Edward's time had passed their Authority to certain Persons Deputed by the King to make Spiritual Laws * Fox Act. Mon. So that though nothing appears apud Acta because perhaps not so carefully registred or not at all because it was the Personal Act of their Deputies or in that primo Mariae which is likely enough expunged and destroyed yet a Synod there was to carry on this work upon the foregoing Reasons to which may be added what Bishop Jewel def Apol. fol. 520 affirms which Mr. Harding (a) Scoffing at it as a small obscure meeting of a few Calvivinists Def. Apol. fol. 521. which Bishop Jewel farther avers Defen Apol. fol. 645. could not deny We have not done saith he what we have done altogether without Bishops or a Council the matter hath been treated in open Parliament with long Consultation and before a notable Synod and Convocation Having premised thus much the less shall be said to N. N's exceptions and reports and nothing at all to his angry scurrilous malicious invectives and expressions 1. Edward the sixth was a Child c. This is a close reflection on his incompetency to act in that kind but N. N. might have considered that Kings in the eye of the English Laws are never Minors and that though he was a Child in years yet not so in understanding for during the time of his Reign he kept a most exact judicious Journal of all the most principal (b) Haywards Ed. 6. affairs of State and his abilities were so great far beyond his years that he could encounter Gardan and disputed his new devised Paradoxes with so much acuteness and strength of Reason that Cardan reported his parts to be miraculous And as to his Knowledg in matters of Religion his Answer formerly related to the Romish Rebels sufficiently shews he was no Candidate thereof but a solid understanding Christian But if his being a Child be so great an offence to the Romish tender Consciences why should not their Universal Monarch's being a Child work the same effect in them Such they have had Benedict the ninth was a Lad almost ten years old John the eleventh a stripling and a Bastard to boot which one of their stout sticklers grants and makes a pleasant Phanatick (c) A. D. Soc. Jes in his Reply to Dr. White p. 289. Sect. to the seventh Apology for their youth viz. in these words The young years of our Bishops cannot be a hinderance to debar them of being Infallible Pastors and Universal Monarchs in the Church since out of the Mouth of Babes our Lord can work his own praise neither is Ignorance want of Learning or Discretion any lett when by the mouth of an Ass God can instruct a Prophet 2. They did vary as he runs on and so were in confusion The Antecedent is beggarly without proof and the consequence is naught every variation in judgment and opinion doth not infer or imply Confusion The members of the Trent-Assembly in far more and more importing Doctrines did vary almost at every turn yet I presume this man of confidence will not adventure to conclude that all was there in a Confusion But King Edwards Doctors did not vary for they were perfectly agreed and took an effectual course to prevent discord and confusion For 3. The Common-Prayer Book was not obstructed but generally and Religiously observed For in 1 Edw. 6. it was Authorized by Proclamation recommended to the Bishops by special Letters from the Lords of the Privy Council to see it practised and in 2. Edw. 6. a penalty was imposed by Act of Parliament on such as should deprave or neglect the use thereof if any disturbance therein it proceeded from the Popish party and their Preachers which occasioned a Proclamation to be issued out to silence them 4. He relates every one might Preach what he pleased c. This is false for a Proclamation was published none should Preach unless he were Licensed 5. Hugh Latimer saith he was in great esteem c. If so then probably the Common People would have sided with him for the Common-Prayer Book which he so highly esteemed that he judged all those who condemned it to be Factious and Seditious as in particular he charged Thomas Lord Seymour upon that account 6. He tells us the Common People took Armes c. Surely not those who so much respected Hugh Latimer they were some who affected Popery that is no news such should prove Rebels when they dare he might have spared this to save the Credit of his Old Religion This practice is sufficient to prove them no true Roman Catholicks for the Old Religion taught Subjects Submission and Suffering for Religion and forbad Resistance and Rebellion and taking up Arms against their lawful Sovereign 7. He supposeth Edward the sixth's Reformation could not be perfected c. In good time by the same reason Queen Mary's reduction of Popery could much less be perfected for she lived but five years 1. He presents his grand remarkable in this Kings time c. But he is so reserved and wary as not to specify the year of his Reign if he means 1 Edw. as is most probable he misseth one of the number for thirteen were appointed this is a pardonable mistake That which follows is a down-right Calumny as hath been sufficiently proved for those seven men had a real respect to the Judgment of the Christian World and Practice of the Catholick Church If he pitch on 2 3 Edw. 6. then 32 persons were nominated to examine Ecclesiastical Lawes viz. such as concerned the Jurisdiction and Rights of the Church in foro externo which indeed were but so many Regulators of the Canon-Law If he relate to 6 Edw. 6. only eight persons were named in the Kings Letters Patents with a power to call into their Assistance whom they pleased But this is remarkable that when N. N. lays claim to all the Christian World many General Councils and all the Fathers for their Matter and Form of Sacraments and their Sacrifice of the Mass he is then fallen into the braving humour of his old Thrasonical Bragadochio Colleagues Testor omnes patres omnia Concilia c. No less than all was the nothing Brag of Father Campian but the Author of the Apologetical Epistle published Ann. 1601 goes far beyond him in this swelling ranting ventosity That Faith which I defend is taught in all the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and all ancient Glosses and Scholies on their Latine and Greek by all the learned Fathers Historians Antiquaries and Monuments by all Synods Councils Laws Parliaments Canons and Decrees of Popes of Emperours and Kings by all Martyrs and Confessors and Schools by all Friends and Enemies even Mahumetans Jews Pagans and Infidels all former Hereticks and Schismaticks All these he had carefully and with diligence studied and considered them this is a right Don Glorioso But somewhat is still behind his Faith is approved by all the
which as (n) Alias Turcelline l. de 6 7 8 Synodis p. 65. Turrian relates is extant in the Vatican and it is very probable for Pope Leo seventy years after (o) Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. p. 136 137. Leo Ep. 53 54. Car. p. 201. by his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon opposed it though to no purpose for his resistance was not valued either by the Council or the Judges who indeed contemned it These two Popes then did withstand it but Caran adds That the Church of Rome would not by any means receive it though welfare a little touch of Ingenuity for the peace of the Church which it seems highly esteemed it it was not contradicted which in effect imports thus much The Popes and Church of Rome were so cunning as to dissemble their spight against this Council and that Act especially but durst not shew their teeth for fear of the Emperour For the proof of this relation he refers to Innocent the third and St. Gregory the great whom he cites truly for though in one Epistle he professeth to (p) Lib. 2. Ep. 24. embrace that Council as one of the four Evangelists and testifieth that the Church of (q) Ibid. Ep. 10. Rome then owned it yet in another Epistle he (r) Lib. 6. Ep. 31. confesseth that until his time or age wherein he lived that Council and the Acts and Canons thereof were not entertained by the Roman Church so that for the space of two hundred years and upwards for that Council convened Ann. 381. and Gregory flourished Ann. 600. it was opposed and rejected as far as in safe Policy it could be done by the Church of Rome but notwithstanding this opposition the Catholick Church still reputed it a lawful General Council and all the Acts and Canons thereof to be obligatory and occasionally practised according to them which is next to be demonstrated For by warranty of that Canon in this Council which so perplexed the Roman Church Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople in the right of his Sec did take place before and above the Patriarchs of Alexandria (s) In the Council of Chalc. Act. 1. Conc. Chalc. p. 8. Synod Ann. 553. Coll. 1. and Antioch and so did Eutychius in the fifth Synod Ann. 553. And when it was reported to the Fathers of Chalcedon that Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the reprobated Council of Ephesus neglected himself sitting below the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem they were much offended saying in great zeal Why did not Flavianus sit in his proper place that was next to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates By authority of this Canon which so troubled the Popes Patience St. Chrysostom when he was Bishop of Constantinople (v) Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. in fine Soz. l. 8. c. 6. saith 14. in Ann. 400. Pallad in vit Chrys deposed fifteen Bishops in Asia the lesser and ordained and settled others in their Sees and Dignities and in Ann. 400 the same St. Chrysostom celebrated a Council at Ephesus to which he called all the Asian Bishops who readily attended him After this Justinian the Emperour commanded all the Canons of this Council which the Popes would if they durst have publickly rejected Dipticis inseri praedicari to be Recorded in the Eclesiastical Books Rolls or Registeries and publickly to be read in all Churches in token of their (w) Novel c. 1 2. Vniversal Approbation But albeit both Law and Usage the best Interpreter of Law concur for the proof of this Conclusion yet the cry still goes O the Mother O the Mother Church of Rome which is hotly pursued by the Bigots set on by the Boutefeu's of the Tribe This hath made a great clutter and bustle in the world which yet hath nothing in it but folly and disingenuity and impudence for can any man in his right Wits who is not tainted either in his Intellectuals or Morals ever hearken to such a Perswasion so contrary to all Records Divine and Human The Scriptures make Jerusalem the Mother-Church Gal. 4.16 But Jerusalem which is above or the New Jerusalem as it is stiled Revel 21.2 and the Holy Jerusalem ver 10 whose wall had twelve Foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb which is Mother of us all Christians Believers of the Gospel where the Church of Christ was first planted by the Apostles and St. Peter Preached his first Sermon and begot many to the Faith and from whence they all departed after to execute their Apostolical Commission For this Jerusalem is not that which shall be but that in which the House of God shall be built with a Glorious building and all Nations shall turn and fear the Lord God truly and bury their Idols so shall all Nations praise the Lord and as old Tobit instructed his Son Tobit 14 5 6 7 as it is here allegorically expressed for that City was a Type of the Christian Church Psal 48.2 and 122.3 Isa 31.5 In the Old Testament it was foretold to be the Mother-Church of Christianity Out of Sion shall go forth the Law of Faith as it is universally Interpreted and the Word of the Lord the Gospel from Jerusalem Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 And in the New Testament the Prophecy is accomplished and verified where it is plainly declared that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in Christs Name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem c. Luke 24.47 48 49. Act. 1.8 and fully compleated Act. 2. per tot So for Human evidences the first General Council at Constantinople is clear which expresly owneth Jerusalem for the Mother of all Churches to which Tert. (x) Cap. 20. which Pam. thus Gloseth this is the first from which the Church all the World over is disseminated so Hier. Interprets that of Isa 2. and this is the Mother Church from whence the Faith came to us as the same Tert. lib. 4. adver Marc. Rome is but one of the Sister Churches which yet are Mothers in their Precincts Id. ib. de praec c. 36. may be added in his Book de Prescr The Church was first founded at Jerusalem as the Seminary of the Churches all the World over and ex abundanti even in St. Bernard's time when the Church of Rome had exceeded her limits yet had she not the reputation of Vniversal Mother nor the Honour of Lady Mother at least in his judgment for thus he writ to (y) Lib. 4. de Consid Tom. 2. p. 141. tit L. Edit Venet. Pope Eugenius Above all things consider that the Holy Roman Church over which thou art placed by God is a Mother of Churches some not all and so every Apostolical Church is as well as Rome not a Lady or Mistriss of any and thou thy self not a Lord of Bishops but one of them It is true St. Cyprian saith Rome is the or rather a principal Church from whence the unity of Priesthood first began but this signifies nothing
if Polyidore Virgil's Caution as in reason it ought be (z) Lib. 4. de Invent. rerum admitted Ne quis erret c. Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other way be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from Rome unless we understand it within Italy only for liquido liquet it is clear and beyond dispute that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before ever St. Peter came to Rome Polydore was in the right for Rome's Principality cannot entitle her to be Vniversal Mother because if we read the sentence thus Rome is a Principal Church this is as truly predicated of every Apostolical Church if the Principal Church neither will that enstate her in the challenged and claimed Motherhood because it was only accidental If a younger Sister for her external accomplishment be advanced to be a Lady of Honour or married to an Earl or Lord whereas her elder Sisters continue in their first State only or be married to Gentlemen or others of meaner condition She by virtue of her Qualifications may take Place of them but she cannot exercise the Authority of a Mother over them If Rome a younger Sister of the Mother Churches upon a forraign and extrinsecal account which was meerly contingent and arbitrary became the Principal Church the Principality might justly give her the precedency of Place but not precedency of Rule over them it made her the most Honourable of the Sisters but could not create her Mother to any or all of them because this Honour was Adventitious and Precarious which accrewed not to her till long after her first Foundation nor was derived to her by any Divine Institution Neither will that subsequent Clause from whence Vnity of Priesthood first began be any relevant to her if we consider that this is only spoken in reference to her own Precincts for then the whole Sentence would be verified of every Apostolical Church to instance in Corinth this is a or the principal Church of Achaia from whence the Vnity of Priesthood first began viz. In the Regions adjacent and belonging thereto and so of any other which were founded before her as many were for these Churches being compleatly formed when she was not in being she could not propagate the Faith to them nor consequently be a Mother Church to them The soonest that is pretended St. Peter came to Rome was in the second of Claudius but certain it is St. Mark Preached the Gospel at Alexandria and over all Aegypt Lybia Cyrene Pentapolis and the whole Region of Barbary in the Reign of Tiberius And St. Aug. affirms the Africans the more Western received the Faith not from Rome but the East The Southern Christians as the Abyssines and Aethiopians were Converted when St. Peter was still at Jerusalem at least eight years before he came to Rome by the Romanists account The Eastern Bishops told Julius as was before related Rome received the Faith from them and in Britain the Christian Faith was professed five years at least before ever St. Peter set his Foot in Rome and therefore Rome could not be Mother to those elder Sisters of Asia Africa Aethiopia and Britain unless an uncouth Hysterâ—sis be allowed or some Noble Roman would undertake to prove that Claudius reigned before Tiberius as a grave Burgess once did to prove that Henry the seventh was before Henry the sixth and therefore these Churches could not from the beginning be under her Jurisdiction and therefore also can justly claim the Cyprian Priviledg and plead it in the abatement of any Papal possession or prescription But to confirm this Title they make their Plea from Eusebius in his Chronicle or else it is insisted upon very impertinently who relates That St. Peter sat at Antioch seven years after which therefore Antioch is her elder Sister and Evodius Bishop there before St. Peter ordained any Bishop or Priest at Rome he travelled to Rome where he resided five and twenty years It is very probable this Book of Eusebius hath fallen into the hands of Interpolators Canus (a) Refert Rivet l. 3. their learned Bishop with much regret complains It hath been corrupted in many places through the negligence ignorance or haste of the Transcribers or Translators this place is probably one of them for in the Greek Edition published by Jos Scaliger Printed Lugd. Bat. An. 1606. there is no mention of any determinate time of St. Peter's coming or his abode and residence at Rome all that is said there is this Peter the chief as Aristotle is Princeps Philosophorum having first founded a Church at Antioch went to Rome to Preach the Gospel there and it is the more probable in that this Relation in the corrupted Chronicle is contradicted by Eusebius himself Lib. 3. Eccl. hist c. 1. Peter saith he having Preached the Gospel in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia and Asia to the Jews which were of the dispersion which in all probability was before his residence at Antioch for we find in Scripture he was at Jerusalem Ann. 19. Tiber. and Ann. 2 Claudii Act. 8. and 12. at the last or at the end near the approach of his death being at Rome was put do death which makes some conceive that St. Paul whose first coming to Rome was in Ann. Dom. 58. Neron secundo had planted a Church at Rome ten years almost before St. Peter came there and others think that St. Peter continued in Judaea and in the adjacent Regions till Ann. 7 Claud. Ann. Dom. 49. and therefore this Story that he presided and resided at Rome for five and twenty years is hardly reconcileable with evidence of History in many particulars to which may be added what Onuphrius notes in Plat. de vit Pont. in Pet. Apost placing his third and last return to Rome in the last year of Nero and what Epiphanius (b) Haer. 3. testifies that St. Peter and St. Paul where they planted Churches ordained Bishops to preside over them as St. Paul did Titus in Creet and St. Peter Evodius at Antioch and after went to other Countries to Preach the Faith All these Reasons and Authorities being premised the Conclusions are irrefragable and the Church of Rome as it is now managed is found guilty of the Crimes articled against her and stands condemned of them by the four first General Councils which undoubtedly have so far convinced several ingenuous and judicious Romanists that they have not sticked to declare with Protestants that the present Church of Rome hath swerved in sincerity of Doctrine from the ancient Church whence it is derived that the Pope hath advanced his Authority beyond the bounds (c) Cusan Consult Art 7. set by Christ and his Church yea far beyond the bounds (d) Cusan concor l. 2. c. 12. l. 3. c. 13. of Ancient observation and that he hath no Power over other Bishops either by Gods Law or Man's but such as was given him either absolutely or conditionally for a
distance that he would pray for him because he knows it is impossible he should hear him nor can it be supposed that any man though standing by can know the Heart of men when they utter nothing with their Tongue to interpret it In sum no man ever directed his mental Prayers to another nor his vocal to another as far distant from him as London is from Rome But to return then to acknowledg such an excellency in the Celestial Creatures as to apprehend the mental Prayers of mortal men or the sincerity of their vocal either by their original Power or by any derivative as it is an Irrational conceit in it self there being no reason to warrant it nor ground of reason to countenance it so it is injurious to God 1. It is Injurious to God in respect of his Omniscience for he even he only knoweth all the hearts of the Children of men 1 Reg. 3.39 and this both collectively and distributively and this also with reference to their Prayers and Supplications v. 38. both their publick and private Prayers both mental the cries of the Heart and vocal expressed in Words to which the truth of the Heart for God requireth truth in the inward Parts and will be Worshiped in Spirit and truth with activity and sincerity must be adjoyned to make it an holy acceptable reasonable service of God and then both kinds are only to be presented to him because he only knoweth the Heart when the mind is secretly elevated to God and the truth of the Heart when it is notified by Words because he only knoweth whether there be an Act of Conformity betwixt the Words and the Heart I the Lord search the Heart I try the Reins Jer. 17.10 challenging thereby this priviledg as a peculiar to himfelf neither will their futerfuge any way clear them viz. that God only naturally knoweth the Heart of the Petitioner but Angels and Saints departed by a derivative Power having it communicated to them either by way of Revelation from God looking upon him as a voluntary Glass who makes the Prayers of Supplicants known to them when he pleaseth or by the Vision of God looking upon him as a Natural Glass that reveals all that God knows without any choice or act of his Will for these are frivolous suggestions having neither Reason nor Revelation to support them for it without all ground limits a proposition which in the Scripture is delivered in universal terms and to admit such limitations of universal propositions without great evidence that the nature of the subject requires them or that such from other places of the Scripture may be deduced and inferred is Irrational because the proposition would not be absolutely true but true only with a restriction but the vanity of these speculations vvill further appear by these Considerations 1. The Romanists themselves cannot agree which of these ways they propose are to be taken and dispute them by multiplicity of Questions as whether God immediately by himself give the Blessed Spirits the knowledg of our Prayers or by the Ministry of others if by others then whether by the Angels that attend us or the Spirits of just men that go from hence and inform the Saints in Heaven what our Prayers are if immediately by himself then whether directly and formally seeing in him what is in the Creature and if so then whether instantly upon their Glorification and admission into Heaven or successively seeing by virtue of his Vision one thing after another in the Creature or only accidentally that is God lets them know our Prayers so far forth as it pleaseth him by his peculiar will to notify unto them because God is a free Agent respectu omnis actionis ad extra In respect of every external action And further they which pitch upon any of these ways take them only for the more probable and it is somewhat odd to found an Article of Faith and a Catholick profitable Duty upon such unprovable speculations and it is very hard to believe that the seeming Opinions of men brought in with Ifs and And 's and Metaphysical niceties can be of sufficient strength to support an Article of Faith or commend a Catholick profitable Practice 2. This is certain the one way destroys the other If by Vision then not by Revelation if By Revelation then not by Vision if the Natural Glass will serve the Voluntary is needless if the Voluntary be required then the Natural doth not do the work for God in their opinion doth not multiply forms without necessity nor doth any thing frustraneously but God doth not impart the knowledg of our Prayers either the one great way or the other 1. Not by Revelation for confessedly there is no Revelation unless a Legendary will pass currant or some ostensions as they call them may be allowed for this conceit that the Blessed Spirits know our Prayers and Hearts by Revelation 2. The poor Petitioner must be at a loss and stand if this way be supposed because he cannot be assured that God is pleased to reveal his Prayers to them and he is sure if God do not they can take no notice or cognisance of them and so their Prayers become fruitless and unprofitable because he knoweth not whether God will reveal his Prayers and if he do how far 3. How can they be proper Mediators for men who cannot know what men desire of them without the Mediation and interposition of another viz. God and why should we be perswaded to go thus about when we may go streight forward to God and his Son Jesus who needs no Mediator to inform him 4. What a strange circular motion must be observed in following this way first the Petitioner must make his suit to Angels and Saints then God must reveal them and their contents to the Angels or Saints if he please or else they are for ever ignorant of them then the Angels and Saints must back again and present them to God but if the Petitioner mistake his Angel Guardian or Tutelar Saint as very likely he may then it is to be doubted whether the Angel or Saint will own the Client though God should reveal his Prayer 2. Not by virtue of the Beatifical-Vision the other supposed way For 1. The Scripture saith No man knoweth the things of God the purposes and thoughts but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.11 which the Apostle inferreth from this reason and ground the secrets of the Heart of man no man knows but the Spirit of of man which is in him upon which he concludes therefore none knows the things of God but the Spirit of God and therefore neither Angels nor Saints though they enjoy the Beatifical Vision which doth not confer on them the knowledg of the things of God for this we know that the Angels did not know the Mysteries of the Gospel those great things of God till made known to them by the Church Eph. 2.10 1 Pet. 1.12 2. The Angels and Saints