to Salvation and were some of them saved So that he acknowledgeth in some sense the Visibility of the Church Ecclesia vera erat in Papatu sed Papatus non erat vera Ecclesia Alii cautiùs Papatum dixerunt fuisse in Ecclesiâ non Ecclesiam in Papatu Prideaux Lect. de Visibil Eccl. p. 136. even Roman which Protestants deny not who grant that the true Church was in or under the Papacy although the Papacy was not that Church Neither is there any contradiction in this for a Leper is a true Man and as truly Visible as one that is clean Leprosie is not a distinct Body but a Disease cleaving to it In like manner Popery is not of it self a distinct Church but a corrupt humour in latter Ages predominant in the true Visible Church of God. Nevertheless he denies first the Papacy i. e. the Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine and Worship introduc'd of late by the Popes and their adherents to be any part of the true antient Christian Catholick Faith by which our Ancestors were saved any more than Leprosie is any part of a Man. Secondly he denyeth that there is alwaies and at all times in this true Visible Church a visible Company or State of People actually and personally divided from the rest that profess the True Faith perform Religious Worship and exercise Church-Discipline in open and conspicuous manner wholly free from the Corruptions and Abuses of such as have defiled the Church For 't is one thing to be a True Visible Church another to be free from all such Errors and Corruptions as may being wilfully persisted in endanger Mens Salvation and therefore need Reformation The Church of the Jews was the true yea the only true Church of God yet in the time of Elijah and after in our Saviour's days they were generally ten Tribes of twelve over-run with Idolatry and Superstition The like we say of the Church of Rome in the Ages next before Luther when not only gross Ignorance but many palpable Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Government did visibly appear which many eminent Professors sufficient The Answer to D. White pag. 354. as a Jesuit confesseth to prove the Churches Visibility under Persecution who lived and died in the Communion of that Church openly opposed lamented and bewailed as S. Bernard See the Articles of Reformation proposed to the Council of Trent by Ferdinand the Emperour and Charles the Ninth Apud Goldast constitut Imp. tomo 2. p. 376. and tomo 3. p. 570. Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius Cameracensis Bishop Grosthead with innumerable more although they were over-born by the predominant Party then bearing rule who could not indure to hear of Reformation tho much desired by many true Catholicks and promised by Adrian the Sixth and other Popes before the calling of the Council of Trent But it is very disingenuous to quote out of any Writer a line or two and not to add with it his explained sense and meaning As for Mr. Perkins who in his Reformed Catholick which I have not now by me saith That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholick Church his Words if his admit of the same Answer But I dare appeal to any Christian whether he can possibly believe that any learned Protestant Writer yea any man in his wits Juels Defence pag. 45 46. should think that the Gospel preached by our Saviour and the Apostles asserted by the Antient Fathers and Martyrs should first appear in the World when Luther and Zuinglius began to preach For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel Faith and Church of which Luther Zuinglius or any mere mortal man tho pretending to be Infallible is the Author and Founder Did not I believe the Doctrine generally own'd by the Protestants to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Antient Fathers I could not satisfie my own Conscience as to the profession of it The true meaning then of some Protestant Writers could be only this That the Gospel or Christian Religion did in Luther's days begin first to appear more eminently freed or reformed from those after-grown Errors and Corruptions it was in some later Ages mis-figured with being reduced to the prime Rule of Faith Garenz de Sergio de Conciâ—â—â— 706. Aquin. 2. qu. 1. art 7. resp ad 4. the Scripture and its best interpreter Primitive Antiquity And is it not an unspeakable Blessing that we enjoy such a Reformation For I can scarcely think that any sober Romanist will deny that the first were the best and the last the worst Ages of the Church and that there was after the Apostles days and the first 5 or 600 years a manifest declension of the antient purity of Doctrin and simplicity of Devotion altho there still remained a true Church as to essentials The Question concerning the Visibility of the Church stated BUT that we may not beat the air I shall first of all enquire into the true state of the Question Protestants do not as Bellarmine grants affirm the Church to be wholly and absolutely Invisible or utterly hid from the eyes of all men in any Age but comparatively only not being alwaies equally Visible They acknowledg that God ever had and will have a Church in the World which shall make in some degree a Visible profession of Christian Religion even under Persecution Thus it was in the days of Athanasms and Hilary See their words below tho not so illustrious and conspicuous for they say that the Church may be reduced to a small number the Orthodox Pastors may be violently thrust out of their Churches and the best Christians forced to worship God privately in corners And will any man deny but this detracts much from the Visibility and conspicuousness of the Church They of the Church of Rome grant all this The Jesuit Mr. White answers doth not avow yea disowns it that the Church is visible Defence of the Way p. 354. i. e. that it is a Company of Christians so illustrious as it not only may be but actually is known to all men living at all times for saith he Ecclesia aliquando obscuratur tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum c. Epist ad Vincent 48. Firmiores partim exulabant partim latitabant Ibid. Diligenter animadverti debet non sic accipiendum esse quod dicimus Ecclesiam esse semper conspicuam quasi velimus eamomni tempore dignosci posse aequè facilé Novimus enim illam aliquando errorum schisinatum persecutionum fluctibus esse agitatam ut imperitis quidem nec satis prudenter rationes temporum rerumque circumstantias aestimantibus cognitu fuerit difficilis quod tum maximè accidit cùm Arianorum perfidia in orbâ— pâ—enè tâ—to dominabatur Analys Fid. l. 6. c. 4. I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies especially in time of Persecution such an outward worldly and prosperous estate
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
See Bishop Vsher de success Eccl. and Albigenses who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own resisting Popery even unto bloud Onely I must mind our Adversaries these persons were rather fugati violently driven out of the Roman Church by Excommunications armed with Fire and Sword than fugitivi fugitives or voluntary Separatists As for their condemning them as Hereticks it signifies little or nothing for that 's the matter in question and seeing the Pope and Court of Rome as Saint Bernard Pope Adrian Bernard de Concil Adri. in legatione ad Principes Germaniae Polycrat lib. 6. cap. 24. Sarisberiensis and others acknowledge were in those days charged as the source and original cause of all disorders and abuses in the Church it 's most unreasonable their known Enemies should be admitted as their Judges in their own cause The truth is some of the Popish Writers of those days have accused Wickcliffe the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting horrid and self-contradicting Opinions Vsher de Success Eccl. that no ingenuous and impartial man can possibly believe any thing they say of them I verily think their great fault or Heresie was that they were victus populus Dei as they said conquered quelled and subdued by force of Arms not Arguments So were the Catholicks under the Heathen and Arian persecuting Emperours Certainly no prudent Christian will take Prosperity Victory outward Pomp and Power to be certain notes or perpetual properties of the true Church and right Believers nay Adversity and persecution rather as our Saviour intimates when he assures his Apostles they should be hated of all men for his Names sake and that the time would soon come when whosoever killed them should think as the Crusadoes and their Military Saint Dominic no doubt thought they did God service It 's sufficient to our present purpose that we shew some who held with us against the present Doctrine of the Papacy But here I expect their usual Objection That many of the Writers and Persons we alledg did not in all things agree with the Protestants though in some particulars they consented True no more did they in all things agree with the present Roman Church If some who believed not the Popes Supremacy the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Merits Purgatory c. were yet Members as of the Catholick so Roman Church and were saved which I suppose no Papist will deny Why are we Protestants condemn'd as Hereticks to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes and Canonized Saints have done I challenge any Papist to shew me one National or Provincial Church I might go farther in the whole World that for at least twelve hundred years after Christ did in all points believe as the Trent Council have decreed or professed that Catholick Religion which Pope Pius hath summ'd up in his Creed We may ask them Where was your Tridentine Faith and Church before Luther Was Pope Leo the Great for receiving the Communion in one kind Was Pope Gregory the Great for worshipping of Images or for that proud profane Antichristian and foolish name as he calls it of Universal Bishop Were Cyprian Saint Austin the Council of Chalcedon the Affrican Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome and subjecting all Churches to the Popes Universal jurisdiction Were these Tridentine Papists Was P. Gelasius for Transubstantiation Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholicks Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it or so soft a head as to believe it I shall onely add That it is no wonder if many good Men and learned did not at once see and discover in an Age wherein Ignorance and Superstition abounded all these Errours Abuses and corruptions which infected the Church of God but did in some things not altogether so gross and palpably wicked as others errare errorem seculi follow the current of the times To end I hope Sir by what hath been said you plainly perceive that those Doctrines and Practices Protestants have rejected were never any part of the true Primitive and Catholick Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Councils Yea that in the later and as is confessed worst Ages of the Church were never received and visibly professed by all true Catholicks whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion See Brerewoods Enquiries The most and best that can be said is that at first some of them were the private Sentiments and doubtful Opinions of some Worthy Men as Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. in the fourth or fifth Century Which after many Ages by the Policy and Power of the Pope and his Party were obtruded by the Councils of Lateran Constance Florence Trent c. as Articles of Faith on this Western part of the World but not without visible opposition and open contradiction I have shewn how multitudes of learned and pious Men did complain of them and write against them and others as the Waldenses and Albigenses forced by violence and persecution separated themselves as the Orthodox Christians did under the prevalence of the Arians actually and personally from them besides others who cordially yet for fear of persecution more privately and secretly i. e. in some sense or degree invisibly renounced and detested them I shall here add that indeed this is more than we are in reason bound to shew for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholick Church and to denominate the Roman a true though corrupt part or member of it V. Augustin de Baptismo contra Donatist l. 1. c. 8. 10. B. Vsher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith. that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian Creeds although she superadded as Hay and Stubble thereunto many additional or traditional Points and erroneous practices whereby consequentially the foundation of Faith was much shaken and undermined yet so as some amongst them not erring wilfully upon a general repentance might be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty However undeniable it is that many Eminent Writers and Professors in the Ages before Luther never owned them as Theological truths much less Articles of Faith but visibly openly and couragiously resisted them even unto bloud These and not the Popish domineering Party termed by some the Court rather than the Church of Rome were August Epist ad Vincent as the persecuted Catholicks under Liberius and the Arian Emperours in the strict and most proper sense the true visible Catholick Church which remained discernible though more obscurely in firmissimis suis membris as Saint Austin speaketh in these her most firm and invincible members Others who maintained promoted and tyranically imposed these Errours as points of Faith were in respect of these introduced corruptions like an impostumated Wen growing by little and little on the body of the Church or like a
unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad
from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
c. Fulber Epist ad Adeodatum Epist ad Heribaldum To these may be added Bertram de corpore sanguine Domini to Charles the Great who about seven hundred years ago in a just Treatise impugneth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to whom you may add Fulbertus Carnoton Berengarius Hincmarus in vita Remigii Rabanus Maurus Purgatory As for Purgatory and its Appendix Indulgences whose most gross abuse defended by the Pope first opened Luther's mouth against him much need not be said in regard as we have seen above Roffensis the Popes Martyr and Alphonsus de Castro to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil confess they are late Novelties of which in the antient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention The modern Greek Church as appeareth peareth from their Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire Lumbard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences The later Schoolmen Albertus Al. Halensis Durand Cajetan quoted by Bishop Usher and Dr. Field in his Appendix say that Finalis Gratia c. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in Gods Children Answer to the Challenge p. 179. Part. prima summae Tit. 10. c. 3. Opusc 15. c. 1. De Indulg lib. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Primus in Purgatorium extendit Indulgentias V. Chemnit Exam. de Indulg 742. 100 Gravamina what need then of any Purgatorian fire Antoninus acknowledgeth that concerning Indulgences nihil habemus expressè c. We have nothing expresly or clearly delivered either in Scripture or the antient Fathers This same is affirmed by Cajetan and Durand Agrippa de Vanitate Scient cap. 61. saith that Pope Boniface VIII first extended Indulgences to Purgatory they were opposed before Luther by the University of Paris Wesselus Wickliffe Hus Jerome of Prague Savanorola yea the States of Germany complain to the Pope of them as intolerable burdens cheats and incentives to all manner of wickedness Add Platina in Boniface 9. Urspergensis Chron. p. 322. Art. 4 Image-worship Worshipping of Image was V. Polyd. Virgil. de Invent rerum lib. 6. V. Cassand infra See Vspergensis Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. Westminst ad Ann. 794. Cassand Consult art de Imagin The work of Mens Hands may not be adored no not in honour of their Prototypes p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagin as is notorious first Decreed though not with Latria in the second Nicene Council about the year 794 but was opposed and condemned by the General Councils of Constantinople and Frankfort in which last were three hundred Bishops called by the Emperour and Pope whose Legates were there present as the Bishop of Rhemes reports apud Alanum Copum Dial. 4. and Suarez grants it in 3. Part. Thomae qu. 25. disp 54. This worship of Images was confuted also by Albinus or Alcuinus out of the Scriptures as Hoveden relates in continuat Bedae ad ann 794. Moreover by the Book of Charles the Great if it be not the same with the former which is still extant in the Vatican and acknowledged to be genuine by some learned Papists Agobardus Bishop of Lyons wrote against worshipping Pictures or Images So did also Jonas Bishop of Orleans in his Book de Cultu Imaginum cap. 5. allowing them onely for Ornament in Churches but detests the giving them any part of divine Honour as accursed wickedness Peresius saith as much Gerson de defect viror Eccles Holcot de Sapientia Lect. 158. Miraudula Apol. qu. 3. condemn bowing before them Durand de ritib. Eccl. Catharinus de cult Imagin grant that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry See our Churches Homily on the Peril of Idolatry Polydore Virgil saith De Invent. rerum lib. 6. c. 13. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. all the Fathers condemn'd worshipping Images Bellarmine himself granteth that the worship of Images as defended and practised by the Roman Church i.e. with Latria or the same worship we give to the Prototypes cannot be maintained without such nice distinctions of absolutely and relatively or accidentally univocally or analogically properly or improperly as scarce themselves much less the weak common people can understand or if they do can hardly avoid Error in practising them Peresius more plainly They are a scandal to the weak who cannot understand them but by erring Hence the Cardinal accounteth it not safe to teach their Votaries publickly to give Divine Honour or Latria to the Image of Christ for his sake De Trad. p. 226. V. Biel. in Canon Missae Sect. 49. Part 3. qu. 28. Art. 3. Instit Mor. Tom. 1. l. 9. Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Sect. 4. Vasq in qu. 25. disp 110. c. 2. See Orig. in Cels l. 6. 8. Arnob. lib. 6. Apud Bellar. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. V. Aug. de fide symb cap. 7. Biblioth Patrtom Tom. 5. pag. 609. Concil Trident. Compare Origen Lib. 7. in Celsum Nevertheless it 's undeniable that this is the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome declared by their Oracle Aquinas and constans opinio as Azorius speaks the constant Opinion of their Divines defended by Valentia Suarez and that as the sense of the Council of Trent Vasquez the Jesuit to defend this Adoration blushed not to write that it is lawful to worship the Sun yea God bless us the Devil himself so the worship be directed ultimately to God and his Honour whereas it 's notorious that the Heathens might and did in this very manner defend their gross Idolatry The very making of the Images of the Trinity is condemn'd by Abulensis Durand Peresius and others yet defended and practised by the Roman Church Walafridus Strabo called it Superstition and blockishness hebitudinem to worship Images I will end that I be not too tedious with the words of Jonas Bishop of Orleans as an Answer to our Adversaries Reply That they place no Divinity in their Images but worship them onely in honour of God and of him whose Image it is seeing they know there is no Divinity in Images they are the more to be condemned for giving to an infirm and beggerly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus it being so consonant with Jonas as making one sentence De Pict Imag. p. 237. They which answer as our Roman Catholicks now do they think no Divinity to be in the Image they worship but that they worship it in honour of him whose image it is are easily answered because if the Image they worship be not God neither is it to be worshipped in honour of the Saints who use not to arrogate to themselves Divine Honour He adds That the Images of Christ and the Apostles were expressed by the Antients after the custom of the Gentiles V. Euseb supra rather for love and memory than for any religious honour or