He commends him for forbidding the worshipping them though not his breaking them who broke down Images in some Churches because the People worshipped them Thirdly That a great part of the Writings of the Antient Fathers Tertullian Origen Arnobius Lactantius c. are spent in condemning the worship of Images or using them as helps of Devotion It 's true They speak directly against the Images and Idols of the Heathens but most of their Reasons fight generally against all religious use or worship of Images of what kind soever especially of Images made to represent God himself Let us then hear the Fathers and judge Justin Martyr saith It 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 44. an injury or contumely to God to make an Image of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of base and unworthy wood or stone pag. 52. That we ought not to worship the work of mens hands Are not Popish Images of the Trinity the work of mens hands made of wood and stone as well as those of the Heathens Origen in Cap. 1. ad Rom. and lib. 3. in Celsum saith the same of whom more by and by Athenagoras in Legat. to the Heathens asking Why the Christians worshipped not Statues Answers because material Statues and God very much differ Not the World or any part of it but it's Maker is to be worshipped Men saith he to the Emperour pass by or through your Palace and above all honour you In your Games they crown not the Harp but the Harpers We submit not an immaterial Spirit i. e. the Soul to worship material and beggerly Elements i. e. Images Doth not this confute submitting our Souls in religious worship to Popish Images are not they material c. Irenaeus testifieth Lib. 1. c. 24. Epiphan Panar Haer. 27. in Anaceph p. 525. c. 20. that the Gnostick or Carpocratian Hereticks the first worshippers of Images we can find amongst Christians crowned the Image of Christ made by Pilate as they said and worshipped it The Simonians followers of Simon Magus worshipped his Image and of Helena his Whore. Ib. Ch. 26. The Basilidian Hereticks used also Images Ib. Ch. 23. Here we see the Primitive Antiquity and first Original of worshipping Images the Authors were then condemned Hereticks but now their Abettors are the only true Catholicks Tertullian saith Apologet c. 12. We Christians worship he speaks generally no Statues or Images which Crows Rats and Spiders understand Do they not as well understand Popish Images They seem to understand them better than Romanists Yea the Antient Fathers so detested Images that they condemned the very Art of Painting and Graving excommunicating such Christians who onely to get a livelihood made them as he sheweth De Idololat c. 4 5 6. In like manner Clemens Alexand. V. p. 46. and Strom. 5. in Protreptico where he farther saith I have learned to tread upon Earth i. e. Images or Statues not to worship them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protr p. 38. Simiae Imagimbus non decipiuntur vos deteriores Protrept ad gentes p. 39. It would be too tedious to quote all that Origen hath written against worshipping Images in his Books only against Celsus I will mention some few passages Lib. 3. He saith we instil first of all into all young Christians a contempt of all Images and lift up their minds Images then lift not up the mind to God from Veneration of Creatures to God. In the Jewish Commonwealth no maker of Images was suffer'd which turn the mind from God. Lib. 4. Cont. Celsian Pag. 284. Our New Catholicks say they turn the mind to God. In his sixth Book he writeth thus We count them rude and ignorant who are not ashamed to speak to sensless things See Cassander Consult Art. 21. to beg life of the dead although some of them confess they are not Gods as Papists excuse themselves but signs and representations of them onely However they are ignorant in imagining that a vain Smith or Carpenter can make so much as a resemblance of Divinity In the same Book he adds They are blind who regard the fallacious Arts of Painters or Carvers In his 8th Book Celsus the Heathen accuseth the Christians for not having yea not enduring to look on Images See Minutius Foelix Arnobius c. Which saith he none but fools take to be Gods themselves the Heathens were not so foolish but signa signs or Representations of them a not Gods but Daemons Angels To which Origen replieth both for Jews and Christians In regard of those words Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve And thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. It cannot be that any one who knoweth God should pray also to Images Do these reasons confute onely Heathen Image-worshippers Did not the Primitive Fathers and Christians understand those Texts as Protestants now do He adds We have also Images of what kind not made by impure Workmen but by the Word of God Temperance Justice and other Virtues So that Origen in the name of the Christians in his days rejects and condemns all material Images in order to religious worship Arnobius brings in the Heathens saying non ipsa timemus simulachra c. we fear not the Images lib. 6. but those whom they represent i. e. Gods who were but dead men Daemons Angels and Heroes Yet he grants that by them they strook the vulgar as Papists do with fear and dread of God. And Lib. 7th he acquaints us that the Original of Images was that men could not conceive what God is and therefore resolved to make him like themselves Lactantius Instit Lib. 1. saith We cannot worship God if we give the same honour to any thing else Part 3. qu. 25. Art. 3. Azor. Instit l. 9. c. 6. B. Vsher's Answer to Malon But the Papists as Aquinas Cajetan Catechismus Rom. Azorius Pedro de Crabrera c. acknowledge and defend they give to the Images of God and Christ latria i. e. the very same Divine Honour they yield to God and Christ
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
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal
they shall not be admitted to the Vision beatifical till after the Resurrection Occam Scotus lib. 4. dist 45. qu. 4. Valentia with others deny that the Saints departed or Angels see all things in Speculo Trinitatis in God who seeth all things but onely such as are essential to their happiness Videt omnia qui videt videntem omnia Greg. M. In 2. Tom. 3. digres 17. p. 118. In August de Civil Dei l. 8. c. 27. and which he is pleased to represent to them Claudius Espencaeus testifieth that some old Folk trusted in the Saints and ascribed no less to them than to God himself and thought it easier to intreat or prevail with one of them for obtaining their requests and desires than him Ludovicus Vives professeth he could discern no difference betwixt the worship of Saints practised in his time and the heathenish Parentalia Wickliffe apud Walden Tom. 3 Tit. 12. the Albigenses and Waldenses rejected long before Luther Invocation of Saints I shall close this Particular with the words of Cassander a learned and ingenuous Papist Cons p. 154. This false and pernicious Opinion is too well known to have prevailed among the Vulgar while wicked men persevering in their naughtiness are persuaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints whom they have chosen to be their Patrons and worship with cold and prophane Ceremonies they have Pardon and Grace prepared them with God which pernicious Opinion hath been confirmed in them with lying Miracles And there is another Errour that men not evil of themselves Compare Sir Edwin Sandys's Europae Speculum pag. 56. Biel in Can. Missae Lect. 30. saith as much Solus Deus simpliciter orandus est Sancti magis se tenent ex parte orantium quam illius qui oratur Halens qu. 92. Mem. 10. Art. 4. have chosen certain Saints to be their Patrons and keepers and put confidence in their Merits and Intercession more than in the Merits of Christ so far that the onely Office of Christs Intercession being obscured they substituted into his place the Saints and specially the Virgin his Mother c. Are not these things highly injurious to the honour of our blessed Saviour and Redeemer Did they not call aloud for an effectual Reformation I might add several other Points of Doctrine which if they be not already by the Tridentine Decrees may become Articles of Faith whensoever the Pope pleaseth The Popes Infallibility To deny it is sententia Haeresi proxima non proprie haeretica De Infallib Papae l. 4. c. 1. V. Caranzam Sess 12.38.35 V. Alphons de Castro adv Haeres l. 1. c. 2. vid. cap. 4. Ibid. Stapleton Contr. 3. qu. 4. saith it 's no Point of Faith but of Opinion only Cusan Concord l. 1. c. 14. Canus loc Com. l. 6. c. ult Cajetan de Authorit Papae c. 26. Lib. 1. c. 4. Valent. Lib. 8. Analys fidei cap. 1. Pope Hadrian in 4. de Sacram. Confirmat sub finem Canus Loc. l. 6. c. ult p. 331. Valentia Analys fidei lib. 8. c. 3. 4. V. Bellar. de Pontif. M. Waldensis Doctrin sidei l. 2. c. 19. Add Alph. de Castro lib. 1. cap. 4. the Ground Rock and foundation of all their Faith and Religion is ferè almost saith Bellarmin an Article of Faith and but almost which all prudent and considering men may well wonder at Yet it is not only denied by the Council of Basil who decree that it is de fide a Point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council in regard he may be as Liberius Zepherinus Honorius Anastasius and some other Popes were a notorious Heretick and Schismatick but strongly confuted by Occam qu. 1. de potestate Pontif. c. 9. Almain Quaest in Vesp de Autoritate Eccl. c. 10. Ovandus 4. Dist 18. prop. 25. Coroll 2. Nicolas Clemangis de corrupto Eccles statu Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. Contarenus Gerson c. Lyra in Matth. 16. Turrecremata Summ. Eccl. l. 4. part 2. c. 16.20 with many more grant the Pope may be a Heretick in his private person or judgment yea as Alphons de Castro Bozius Tom. 2. de sign Eccles l. 18. c. ult Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. acknowledge that he may be not onely a Heretick himself but impose by his Pontifical Authority in his Decrees Heresie on the whole Church The truth is there is need of an infallible Judge to determine where or in whom the Roman Infallibility resides Some of them say in the Pope alone whether he maturely considers what he decrees or no. Whether the Premisses on which he builds his conclusion be pertinent or not true or false Some in the Pope assisted with a General or Provincial Council Some in a General Council without yea decreeing against the Pope Some in the Universal Tradition of the Church They have little reason then to upbraid Protestants with their difference of Opinion in lesser matters seeing they differ amongst themselves in the fundamental Article and ground of all their Religion 2. The Immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary This is almost an Article of Faith amongst them insomuch that no Divine can commence Doctor as Salmeron reports in the University of Paris Orig. Hom. 17. in Lucam Chrysost Hom. 45. 46. in Matthaeum August Quaest vet novi Test qu. 73. Theophylact. in 2. Lucae Matth. 12. unless he swear to maintain it Nevertheless it is not onely contradicted by the Antient Fathers generally but by the Elder School men as Bannes Part 1. in Tho. qu. art 8. dub 5. and Turrecremata de Consecrat dist 4. num 11. acknowledge Lumbard lib. 3. Sent. dist 3. Aquinas summ 3. part qu. 27. art 2. Cajeran opusc Tom. 2. Tract 1. de conceptione Virg. Bonaventure Dist 3. in Sent. 3. qu. 1. Art. 1. Capreolus l. 3. dist 3. to whom many more may be added assirm the same 3. That the Apocryphal Books are to be received as of equal Authority with the Canonical is decreed and so made a point of Faith by the Council of Trent yet it is evidently contradicted not onely by the Laodicean Council Ruffinus Augustin cont Gaudentium l. 2 c. 23. See Field's Appendix to his third Book of the Church Loc. lib. 2. c. 9. Biblioth lib. 1. c. 19. Origen Hierom P. Gregory the Great and others but by multitudes of their own modern Writers as Cajetan Lyra Hugo Sigonius Occam the ordinary Gloss Waldensis Antoninus Tostatus Carthusianus Faber Clichtoveus Driedo Ferus with many more Canus even since the Council of Trents Decree saith It 's no Heresie to reject the Book of Baruc and Sixtus Senensis since that Council denies the additions to the Book of Hester to be Canonical 4. That we are justified by our own good Works or inherent Righteousness and not by Faith onely is decreed by the Trent Council as an Article of Catholick Faith yet it is plainly contradicted not onely by the