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
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
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
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 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
Blood. In the next Chapter in 3 Verses together he calleth it Bread. May not we call it so or was it not what St. Paul call'd it But he calleth it the Lord's Body True. Yet not in a literal but Sacramental sense even as the Cup which to be sure is not transubstantiated is term'd his Blood or the New Testament and Covenant in his Blood as the Lamb was call'd the Passover Circumcision the Covenant Baptism the Laver of Regeneration in which nevertheless Romanists do not believe any Transubstantiation This Bread we doubt not is in deed Christ Body as that Rock in the Wilderness was Christ as Christ was the true Vine or true living Bread which no sober man will interpret in a literal proper and substantial but in a Sacramental symbolical or typical sense Nor Purgatory Thirdly According to the doctrine of the holy Scripture there neither is nor can be Purgatory Polydore Virgil de Invent l. 1. c. 1. Biel in Can. Missae lect 57. Alphonsus de Castro lib. 8. tit Indulgent Valentia de Indulg grant that Purgatory is not to be found in Scripture nor Indulgences 1 Thess 4.14 This I prove from Rev. 14.13 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord for they rest from their labours How do men who die in a state of grace and so in Christ the Lord rest from their labours if as soon as they die they are tormented or as the Roman phrase is labour none know how long in the fire of Purgatory It 's confess'd by our Adversaries that all impenitent and wicked men who being void of grace die not in the Lord go to Hell not Purgatory How do righteous and good men enter into peace and rest according to Isa 57.20 if after death they enter into fiery torments St. Paul saith it generally of all Believers in Christ not Martyrs only as some would evade that they sleep in Jesus and would not have us to sorrow excessively for them How do they as it were sleep in Christ's bosom Why should we not mourn exceedingly for them if they probably lie in flames of fiâ—e under unspeakable torments not much inferiour to them of Hell as is granted excepting only the duration or continuance Add John 52.4 He that believeth shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life But he that cometh unto Purgatory cometh into condemnation Possibly it will be objected that Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3.12 Patres aliqui per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorii sed Divini Judicii quomodo loquitur Paulus 1 Cor. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg cap. 1. Augustin de fide operibus c. 15. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. Bellarmin de Purgator lib. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Chrysostom expounds it Tom. 5. Hom. 28. p. 467. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. plainly delivereth the doctrine of Purgatory The fire shall try every mans work he shall be saved yet so as by fire But how can it be a plain place for Purgatory when Origen and Augustine yea Bellarmine himself confess it 's a most obscure one and therefore very unfit to ground an Article of Faith upon St. Paul's whole discourse in that Chapter is Metaphorical and allusive as those words especially evidence v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by fire or as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty like one who runs through the fire to save his life That the place proveth not the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is manifest by this argument urg'd by * Saint Augustine The fire St. Paul mentioneth shall try every man's work The fire of Purgatory as they themselves grant tryeth not every mans work Ignis probationis non purgationis Aug. de fide operibus c. 15. Non est plenè remissa culpa quamdiu peccator est reus solvendae poenae Ceanus loc Theolog. lib. 12. pag. 435. Exemplo reatu eximitur poena Tert. de Baptismo cap 5. So Theodoret Theophylact and Anselm approved by Bellarmin lib. 1. de Purgator c. 5. pag. 586. Malachi 3. c. v. 3. for it tryeth only such mens works as die under the guilt of venial sins or such mortal ones as are forgiven but are not fully satisfied for and therefore which is a contradiction are still to be punish'd Therefore St. Paul's fire cannot be the fire of Purgatory into which the best and worst sort of men come not at all Again It 's one thing to try mens works whether they be good or bad and another to punish and by punishing to purge away the guilt of such as are bad In all probability St. Paul by the fire in that Text figuratively expressed the severe judgment of Christ at the last day The day shall declare it Then indeed our Saviour like a Goldsmith or Refiner shall exactly try every mans work c. then such as retain the foundation i. e. true faith in Christ and build upon it wood hay stubble i. e. erroneous opinions and fond imaginations of which this Purgatory doctrine is one instance shall be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger undergoing a strict scrutiny Nor Prayers to Saints or Angels Psalm 50. De Sanct. Beat. l 1. c. 19. Becanus in Euchirid c. 7. Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disput 2. art 7. Vide Sixtum Senens Biblioth lib. 6. Annotat 345. Enchiridion in 1 Tim. 2. disput 7. art 22. qu. 1. art 10. Col. 2.18 Rom. 10.14 Fourthly The Scripture no where commands adviseth or encourageth us to pray to Saints or Angels but to God only Call upon me in the time of trouble c. When ye pray say Our Father c. In the Old Testament Bellarmine grants there is no mention of Invocation of Saints because the Patriarchs Prophets and Saints were in Limbo not admitted to see God of which opinion as to Christians were many of the ancient Fathers altho the Papists now reject it as an Error In the New at least if we except that most abstruse Book the Revelation Eccius Salmeron Bannes and others confess that it hath no footsteps Yea Saint Paul expresly condemns worshiping Angels out of a voluntary humility after the vain Philosophy of the Platonists who yet did not worship them as Gods any more than Papists but only as Messengers or Mediators betwixt God and men Elsewhere he asketh the Roman Church which she should remember How shall they call on him i. e. lawfully on whom they have not believed But we believe in God only not in any Saint or Angel. How shall we then call on them I might add that the Church of Rome hath no certainty even of humane Faith that the Saints in Heaven know our wants or hear our Prayers for they know not on what ground to settle this belief Some flying to extraordinary Revelations some to the brittle and voluntary Glass of the Trinity some to the reports of Angels intruding into the things they have not seen nor
punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad
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
is no purging if no purging no Purgatory In another place he saith After this life is a time of punishment but not of purging Hence he adds It is better for a man to be chastis'd and purg'd by temporal affliction here All which places directly confront the Romish Doctrine concerning purgation of Souls by fire after death In his fourth Oration on Baptism he mentions several sorts of fire I know saith he the purging fire viz. that which Christ came to send on Earth viz. the fire of Tribulation and temporal Affliction as Nicetas in his Comment understands it The fire of love and faith towards God which purgeth the Soul from sin Therefore saith he Christ desired to have it kindled on Earth as soon as might be that we might have the benefit of it This cannot be Purgatory-fire which Christ kindled not on Earth I know saith he another fire but it is a punishing not purging fire as that of Sodom or that which goeth before the face of the Lord to burn up his Enemies or the fire join'd with the never-dying worm which is eternal Had Nazianzen known any other fire purgative of Souls after this life no question he would here have mention'd it but he was it seems wholly ignorant of this Romish Purgative fire after death which Bellarmine asserts to be a point of Faith which he that believeth not cannot be saved De Purgat l. 10. c. 15. but shall go to Hell. Parcite non credimus However to make a shew of Nazianzen's consent he quoteth those words in his Oration In Sancta lumina They shall be baptiz'd with another fire which is the last Baptism which devours the gross matter like fire and consumeth the levity of sin But herein the Cardinal discovers much want of sincerity and fair dealing for Nazianzen in that place speaketh thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By chance or it may be they shall be there baptiz'd with fire so that he delivers it not positively as an Artiele of Faith but as an uncertain Opinion or possibility onely as Augustin doth after him Again he directs his Speech to the Novatian Hereticks But the Roman Church is not so merciful as to send Hereticks to Purgatory and possibly he might mean by that Fire Origen cont Cols l. 5. Cyril Catech 15. the fire of Conflagration at the end of the World as others of the Fathers which Bellarmin denies not are sometimes to be understood I must not omit his intimate Friend Basil the Great who saith Moral sum lib. 10. The present time is the time of repentance and remission of sins In his Exhortation to Baptism he mentions only Heaven and Hell taking no notice of Purgatory By the Baptism of Fire he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of Doctrine In his Comment on Psal 33. he distinguisheth two sorts of men onely such as are dead to sin and die in a mortify'd and sanctify'd Estate and such as are sinners The death of the former is blessed of the latter miserable in regard punishment attends them like Dives in the Parable Now Dives we know was in Hell as is plain Luke 16. not Purgatory Basil therefore it seemeth knew no such place I pass to Epiphanius who confuting the Novatians writeth thus Her. 59. In the other World after mens death there is no Fasting Pennance Alms or Piety there Lazarus cometh not to Dives nor Dives to Lazarus Why did he not except those who are labouring in Purgatory as Romanists speak Epiphanius goes on The Store-houses are sealed no coming out the time accomplished the Combat ended the Race run and the Crowns are given To what end then are Prayers Masses Indulgences c and they who have striven are quiet If quiet how labouring in Purgatory Again All things are plainly ended after death whilst all are in Combate after falling there may be rising again There is yet hope there is yet help Salvation is not desperate After death the King shuts the door admitteth none After our departure we may not correct what was amiss formerly in us How are these words reconcileable to the modern Romans Faith They say men may correct after death by the help of others what was formerly amiss in them After death Salvation is not desperate there is yet hope and help for some of a middle sort when they have undergone temporary punishment or penance in Purgatory The door of Heaven after death is not shut the Store-houses are not seal'd up but may be open'd afterward the Combate is not ended nor whatsoever Epiphanius saith all the Crowns yet given some being reserv'd for those that are making satisfaction for their venial sins or compleating it for those that were mortal in Purgatory Yet the Fathers are all theirs and the Roman Church never did never can err But it 's objected that Epiphanius undoubtedly held Purgatory as a point of Faith in regard he alloweth Prayers for the dead and condemns Aërius as an Heretick for denying it I answer Prayer for the dead doth no way prove the Romish Purgatory Or that they for whom the Church anciently prayed were in pain or torment neither doth Epiphanius intimate any such thing yea he contradicts it in part at least when he saith We pray for the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs who as our Adversaries confess were never in Purgatory but happy in the Lord. Saint Ambrose pray'd for the Emperour Valentinian when deceased De Obitu Valentin Confess lib. 9. cap. ult yet in the very same place he declares that he believ'd he was in heavenly Glory Saint Augustin also pray'd for his Mother Monica when departed yet immediately adds that he believ'd God had granted what he begg'd i. e. remission of her sins and everlasting life Prayer then for the dead does not infer Purgatory But this by the way Let us now hear what Saint Chrysostom saith in his third Sermon upon the Philippians he makes not three but onely two sorts of Christians Such as die in the true Faith and such as die in Infidelity and their Sins The former after their departure out of this life are blessed who are gone to Christ and there are nearer to him not by Faith but face to face And Homily the fourth on the Epistle to the Hebrews Tell me what mean those bright Lamps in Funerals Is it not that we bring forth the dead like victorious Combatants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are the Hymns Is it not because we glorifie God for crowning him that is departed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he hath free'd him from labours and from the fear of death having him with himself Consider what ye sing when ye say Return unto thy Rest O my soul c. These expressions agree with Purgatory like Water with Fire How are they blessed with Christ victorious crowned free from all sorrows at rest and peace who being of the number of the faithful no gross sinners but in a state of Grace are yet
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
have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8◠ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much
less on his Successours and that at Rome rather than Antioch Saint Austin agreeth Quid est super hanc petram c. What is it On this Rock will I build my Church super hanc fidem on this Faith Thou art Christ the Son of God. But sparing at present particular testimonies I shall shew that all the four first General Councils These P. Gregory the Great received as the four Gospels Lib. 1. Epist 24. all Popes are sworn to them Ad apicem observaturos Can. sicut Dist 16. Hist lib. 60. c 23. l. 1. c. 6. Roma Metropolis Romanae ditionis Athanas ad solitar vit agentes either expresly or by consequence and implicitly have refuted and overthrown the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome I begin with the first Nicene Council Can. 6. where we read Let the Antient Customs remain The Bishop of Alexandria shall have the Government of the Churches of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Quoniam Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custom i. e. to govern Rome and the suburbicarian Region as Ruffinus as Roman Presbyter understood it and the precedent words plainly enough intimate The Bishop of Alexandria is to govern his Diocess as the Bishop of Rome doth the Churches belonging to him of antient Custom Here is a manifest limitation or rather exclusion of the Bishop of Romes Universal Jurisdiction Baronius Bellarmin and Coriolanus answer that those words because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custome means no more but this because the Bishop of Rome consuevit perinittere hath used of old Custom to permit the Bishop of Alexandria to govern those Churches of Egypt c. A strange gloss and a mere begging of the Point in question As if the right of governing all Churches belonged to the Bishop of Rome when the Council as of antient Custome inviolable and equal to that of Rome parilis mos commit the government of those Churches to the Bishop of Alexandria as his antient Right might not we say as well that the Patriarch of Alexandria permitted the Pope to govern the Church of Rome It is evident enough from this Canon that the Nicene Fathers did not imagine that the Supreme Government of all Churches did belong to the Bishop of Rome or that the Patriarch of Alexandria needed to supplicate him for a Pall. The first Council of Constantinople Can. 2. forbids all Bishops to encroach on the Diocesses of others lest they confound the Churches And Can. 5. they decree that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the honour of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome in regard it was new Rome to wit made the Imperial City by Constantine who called it after his own name Constantinople Here we see the Bishop of Rome is forbid as well as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishop in other mens Dioceses and that the Council out of Reverence to antient custome grants him a priority of Place or Order not a superiority of Power and Jurisdiction The general Council of Chalcedon expounds and confirms this 5th Canon of Constantinople who Can. 27. decree in these words Following in all things the Decree of the 150 Fathers to wit in the Council of Constantinople before mentioned we decree the same concerning the Priviledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople which is new Rome Their Reason is for the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God the Father nor Christ his Son Matth. 16 16. but the Fathers the Bishops did of right give Priviledges to the Throne Ecclesiastical of old Rome because it was the Imperial City and upon the same consideration the 150 Bishops before mentioned have granted to the Throne of new Rome i.e. Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges rightly judging that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enjoyeth equal Priviledges i.e. Civil with old Rome the Imperial City should also in matters Ecclesiastical be equally with her magnified and extolled being the second in order after her Here we see plainly First That the Church of Constantinople is in all Ecclesiastical matters and Priviledges equally extolled and magnified with old Rome Gratians corruption of this Canon is abominable for he translates it thus We Decree that the Seat of Constantinople may have not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal but similia like Priviledges with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Semor old but Superiour superior Rome non tamen in Ecclesiastic is magnificatur ut illa but is not in Ecclesiastical matters magnified as she is whereas in the Greek it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical matters shall be equally extolled An ignorant or shameless man. Secondly Observe the reason why the Fathers in both Councils being near eight hundred Bishops granted Priviledges and Preeminences to the Bishop of old Rome was because it was the Imperial City and upon the very same ground the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedo judged it right and fit to grant the same and equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople in regard it being made the Seat or Head of the Empire by the Emperour Constantine it was new Rome or the Imperial City Here is no mention made of any Divine Right granted by Christ to Peter or his Successours at Rome This Canon is of more weight than all the Decrees of Popes and the Writings of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits put together It was confirmed in the sixth General Council in Trullo Can. 36. as also by the Emperours Marcian Justinian Novel 115. cap. 3 c. Our Adversaries alledg In Edicto de Confir Syn. Chalced. apud Binium Tom. 3. p. 471. Caranza p. 369. that this Canon was surreptitiously obtained by the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius when the Bishop of Romes Legates with others were gone out of the Council But Caranza a Popish Collector of the Councils informs us that upon this complaint made by the Legates the Canon was debated the second time and confirmed by the Bishops in Council so much doth Binius Concil Tom. 3. p. 404. 463. acknowledgeth also yea the Bishop of Rome is desired by the Council to consent to it as Baronius himself confesseth I hasten to the General Council of Ephesus where upon complaint of the Bishops of Cyprus that the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a Power to ordain their Bishops contrary to antient custome the Fathers decree that they should enjoy their antient right adding a Canon whereby they forbid any Bishop not excepting the Roman to invade the Diocâ—â—ses of others lest the Statutes of the Fathers be broken and under pretence of the sacred function the tumour of secular power should creep in and so unadvisedly by little and little we lose our liberty which Christ hath purchased by his own bloud Thus those Reverend Bishops decreed V. Bernard ad Eugenium de Consid lib. 3. as if by a Prophetical Spirit they had foreseen the future Captivity of the Church
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
13. Epist 39. Lib. 7. Epist 30. ad Eulogium he rejects the name given to himself this name of Singularity or consented to use it as Popes now do And who is he who contrary to the Gospel and the Decrees of the Canons presumeth to take upon him this foolish and proud Name Did ever any Protestant inveigh more bitterly against the Popes Universal Episcopacy I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true Whether the antient or modern Roman Bishops or both be infallible Do not the modern Popes assume and earnestly contend for this foolish proud and Antichristian Name And lest we should imagine that Pope Gregory condemn'd this Name in other Patriarchs only not as to himself he addeth in the before-mentioned Epistle to Mauritius the Emperour Gracious Lord Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo c. Do I in this speak for my self or plead my own cause and not rather the cause of the whole Church Where note he acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his Lord and to whose judgment he is willing to refer the whole cause Did Pope Gregory make the Emperour supreme Judge in an Article of Faith Let Papists judge Notwithstanding all this zeal his successor Boniface soon after Ann. 607. as Sigebert Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus and other Historians testifie Epist 32. ad Maurit lib. 2. Epist 61. ad Maur. Beda de aetate Anastas vita Bonifacii 3. Ad. Chron. l. 1. In Praefat. Reipub. Eccl. by the favour of that execrable Regicide Phocas obtained this proud foolish and prophane Title and the present Pope not onely owneth the Name but contrary to the judgment of his Predecessors who are supposed to have been infallible executeth an Universal jurisdiction over all Princes Bishops Churches as far as he is able to the diminution yea almost abrogation of their due Rights Priviledges and Authority as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato justly complained So much for the Popes Supremacy Art. 7 Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ his very Body and Bloud in the Mass by the Priest as a Propitiation for the sins both of quick and dead This Error in all probability arose from want of a discreet understanding of some Rhetorical or Hyperbolical expressions used by the Antient Fathers in their popular Sermons and Discourses concerning the Sacrament of Christ's death and Passion Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur Greg. M. de Concil Dist 2. Quid sit But that it was no part of their Faith to believe that Christ is really and properly sacrificed in the Mass we shall evidently prove out of their own Writings I shall begin with Justin Martyr Apol. ad Antonin who discoursing of the Holy Eucharist sheweth how the Christians then used to offer Bread and Wine to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister who receiving them offereth up to God not Christ himself but Glory Thanks and Praise for those his gifts i. e. Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 1.11 which relates to all Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Wine which after the Ministers Prayers and Thanksgivings are distributed to every one that is present Where note First They termed Bread and Wine after the Ministers Prayers or Consecration Secondly Both Bread and Wine were given to all present not Bread onely much less neither one nor the other as in Private Masses But of sacrificing or offering up Christ himself to God he hath not a word in that place The same Father in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew P. 201. treateth at large concerning the abrogation of the Jewish Sacrifices and coming to mention the Christian Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Dialog pag. 270. which Malachy foretold should be offered up to God by the Gentiles in every place he interprets it as Tertullian Eusebius and the rest of the Fathers do of Prayers and Praises Which saith he I account the onely perfect sacrifices pleasing to God. Which Spiritual Sacrifices a little after he opposeth to all the Sacrifices Offerings and Oblations of the Law. Surely had Saint Justin believed that in the Eucharist Christ himself his Body and Bloud were by the Priest really and properly sacrificed to God he would no doubt have made mention of this Christian Sacrifice far exceeding in virtue and value no onely all Jewish Offerings but the Prayers and Thanksgivings of all Christians at least he would never have affirmed that the latter were in his opinion the onely perfect Sacrifices under the Gospel pleasing to God. But he is altogether silent as to any such Sacrifice yea contrarily in that very place he addeth That these onely Sacrifices to wit Prayers and Praises Christians have learned to make and that in or at the commemoration or remembrance of their alimony both wet and dry i. e. the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in which they remember the Passion of Christ Where it is remarkable that Justin Martyr instead of proper sacrificing of Christ in the Holy Eucharist mentions onely the Commemoration or Memorial of his Passion and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings attending it for it 's called the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the onely Sacrifices Christians had learned in that most solemn Office of Religion to offer up to God. So much for Justin I pass on to St. Irenaeus who acknowledgeth that Christ teaching his Disciples to offer to God First-fruits of his Creatures Lib. 4. c. 32.32 34. lest they should seem ungrateful took that Bread which is of the creature or Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly was the word and gave thanks and said This is my Body In like manner the Cup of Wine which is of the creature i. e. the Vine confessing it to be his Bloud and taught the Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the World to him who granteth to us the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament Here we find an Oblation but not a Sacrifice which two De Missa l. 1. c 2. as Bellarmine observeth are different things much less a sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud Irenaeus plainly sheweth what kind of Oblation he meant when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator but of Gods creatures to wit Bread and Wine which the Church offers to God. De Euchar. lib 10. c. 27. V. Litur Chrysost Bellarmine grants this First as an expression of honour love and gratitude to him for his creatures bountifully bestowed on us for our sustenance Secondly That out of a part of them to wit Bread and Wine set on Gods Table or Altar by the prayers of the Priest they might become sacramentally and mystically his Body and Bloud Thirdly That out of the remains the poor might be relieved These Oblations Saint Cyprian after him calleth in an improper
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
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