the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
will and operation to be in Christ But this Author deceitfully conceals it that the same Council in the thirteenth action did solemnly condemn Honorius the Pope of old Rome as a Monothelite together with the rest and again in the Greek edition the first Chapter and that Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the sixth Council doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite and Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor inserted in the eighth action of the sixth Synod which was also done in the second Nicene Council termed the seventh synod in the last action As for that which H. T. adds of the definitions of the sixth Council against Priests marriage not giving grapes mingling water and wine adoration of the Crosse consideration in him that binds and looseth invocating Saints it is not worth while to insist on the examination thereof partly because some of the definitions serve not the purpose for though it be granted that there ought to be a particular knowledge of the sin of him that is to be absolved by his confession of it yet is not thereby the necessity of Popish auricular confession proved or the Priests power judicially and authoritatively to absolve and remit sins established partly because they are not all points of faith but either of disciplin as about the marriage of men in orders or of Ceremonies as about the mingling of water and wine in the Eucharist and partly because it is doubtful whether those Canons are truely ascribed to that Council there being some reasons tending to the contrary and partly because if they were their determinations there is little reason to ascribe any authority to them after the first six hundred years barbarism and many corruptions being gotten into the Christian Churches and the simplicity of the Christian profession very much changed into contentions about Bishops Sees Ecclesiastical priviledges humane ceremonies and such like abuses yet were all granted which he allegeth of the councils definitions neither the now Roman supremacy nor faith is proved nor from the Catholick professors as he terms them or Nations converted are either of them avouched in that age In the eighth Century things grew worse In it H. T. reckons thirteen Popes among whom there 's not a man of whom their own writers relate any thing that belongs to the Pastors of the Church of Christ to wit the Preaching of the Gospel but their intermedling with the business of the Empire and Kingdoms making Kings monks contentions about images in Churches enlarging their dominions building walls making decrees about shaven crowns and such like toyes ... Two Popes Zacharias and Stephen the second can hardly be acquitted from being sinfully instrumental in the deposing of Childerick King of France and the traiterous usurpation of Pepin As for the second Nicene Council in which H. T. saith were three hundred and fifty Fathers Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 787. against image breakers in which were decreed for images in Temples and the veneration and worship of the Saints Reliques Images and the Council of Sens about traditions though these things are but a few of the Popish doctrins yet we grant that then the Popes had gotten to such heighth as to justle Emperors and that the Churches in Communion with the Papacy were in that age and the following so corrupt as that traditions of men and decrees of Bishops were more regarded than the written Word and that thereby placing of images in Temples and their worship got into the Christian Churches to the promoting of that Idolatry in the Roman Church which hath made her the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth yet this was not done without opposition not only in the Greek Empire but also in the Western Charles the great calling a Council at Frankford which condemned the second Nicene Council And for the Catholick Professors such as venerable Bede and others though they were tainted with the superstitions of those times about monkery and ceremonies and ecclesiastical dignities and orders yet that they held the now Roman faith cannot be demonstrated nor that the Nations mentioned to be converted were converted to it And for the miracles mentioned there is no credit to be given to them many such tales having been made or such miracles counterfieted in those dayes for deceiving the ignorant people nor were they done in such manner and to such purposes as the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were by which the Gospel was confirmed In the nineteenth age H. T. reckons up eighteen Popes omitting the mention of one of them as a woman though a great number of Popish writers set her down as Pope and relate the story of her sitting in the chair some years till she travailed with child in procession But if that were not true yet the things related by themselves of Formosus Stephanus Romanus shew cruelty and wickedness in the Popes of that age one hating and undoing what another had done and thereby shewing that they were rather of Cadmus than St. Peters race And for the fourth Constantinopolitan Council Fathers one hundred and one Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 869. against Photius and for the Pope and images and against temporal Princes medling in the election of Bishops it is an argument that the Roman Bishops were gotten then by many wicked practices to a great heighth of unjust power And the deposition of Photius for reproving the Emperor together with his opposition of the Pope whose works extant do shew him to have been of more worth for learning than any Pope in that age and the Epistle of Ulderick Bishop of Auspurg to Pope Nicolas the first in which he rebukes the wickedness of Popes in denying marriage to the Clergy do prove that the doctrin and tyranny of the Popes of Rome did not freely pass without controul even in that age which by the confession of Genebrard himself Chron. l. 4. was an unhappy age for want of any writer of worth in the Latin Church As for the Catholick professors mentioned by H. T. in this age that they were all of the Roman church or professed her faith is not shewed not that the Nations converted were either converted by the Roman Bishops or owned their now claimed supremacy or professed faith H. T. saith the Russians were converted by a Priest sent by the Emperor Basilius and therefore had their conversion from the Greek church whom they followed and with whom they now hold communion not acknowledging the Bishop of Romes supremacy to this day and therefore that instance is manifestly against H. T. his purpose In the tenth age are reckoned twenty six Popes whereof there 's scarce any that may be termed a Christian much less a chief Pastor of the Christian churches Their own stories tell us of some of them that got the Popedome by means of Mororia a notorious whore others by cruel practises one to wit Sylvester the second by the help of the Devil
whose agents they were in bringing a deluge of ignorance and wickedness into the world which made that age to be termed a miserable age in which were neither famous writers nor Councils nor Popes that cared for the publick by Bellarmin in his book of Ecclesiastical writers and of it H. T. here saith in this tenth age or century I find no general council nor yet provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided So that by his own confession his catalogue of councils fails him And for his succession of chief Pastors it is of such persons and so uncertain a succession and by such irregular ways as yeilds proof that Rome was the Synagogue of Satan not the church of Christ Of the catholick professors added some of them as Dunstan c. were such as it may be well doubted whether they are in heaven or in hell And for the Nations converted it is not proved they were of the now Roman faith SECT X. The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the eleventh and twelfth age is shewed IN the eleventh age are reckoned eighteen Popes worse if it may be as bad as any in hell most of them magicians if their own writers speak truth from Sylvester the second to Gregory the seventh all Necromancers saith Benno a Cardinal of Rome John the seventeenth or eighteenth H. T. himself is not resolved whether so uncertain is his succession on which he builds the truth of his church Their practises were to poyson one another and to set up one King and Emperor against another to advance their own greatness and to domineer over the greatest Princes by the terror of their excommunications and giving away their dominions which was brought to a stupendous heighth by Hildebrand otherwise Gregory the seventh under whose reign Satan seems to have been let loose for the executing of vengeance on the Emperors that had so adored Popes as to become their vassals whom Pope Gregory the great acknowledged his Lord and committed fornication with the whore of Babylon Of councils H. T. names but one telling us that in this eleventh age about the year 1049. Berengarius an Archdeacon of Ghent of Aniou he should have said mistaking Gaudavensis for Adegavensis began to broach his heresie he should more truely have said the doctrin of Christ his Apostles the Fathers even Gelasius himself Bishop of Rome in the first five hundred years and of the most learned to that time concerning the B. Sacrament affirming it to be only a sign or figure of the body and blood of Christ not his true body and blood for which saith H. T. he was condemned in the council of Lateran under Pope Nicolas the second 1057. As also in the Roman council under Pope Gregory the seventh Anno 1073. where he abjured his heresie in open council and died a Catholick after divers penances done for his sin But methinks H. T. should be ashamed to mention Berengarius his forced abjuration in which Pope Nicolas made him say I believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ sensibly and in very deed is touched with the hands of the Priests and broken with and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithful de con dist 2. Ergâ— Berengarius which occasioned the gloss it self to say unless you warily understand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie than ever he held any And for his Catholick professors and Nations converted wherein or how far they avowed the Popes supremacy and the now Roman faith is not shewed by him nor do I believe he is able to prove that they did avouch the Popes supremacy which is now challenged or in all things the now Roman doctrin though Romish superstitions and the excessive esteem of the Popish Bishops did very much corrupt men in those days If the ignorant devotion of one Henricus the Emperor with his wife make any thing for the credit of the Roman papacy the story of another Henricus to wit the fourth his wife and childs usage by Gregory the seventh and other Popes is such as that it demonstrates the Popes of those times to have been no successors of Peter either in doctrine or practice but devils incarnate rather than men And however Anselms learning seem to credit the papacy yet in many points of doctrin he is not for the now Roman tenents as where he saith on Rom. 12. salvation consisteth not in mans merits but in Gods grace and his contention with the King of England being animated by the Pope is an evidence that the faith of Christ was not so much professed then as the greatness of Bishops and the unrighteous ways of Clergymen In the twelfth age are reckoned up eighteen Popes and three Lateran councils of which Popes it will be hard for H. T. to shew what their faith was or to prove they did orderly succeed especially considering how many Antipopes were set up and what abominable practices were used to get up into the chair and how wickedly they lived as men that cared not what rebellions they raised what wars and bloodsheds they caused not against infidels but of subjects against their soveraign Christian Emperors not for the Gospel of Christ or their lawful liberties but for the Popes most impudent claim of freedom from subjection to Emperors and investiture of Bishops and Abbats things which Jesus Christ and his Apostles never granted but commanded the contrary Their own writers tell us so much of them specially of Calixtus the second Innocent the second Adrian the fourth Alexander the third and their monstrous pride in oppressing and insulting on the Emperors beyond what is to be found in any Priests of Pagan Gods towards the Princes of the earth as shews them to be inspired by the devil not guided by the Spirit of God H. T. adds three Lateran councils for instauration of discipline for the right of the Clergy for reformation with presidency of Calixtus the second Anno 1122 of Innocent the second Anno 1139. which he tells us defined little in matters of controversie and so by his own confession prove not his succession in the profession of the same faith As for the ends in those two councils which he mentions all the instauration of disciplin therein was concerning monks in the former and in the later the right of the clergy was about the Bishop of Romes power in civil things at Rome and exempting of clergy men from the Senate and Consuls of Rome Wherein the Romans desired to be restored to their ancient power in civil things but the Pope and his council withstood it anathematizing them that laid hands on a clergy man yet limiting the Bishop of Rome in some sort These are the great businesses of three hundred at one time and one thousand Bishops and Abbats at another time Which may shew how little the Popes and councils then regarded Christs doctrin or precepts but minded the upholding their own inventions and
authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his
Catholicks and owned as children of the church yet do not profess the now Roman faith of the Popes supremacy which H T. and the Jesuited party among Papists the Popes flatterers ascribe to him As for the presence of the Greeks in the Council of Florence it was of a few needy ones driven out or brought low by the Turks who yielded to that in the Council for some relief to them in their low estate which the Greek churches after would not own nor do yet to this day And therefore that which H. T. hath done in setting down the Popes and Councils of this Age is done deceitfully concealing the true state of things and so he hath done of Catholick Professors mentioning some of small worth but leaving out Gerson Picus Mirandulanus and some others though in communion with the Roman church and men of more abilities and repute than many of those he sets down because Gerson held that the Church might be without a Pope in his book de auferibilitate Papae and he and others differ'd in some other points from the now Roman tenets As for the Nations converted which he mentions they are names of people said to be in Africa but whether there be such people or are converted or what numbers of them have been converted is known onely by the vain-glorious Writings of some popish Writers of that sort who for the extolling of the Papacy either feign that which is not or it is likely make a Mountain of a Mole-hill such conversions as they boast of being not known to other people though sailing into and trading in all parts of the known world H. T. adds his catalogue of chief Pastors in the sixteenth Age and half the seventeenth to 1654. and sets down two and twenty Popes as chief Pastors of the Church Of them are Julius the second a Warriour Leo the tenth who to maintain his Luxury and for his sister Magdalen's Dowry set Indulgences to sale himself venting his infidelity to Cardinal Bembus as if he counted the Gospel a profitable Fable Paul the third an incestuous father of a Sodomitical son whom he cocker'd full of cruelty and craft sending an Army with Farnesius to destroy the Protestants in Germany Julius the third that created his Ganymede Innocentius a boy Cardinal and had for his Nuntio at Venice John Casa Arch-bishop of Benevent who in a book praised Sodomy Paul the fourth hated by the Romans for his cruelty Pius the fourth that made the new creed of the Roman church Pius the fifth that excommunicated Queen Elizabeth Gregory the thirteenth that set up Stukely to get Ireland for his base son Sixtus the fifth that animated the Spaniard in the Expedition against England 1588. praised James Clement the Frier who murdered Henry the third King of France Gregory the fourteenth who cursed Henry the fourth of France Clement the eighth who afore he absolved him proudly lasheth his Embassadour with a Rod Paul the fifth who had the Title of Vicedeus given him and not disclaimed who interdicted the Venetians for not obeying his Monitory to revoke their Laws about Ecclesiasticks and to release two Ecclesiastick prisoners one a poysoner another that committed uncleanness in a Temple and did forbid the taking the Oath of Allegeance in England by Papists without doing any thing against some of the priests privy to the Gunpowder Treason to shew their detestation of it Among them all there is not one that their own stories do relate to have been a diligent preacher of the Gospel but politicians medling with the affairs of the Kingdoms and Empires of the World and so no Successors to our Lord Christ or Peter the Apostle but their memories are to be abhorred specially by us English as the pests of mankinde H. T. mentions two general Councils the last Lateran Council Pope Julius the second and Leo the tenth presiding 1512. I finde not the certain number of Fathers it was a general Council But Bellarmine lib. 2. de concil auth cap. 13. saith Some doubt whether it were truly general and there was reason sith it was called by a Faction adhering to Julius the second to establish his tyranny in opposition to another party gathered in France to establish the pragmatick Sanction But what did this Council define The soul of man immortal and that there be as many humane souls as bodies anathematizing all such as obstinately defend or hold the contrary in the communion of the Church of Rome Sess 8. A point which a Council of Philosophers might have decided However it intimates there were that did then hold or teach the contrary in the communion of the church of Rome and that Pope John the two and twentieth his Doctrine was not quite extinguished but this Council is of little account among a great party of the Papists themselves It is the other Council the Council of Trent Pope Paul the third and Pius the fourth presiding against Martin Luther and his fellow Protestants Anno 1546. of which he saith The definitions are conformable to those of all precedent general Councils for us and against Sectaries as our Adversaries know and cannot deny But this is most false it being by Bishop Jewel and many other learned Protestants averred and proved that the Decrees of that Council in many points about the Popes power half communion transubstantiation worshiping Images and other points are contrary to the Councils and Fathers for the first five hundred years at least And for this Council not onely Sleidan but also Frier Paul a man greatly honoured by the Venetian Senate for his learning prudence and integrity in his History of the Trent Council hath shewed that it was nothing but a meer packed and fraudulent conventicle of a crue of prelates most of them Italians some meerly titular and the Popes pensioners and parasites few of them who had any knowledge in the Scripture or Divinity but canonists courtiers and school-men who understood not the Protestants Doctrine in the great point of justification by faith carried on by Paul the third Julius the third Pius the fourth and their Legates to cheat the World by innumerable artifices not onely hindring the freedom of speech of the Protestants in the Council but also of some of the popish Bishops when they endeavoured to recover the right of Bishops taken away from them by the Popes in so much that not onely the Protestants have protested against it but also the French Kings by their Embassadours and Parliaments and it is not owned by the French popish churches unto this day and the vanity and impiety of its Decrees hath been detected by Kemnitius Calvin and innumerable learned protestants besides what may be gathered from the contrary Writings of persons who were there as Catharinus Soto Vega and others in so much that if men were not blinded with prejudice and faction they would easily discern that Council to have been a corrupt Synod justly to be detested As for the catholick professours he mentions
existence of his body For the existence of his body in heaven is personal and local there to be apprehended by the faith and spirit of men In the Sacrament the existence of his body is not personal or local to be apprehended or received of our bodies after a personal or corporal manner but after a Sacramental manner that is where our bodies receive the sign and our spirit the thing signified And Illyric cat test verit tells us that it is said to be their opinion that the transubstantiation is not made in the hand of the conficient but in the mouth of him that receives it worthily And though he sets down the words of Rainerius as they were yet he conceives the things objected were calumnies As for what is brought out of the Bâ—hemian confession Anno 1535 it speaks of their tenet then but not what those in Gallia held in and about the time of Waldus who from him were termed Waldenses It is probable they might say the Apostles were lay men not ordained or tradesmen as Peter was a fisher Paul a tentmaker not thereby derogating from the Apostles function when they were made Apostles but endeavouring to abate the arrogance of the Bishops and Priests who appropriated to themselves the title of the clergy which Peter 1 Pet. 5. 3. gave to all the flock of Christ and the power only to translate read expound and preach the Scriptures which the Waldenses held to be free to all men By Magistrates falling from their dignity by mortal sin its likely they meant Ecclesiastical whom they held God did suspend from the exercise of their function when they lived wickedly they being not to receive and so not to consecrate as I find it in Illyric catal or perhaps they meant it that Magistrates were not to be obeyed in their wicked commands or as it is most probable they meant it it was just with God they should fall from their dignity and that he by his providence did so order it not that men might depose them as Papists have taught nor that ipso facto they cease to be Magistrates The same thing also H. T. saith of the Wiclesians out of the council of Constance and imputes to them and to the Hussites from the council of Constance that all things came to pass by fatal necessity misunderstanding necessity of event by reason of Gods decree for fatal stoick necessity and that all the works of the predestinate are vertues which arose from their doctrine that they could not fall from the faith as if thereby they must hold that then they could not sin That the Waldenses held it not lawful to swear at all is not so likely as that they held the frequency of swearing unlawful which is made the occasion of their denying swearing to be lawful by Rainerias himself in Illyr catal or perhaps they rejected monkish vows and oaths of canonical obedience and many other oaths imposed on men together with swearing by the Mass Cross Rod on a Book But if they held all swearing unlawful they held what Sixtus Seneâ—siâ— lib. 6. Biblioth Annot. 26. saith is conceived to have been held by many Fathers Origen Athanasius Epiphanius Hilarius Ambrosius Chromatius Hieronimus Chrysostomus Theophylactus Oecumenius Euthymius whom he excuseth and endeavours to acquit from error and so do others the Waldenses Wiclevists c. as Birkbck in cent 14. doth Wicleff out of his Latin exposition of the second Commandment That the Hussites held Mass transubstantiation and seven Sacraments with the now Romanists I find not in Mr. Fox nor doth H. T. tell me where I may find it in him that the Hussites or Wicleff held all the works of the predestinate to be vertues or that all things come to pass by fatal necessity meaning of a concatenation of two causes antecedent to Gods decree and binding him is no more to be believed because the council of Constance condemned them then that Wicleff held that God was to obey the Devil because it was so charged on him from which his learned works yet remaining do free him And it is found that the clamorous Jesuits endeavor to fasten the like odious inferences on the doctrine of predestination taught by Calvin and other Protestants which being rightly understood infers them not What Bernard saith and Roger Hoveden of the Albigenses and Rainerius of the Catharists might be true of some of those that went under their name as the Gnosticks did of Christians and perhaps some Ranters or Quakers may do under the name of Protestants But the errors are contrary to the Waldenses Wiclevists Hussites confessions and writings yet remaining and Rainerius his own words that the Waldenses or Leonists did believe all things well of God and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed do acquit them and they seem to be the errors of some remnant of the Manichees But perhaps Bernard was mistaken in the charge on them as he was in the accusation of Petrus Abailardus and others The tenets that the universal Church meaning the Catholick Church which we believe in the Creed consisteth only of the predestinate that they cannot fall from the faith meaning totally or finally are the opinions of many learned Protestants and therefore the Hussites holding them may notwithstanding those opinions be reckoned for Protestants Nevertheless were it true that the Hussites and Wiclevists and Waldenses taught what H. T. saith of them yet we might alledge them as witnesses against the now Popish errors which they then declared against and a catalogue of Protestant successors continued from the Apostles in the naming them rightly formed SECT IV. The succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding H. T. his exceptions A Catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the Greek churches continued in the profession of the same faith with the Protestants against Popish errors is alleged by some learned Protestants Against which H. T. excepts 1. That they rejected the communion of the Protestants censur eccles orientalis Answ This doth not prove they professed not the same faith with Protestants against Papists For they might upon some differences upon which perhaps they disagree with the Romanists reject the communion of the Protestants and yet profess with Protestants the same faith and oppose the same Popish errors 2. Saith he they were at least seven or eight hundred years in the communion of the Roman Church as witness the first eight general councils all held in Greece and approved by the Popes of Rome Answ To speak exactly a general council is a black Swan there having never been any council so general but that there have wanted messengers from many Christian Churches in the world The four first councils of the Bishops of the Empire have gotten a great repute in the Christian Churches and have been accounted as the four Evangelists though the canons extant even of the first Nicene council have no such excellency in them as to deserve so
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
Christ If the term Mother Church be from hence that from it the Gospel went forth it can be meant of none but Jerusalem from whence the Gospel went into all the world not from the Roman church Nor is it true that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest no not according to the Papists own opinion which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power and that it belongs to his pastoral office now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office or that they are Pastors if they should they must make Women who are of the Church as well as Men Pastors and all the Believers who are the church Pastors as well as the Bishop aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction who are the Sheep who are to be fed and over whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope when enquiry is made which is the true church and when there is no Pope then there is no church and when the Pope is uncertain it is uncertain which is the church So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick the mother of churches having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches Nor is it true that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power not of right as shall be shewed art 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent and arrogant without any colour of right nor in possession For besides the Protestant churches the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore when unquestionably orthodox were ever subject to the Romish Bishop Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head is this a fit reason to term it catholick Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children Will any man call Julius Caesar because Dictator of Rome or the Roman Senate because Rulers all the Roman people or all the people of that Empire H. T. his instance is frivolous Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General yet not a general man or the universal Army and sutably if it were allowed that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridiculous non-sense or false H. T. adds Object You communicate not with us and many others therefore your communion is not catholick or universal Answ I grant the Antecedent but deny the Consequent For universal communion requires not communion with all particular sects or persons but onely with all true believers no A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Tit. 3. 10 11. Answ To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Christian churches though not with all particular sects And that the Protestant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions which agree with the Scripture Doctrine although Papists do clamorously term them such and destroy them as such and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero not to Peter whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks and greatest Hereticks that ever were I pass on to the next Article ARTIC V. The Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of Controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation but all this is a meer impudent and arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scripture or Antiquity SECT I. The deceit of H. T. is shewed in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of Controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope H. T. entitles his fifth Article thus The churches infallibility demonstrated and saith Our Tenet is that the Roman catholick church is the highest visible Judge of controversies and that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all points of faith having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation And six pages after p. 70. he saith thus Note here for your better understanding this whole Question that when we affirm the Church is infallible in things of faith by the word Church we understand not onely the Church diffused over all the World unanimously teaching whose Doctrine of Faith we hold to be infallible but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly oecumenical that is to say called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope whose Definitions of Faith we hold to be infallible Ans WE have here a most arrogant proud claim like that of the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2 3. I am God I sit in the seat of God there is no secret that they can hide from me For what is this less which is here ascribed to meer men often the worst of men than the prerogative of the Son of God surely it's more than Angels have Job 4. 18 But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet yet in his after note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good and his deceitful mockage of his unwary reader For 1. He deals like a sophister that after his arguments states the question 2. He doth so shift off this infallibility from one to another that he knows not well where to fix it Fain he would fasten it on the Pope as he doth in a manner at last and Hart more plainly confesseth with Rainold ch 7. divis 7. though it behove the Pope to use the advise of his brethren and therefore I spake of Confistories Courts and Councils yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true But then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church not of the Pope had appeared to be impertinent Therefore he doth not in plain words disclaim it's infallibility but saith When we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith by the word church we understand not only the church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible Wherein you may perceive 1. Egregious vanity in making the Roman church Catholick 2. The Church diffused over all the world teaching 3. Teaching unanimously which are all like a sick mans dreams of a golden mountain there having never been any such thing as this in the world nor ever is likely to be 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church infallible Judge of controversies propounding and defining points of faith having power from God to oblige all men under pain of
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
when God calls for it in time of affliction and for more advantage in prayer but they reject Popish set fasts and their mock-fasts in forbearing flesh of beasts eggs milk butter yet eating and drinking other food and drink perhaps more delicious in fulness as a meer delusion Protestants teach praying much in spirit with understanding of what they ask with faith and trust to be heard through the Name of Christ for such good things as God hath promised but they deride justly Popish praying in Latin by those who understand not what they say their saying Ave Maries and the Creed for Prayers their superstitious saying Prayers with Beads by tale their tying themselves to canonical hours as more holy than other times their Prayers for Souls in Purgatory which is a meer figment serving onely to affright silly people that they may draw money from them for saying Masses they detest that most abominable invocating of the Virgin Mary wherein she is extolled as Authour of Grace Mother of Mercy having authority over or upon Christ with abundance of wicked Superstitions which are used in Popish devotion to canonized Saints Crucifixes a piece of Bread imagined Relicks of Saints Protestants press on men true mortification of the sins of the flesh or deeds of the body by the spirit working hatred of the inward lusts and forsaking the evil practises of them but they reject the foolish practises of whipping themselves tearing the flesh with lying on Briars as they say Benedict did tumbling in the Snow as they say Francis of Assisium did girding the body with Iron and lying on the ground as they say Dominick did which neither subdue lust nor the Devils temptations but are like the acts of Bedlams and may be and perhaps are done out of vain-glory and proud conceit of meriting by them Protestants exhort to good works but deny the building of Monasteries to be such for idle Monks that in stead of working with their hands that they might give to him that needs eat the bread to the full which belongs to the needy poor under pretence of praying which is no special function Protestants teach men to be poor in spirit to bear patiently poverty when Gods providence allots it but the voluntary poverty of Monks and Friers they reject as being a curse or else a meer hypocritical counterfeiting of poverty when they enjoy greatest plenty and live in fulness as Monks and Friers usually do or else a meer madness as in Anchorites and Eâ—â—mites Protestants teach true chastity in Marriage and single life but they detest Popish vows of single life in Priests Friers and Nuns as superstitious snares when few of them have the power of continence and they abhor the terming of the use of the Marriage-bed in Presbyters unchast and unholy and most of all the hellish Doctrine of those that teach it to be better for Priests to use Concubines than Wives and tolerate fornication and other unclean lusts when they forbid Marriage and excommunicate and deprive and imprison and persecute Priests and Bishops for it We Protestants teach obedience to Parents and Magistrates and all that are over us in the Lord but abhor the Vow of blinde obedience to Superiours never appointed by God as slavish and oft-times mischievous and destructive of the necessary obedience due to Parents and Governours whom God hath established All which things being considered we are fully assured that the Protestants Doctrine in these things is most holy and the Popish impure though to men that know not the Scripture it have a shew of wisdom and holiness Yea we avouch that there is scarce a Church in the World that is more unholy than the Roman in their maintaining the Worship of Images which hardens the Jews from Christianity in their adoration of the Bread they eat as their Maker which moved Averroes a Mahometan to prefer Philosophers afore Christians the infallible Power of the Pope though a most wicked man by himself or in a Council of his liking to set down what is to be held in point of Faith to dissolve Leagues and break Oaths upbraided by Amurath the great Turk to Christians to dispense with incestuous Marriages deny Marriage to Priests which Pius the second a Pope thought fitter to be restored forbidding some Meats as unclean at some times the Cup at the Eucharist and the ordinary reading of the Bible in their own Language to the Lay-people directing men to invocate Saints teaching them to ascribe salvation to their own Merits making the man of sin the Vicar of Christ besides what some have taught about deposing and destroying Princes giving equivocating Answers to Magistrates upon Oath exempting Priests from subjection to Princes allowing the breach of faith to those they judge Hereticks making cursing Parents in passion and other horrid evils venial sins allowing great crimes upon the probable opinion of one Doctor killing a man to vindicate honour and such other most odious resolutions of cases of conscience of the late Jesuits which the more sober and honest Jansenist in his late Book of the Mystery of Jesuitisme hath discovered in which there may be found such a Nest of most stinking Doctrines vented by Jesuits as honest moral Infidels by the light of nature did detest and from their Doctrines we may truly infer that Rome as now it is is indeed the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth On the other side though Protestants are not without Errours yet in the main matters especially in the Doctrines of the Gospel and holiness and righteousness of life their Doctrine shines more bright than ever it did in any Church since the Age following the Apostles unto this day SECT V. The devotion of Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman Church it being for the most part will-worship and pharisaical hypocrisie H. T. goes on thus Her Churches are open and Divine Service said not onely on all Sundays and Holy-days but every day in the week and that the greatest part in the forenoon There is five times more preaching and catechizing and ten times more fasting and praying in the Catholick Church than in the Protestant her Sacraments are more and more frequented and in stead of an innumerable multitude of religious men and women that are in the Catholick Church who have freely forsaken all things to follow Christ and totally relinquished the riches pleasures and preferments of this life to serve him in the remainder of their days in vows and practises of holy poverty obedience and chastity Protestants have an innumerable company of Sects and Sect-masters that daily spring out of their stock such as are continually broaching new Heresies and always at defiance one with another Answ THe Popish devotion is so far from proving the holiness of the Roman Church falsly and most impudently termed the Catholick Church that it rather proves them a Synagogue of Satan than a Church of Christ Their Churches as they term them stand open but that which
of his own Sheep but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner and therefore though he is to rule and feed them yet he is not to rule them after his own will but the Owners nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep but the Owner is to have it the Shepherd is not to look but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner Now the Flock of Christ were none of Peter's Sheep nor were all the Sheep of Christ universally taken to be fed by Peter for then he should feed that is rule himself who was one of the Flock and so excommunicate himself absolve himself and sith the Pope hath Peter's power if he be one of the Sheep of Christ by this Doctrine he is to rule that is to excommunicate absolve and deprive himself And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like absurdity For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church and the term Foundation imports the ruling of the whole Church Peter who is a part of the Church is the Foundation of himself and the Pope of himself and sith he is the Vicar of Christ he is in stead of Christ to himself and so hath preheminence over himself and the Pope in like manner yea unless they deny the blessed Virgin Mary to have been one of Christ's Sheep they must assert Peter and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary to have had a power to rule excommunicate and absolve her The truth is this the pressing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is used draweth with it many absurdities and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that use of these which the Authour of the Speech intended by them which what it is will be considered by examining the Texts brought for proof And for the Arguments if they did conclude the thing in question they should be thus framed or to this purpose He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Christ hath supreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Christ But such was Peter and by consequence the Pope of Rome Ergo. Again He that is to feed all the Sheep of Christ hath dominion or rule as aforesaid But that was Peter and consequently the Pope of Rome is to do Ergo. In both I should deny the Major understood of the under Foundation Builder and Shepherd though it should be yielded by concession of an impossibility yet he should not have such a supreme unerring Rule thereby and I deny the Minor also and in both as they stand or should stand there are many Propositions in these and his forms expressed or implied which are apparently false As 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it There were some as firm in the Faith as the Apostles and of the Apostles some as firm or more firm than Peter 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion 4. That as applied to Peter they note in him supreme unerring Rule or Dominion 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock 6. That he is above his Flock 7. That the person that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed the whole Flock of Christ universally taken 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much as have supreme dominion be a visible Monarch over them 9. That the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successour in that charge and power which Christ committed to him over his whole Church 10. That what is said of Peter in this point is true of every Bishop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious All which I have distinctly noted that it may appear upon how many suppositions the Popes Supremacy hangs and yet how loose and empty of proof from Scripture or Reason the Disputes of Papists are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion in so much that were it not for the heavy curse that is befallen Papists that sith they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved they should believe Lyes that they might be damned 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. it could not be that understanding persons among them should ever assent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon these Reasons But let us view what is said here The Major is proved because the Foundation supporteth the rest of the Building we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone Ephes 2. 20. and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock Answ The Argument framed hence must be this That which supporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the Building which is founded on it But so doth every Foundation Ergo. But the Major is not true of personal Metaphorical Foundations of which we now speak not of material proper Foundations A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth and support it by his wisdom and example and authority and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it and so in the founding of the Church a man that founds it may fall away and yet the Church stand firm Neither is the Minor true of every personal metaphorical Foundation he may be said to be a Foundation that is begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after support it The Text Ephes 2. 20. proves neither of the Propositions nor do I know to what purpose it is produced except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation But then it proves not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to have been Foundations and so proves no preheminence to Peter above them which is the Assertion of this Authour But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apostles are termed Foundations 1. Because this seems to be appropriated to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Because it is not said Ye are built on the Foundations but the Foundation and therefore seems to have this sense ye are built on that Foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid not which they are and so the genitives are of the efficient not of the subject and the Foundation must be that Doctrine or truth they declared of which Christ that is the Doctrine or Faith of Christ is the chief Corner-stone Nor is this against that which is Revel 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apostles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jerusalem For that may be said because they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation as Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 3.
which Paul counts himself a Master-builder that built not on Peter 's foundation or any others Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel and consequently the building of the Church Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel 3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows that the building of the Church is by Doctrine and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it not of Rule or Dominion Yea the Council of Trent it self Sess 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and thereby intimates the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine 4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire No where is a Prince said to edifie but Prophets Apostles and other Teachers nor is Excommunication Ordination calling of Councils and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification but teaching and reproving 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church Matth. 16. 18. 5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter but of what Christ would do by him and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power but of singular work 6. The end of the power which the Pope claims is for the exalting of himself and his visible Monarchy but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter but the use of him for setting up his Church The Popes power is as all experience witnesseth for the destruction of the Church not for edification and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18. If any say How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him I answer in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching as Acts 2. 3. 4. 10. appears and seems to be observed by Peter as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other though afterwards he chose Paul who did labour more abundantly than the rest 1 Cor. 15. 10. 2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them is proved 1. From Ephes 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building and it is Christ and not Peter in whom all the Building is fitly framed together 2. From Revel 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations and not one singular one supporting the rest but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles none of whom is the Foundation of the rest 3. That the term Church Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible is proved 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it 2. In that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish 4. That my Church Matth. 16. 18. is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter but that cannot be true sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul and he denies he built on anothers Foundation Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself sith Peter was part of the universal Church and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter which are absurd Which things being evinced it appears 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had and so belongs not to any Successour 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship pag. 75. for that Christ expresly forbade but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel recompensing his readiness to acknowledge Christ And this Christ had elsewhere promised Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of mâ—n Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built we would most gladly it were true that the Pope were such we should then honour him and kiss his Toe but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which the Pope is painted with as having them in his hands and by which he was wont to claim his power But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims sith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution the Keys are in their hands and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope therefore I need not insist on that here sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it SECT IV. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church But he adds And for a Reward of Peter's special dilection for he loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles he said to him Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. a Commission to feed all without exception Answ THe Argument seems to be this He to whom as a Reward of his special dilection by which he loved Christ more thaâ— all the rest of the Apostles Christ said Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. and thereby gave him a Commission to feed all without exception was Pastour of the whole Flock But this was Peter Ergo. Here four things are supposed whereof not one is true 1. That Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles For neither were all the rest of the Apostles there nor doth Christ or Peter say he did love Christ more than they did but onely puts a question which may either have this sense Lovest
thou me more than thou lovest them or more than they love me And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profession and shamefull denial 2. That Christ made Peter a Head or gave him a supreme Dominion under the term of Feeding But 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to rule but onely to provide pasture or to eate as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth Jude 12. being intransitive both of them where they are enjoyned to Apostles Bishops or Presbyters note teaching not imposing Laws on persons excommunicating depriving and such like acts as Popes claim as belonging to them as Pastours as may appear by viewing the places Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 20. 28 29 30 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power Jurisdiction and Government in Peter it proves every Bishop and Presbyter to be also a supreme Head and Governour over the Church of God 2. That Peter had no such Headship of Government and Jurisdiction given him in those words John 21. 17 18. is proved by the description of the persons to whom these acts of feeding were to done they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Christ not Goats now to the Lambs and Sheep of Christ no act of lordly rule such as imposing Laws excommunicating depriving or the like acts in which the Pope placeth his power of Jurisdiction could be lawfully done nor did Peter any such acts but teaching them being guides to them directing exhorting and comforting them which the Pope regards not to do were to be done to them Wherefore it is plain that lordly rule was not appointed by Christ but fatherly care and tenderness in that injunction and that which Christ enjoyned in his Commission to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do noâ— thinks it his work but another thing to wit princely dominion which Christ forbade 3. The third thing supposed is that because the terms are indefinite my Lambs my Sheep therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep even the whole Catholick Church which if true then it is false which Paul saith Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and the Gospel of the circumcisiou unto Peter and vers 9. James and Cephas and John did sin against Christ's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Heathen and James Cephas and John to the Circumcision and Paul did ill to style himself the Teacher of the Gentiles 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he should have boasted in another mans line or rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. sith all places had been within Peter's line or rule and he did ill to say Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and never mention Peter's Supremacy no not in that very Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Rome so much as once naming him who was if Papists say true the Universal Bishop and Bishop of Rome and sate there at that time when he wrote that Epistle nor doth Paul salute him when he salutes many of less note As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Christ it is very frivolous For an indefinite term is not all one with an universal unless the matter so require it but in such kinde of speecheâ— as these it notes onely indefinite particulars as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we should remember the poor that is so many as we could and when Christ bids Matth. 10. 8. Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead it is meant without exceeption of any yet not an injunction to heal every individual or to raise every dead person but such as there was occasion of healing and raising And when Mark 16. 15. the Apostles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature the Command is to preach to any one without exception yet not to every individual which had been impossible so here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely yet not all universally which had been an impossible task 4. It is supposed that John 21. 16 17. was a Commission conferring power authority rule and that over the very Apostles themselves and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection of Christ Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care not dignity or authority of empire and hath nothing in it of jurisdiction as a Judge or Commander but of faithfulness and diligence as a servant and guide And in this the Apostles were equal to him H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 97. The Apostles were equal in their calling to the Apostleship to which this of feeding the Sheep of Christ belonged and therefore Peter reckons himself but a fellow Elder and requires other Elders to feed as well as himself 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Ephesus are appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the Church of God which is as large an exppression as is John 21. 16 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headship in them as in Peter And Paul counted himself not behinde the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to â—im nothing Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him but was equal to him And to bid Peter to feed the Apostles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds The Doctrine of the Gospel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter but of the Apostles in common Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted persons and they were together nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd or by his direction but by agreement Gal. 2. 9. yea they sent Peter to Samaria Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection but a task enjoyned to him because of his more open denial three times charged on him as he thrice denied Christ and used as a stay of Peter's weakness rather than a mark of his worthiness much less a proof of his Supremacy SECT V. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy THe second Argument of H. T. is this He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith and is generally set bâ—fore others in the Scripture must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apostles in the faith and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures therefore St. Peter was above the rest of the Apostles in power and dignity and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest Answ The Conclusion it self might
be granted and yet the supreme Headship not proved The power said Hart Conf. with Rainold chap. 1. divis 2. which we mean to the Pope by this Title of Supreme Head is that the Government of the whole Church throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all Causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Dâ—crees of ordering and confirming Bishops and Pastours of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ Now a person may be above others in power and dignity yea the Head and Primate of them and yet not have this power The Lord Chief Justice of one of the Benches the Speaker of the Parliament Chair-man of a Committee Duke of Venice President in a Council of Bishops the Head of a College the Dean of a Cathedral may have power and dignity above other Justices of the same Bench over Counsellours in the same Council over Knights and Burgesses in the same Parliament Prelates in the same Council Fellows in the same College Canons in the same Chapter and in a sort Primates and Heads of the rest yet not such supreme Heads over the rest as the Popes claim to be Yea notwithstanding such power he may be limited so as that he cannot act without them in making any Laws or passing any Sentence binding but they may act without him and legally proceed against him So that the Conclusion might be yielded and yet the Popes Supremacy not proved The truth is the Pope claims such a vast and monstrous power in Heaven and Earth and Hell as exceeds the abilities of any meer mortal man to discharge and is as experience shews the Introduction to a world of miseries and oppresons But let us view his proof of the power of Peter which H. T. ascribes to him Tâ—e Major saith he is proved because the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker nor the less worthy to be set before the more worthy generally speaking Answ This doth not prove his Major for a person may be weaker and less worthy and yet above others in power and dignity Queen Elizabeth was a Woman and so weaker in respect of her Sex and perhaps less worthy in respect of parts than some of her great Commanders and Privy Counsellours Will H. T. say she was below them in power and dignity Many a Father and Master may be weaker and less worthy and yet superiour in power and dignity Many a Prelate is stronger in knowledge and wisdom and more worthy in respect of holy life than many Popes I will not onely say than Pope Joan and Bennet the Boy but also than Pius the second or any other of the best of their Popes and yet H. T. will not yield such Prelates to be above Popes in power and dignity Me thinks he should yield Athanasius to be stronger and of more worth than Liberius Hiâ—rom than Damasus Bernard than Eugenius and yet he would be loath to ascribe more power and dignity to them than to the Pope Nor is it true that the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker whether we mean it of moral or natural strength or weakness and confirmation Apollos was confirmed by Priscilla David by Abâ—gail Naaman by his servant Nor if by generally speaking be meant very frequently is the speech true that the more worthy is set before the less worthy I think in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas is more often before Paul than after as Acts 11. 30. 12. 25. 13. 7. 14. 12 14. 15. 12. I am sure in the Holy Ghost's Precept Acts 13. 2. whereupon they were ordained and in the Decree of the Apostles Acts 15. 25. Barnabas is first Will H. T. say Barnabas was more worthy than Paul Me thinks a man should be ashamed to utter such frivolous toys in so weighty a matter and fear to ascribe to a sinfull man so great and immense a Dominion on such slight pretences But how doth he prove his Minor The Minor saith he is proved I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not and then being at length converted confirm thy Brethren St. Luke 22. 31. The names of the twelve Apostles are these the first Simon who is called Peter c. St. Matth. 10. 2. St. Mark 3. St. Luke 2. and Acts the 1. Answ The Text doth not say Confirm the Apostles in the faith nor do we finde that they did but that he doubted as well as they Mark 16. 14. yea there is mention of another Disciples believing the Resurrection afore Peter John 20. 8 9. yea Paul seems to have confirmed Peter in the faith when he walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Acts 14. 22. Paul and Barnabas are said to confirm the souls of the Disciples and Judas and Silas did the same Acts 15. 32. So that this Act shewes no Headship in Peter nor any privilege at all much less such a supreme Headship over the Apostles as H. T. allegeth it for but a common duty of charity which not onely may but must be done by an equal or inferiour to an equal or superiour Sure if Paul had known of this as a Privilege in Peter he would not have said that he went not up to the Apostles before him nor conferred with flesh and blood Gal. 16. 17. and that Peter added nothing to him Gal. 2. 6. As for his being preferred generally before the rest it is not proved by his being named before the rest he may be named after who is preferred before as Paul is after Barnabas nor do the four Texts express a general or frequent priority of nomination three expressing but one and the same act of Christ and the Catalogue being varied in the order of the rest some Evangelists reckoning Andrew next Peter sometimes James and in like manner the order altered in some others shews that the order of nomination imported no Privilege yea sâ—metimes Peter is named after Andrew John 1. 44. who had this Privilege to bring Peter to Christ vers 41 sometimes after Paul and Aâ—ollos 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. and other Apostles 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 2. 9. which shews that John and Paul understood not that any such Primacy or Prerogative was given to Peter by his nomination first as Papists assert thence for if they had they would not at any time have inverted the order And therefore however a Primacy of order may be given to Peter yet 1. There is no necessity we should yield the acknowledgement of it to be a Duty imposed much less a perpetual Privilege of
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
their usurpations of power The third Lateran Council saith H. T. Fathers three hundred for reformation Pope Alexander the third presiding Anno Domini 1179. condemned Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons who taught the Apostles were lay men that lay men and women might consecrate and preach that clergy men ought to have no possessions or properties that oaths were unlawful in all cases that Priests and Magistrates by mortal sin fell from their dignity and were not to be obeyed c. His tenents were here defined against and he himself anathematized But suppose all this were true that he so taught and that the Pope with his council condemned him what is this to prove H. T. his minor that a council in that age professed the same faith with the now Roman against the Protestants Are the contrary tenents any of the Articles which in his Manual of Controversies H. T. defends against the Protestants do the Protestant churches in their confessions avow the same which he here saith the council ascribed to Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons but to shew the ignorance of this scribler the person who was Merchant of Lyons in France was Petrus Waldus from whom his followers were termed Waldenses whom I find to have been condemned in some council at Rome about that time but in the Lateran council 1179. I find other decrees about Priests continency the number of horses clergy men might have in their visitations and the exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the judgement of Laicks which it seems were the great business of reformation As for the Waldenses there is no cause to believe adversaries in their accusations of them especially such ignorant and malicious men as the Friers and Monks of former and later times have been Besides the experience which after ages yeilded about their belying Wicklef Hus and others our own times yeild many examples of Papists falsly reporting the tenents of Protestants Though Bellarmin be more ingenuous in setting down the Protestants doctrin than many other writers yet there 's scarce a controversie wherein he doth not deal deceitfully in representing the Protestants doctrin or their arguments and answers But the writings professions apologies put forth by Balthasar Lydius in Latin shew that the opinions of the Waldenses were not such as the Papists represent them and the words of Reinerius an inquisitor and enemy to them in his book of inquisition concerning them doth more truely acquaint us what they were which are thus that whereas all other sects by the immanity of their blasphemies against God do make men abhor them this of the Lyonists the same with the Waldenses hath a great shew of godliness because they live justly before men and do believe all things well of God and all the articles which are contained in the Creed only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate And now we have more full knowledge of them by Mr. Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont As for the Catholick professors H. T. adds in this age though Bernardus Abbas commonly called St. Bernard be reckoned as a professor of the new Roman faith and it is not denied that he was superstitious in some points yet he freely noted divers corruptions then arising as the feast of the Virgin Maries conception which tended to uphold the conceit of her freedom from sin Ep. 174. ad can Lugd. the opinion of merits serm 1. de annunt of justification by works cant serm 22. ep 190. of freewill de grat lib. arb of keeping the law cant ser 50 of seven Sacraments ser 1. de Caena Domini of uncertainty of Salvation ep 107. and the Popes greatness in temporalities l. 2. confid ad Eugen. And for Hildegardis the Nunne her speeches and prophecies shewed her dislike of the proceedings of the clergy even of the Popes Noribertus and some others were noted for their superstitious waies of Monkery Thomas Becket of Canterbury for his obstinacy against his Prince Henry the second whom he traiterously opposed to uphold the wickedness of the clergy and others named whether they were of good or bad note it is of little moment sith it s not denied there were too many then infected with the Roman errors and superstitions Nor is it of much advantage that Nicolas the Monke after Pope converted the Pomeranians and Norwegians that Pope being bad enough and the conversion if to Romish superstition rather than Christian faith little crediting the Romish Church SECT XI The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the thirteenth and fourteenth ages is shewed IN the thirteenth century are set down seventeen Popes as chief Pastors of whom the first is Gelasius the second who was first in the former age but I imagin though it be not noted in the Errata for Honorius the third who was a bloody Bishop as others before him setting up Emperor against Emperor cruel Friers against the godly Waldenses besides other wicked acts he did The like were Gregory the ninth in whose time the bloody factions of Guelphs and Gibellius happened and Innocent the fourth whom Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln withstood contemning his excommunication and being dead was such a terror to this wicked Pope as to hasten his death Nicolas the third whom H. T. makes the converter of the Pomeranians and Norwegians raised the quarrel between Peter of Arragon and Charles of France for Sicily whence grew the massacre of the French called the Sicilian Vespers and the last and worst of them Boniface the eighth is said to have entred like a Fox reigned like a Lyon died like a dog H. T. adds two general Councils the fourth Lateran council Fathers 1285. Pope Innocent the third presiding Anno 1215. And tells us that this Council desined that the universal Church of the faithful is one out of which no man is saved Which definition we approve and thereby the doctrin of the Protestants is confirmed who teach that the Catholick Church we believe is the invisible Church of true believers and that the Catholick Church is not only the Roman Church and those who subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome and profess the same faith with the now Roman Church but all the believers who believe the doctrin of the Gospel taught by Christ and his Apostles though they neither know nor own the Roman Church in the things therein held against the Protestants nor acknowledge any superiority of the Bishop of Rome are members of the Catholick Church and that it is not the Church of Rome which is falsly called Catholick out of which none can be saved but the universal Church of the faithful in which who ever is by true faith in Christ he may be saved though he disclaims the Bishop of Rome as Antichrist and the faction or party joyning with him as the Synagogue of Satan and consequently that it is not as H. T. saith in his Epistle to the Reader the most important controversie to know the notion and