its flourishing in the Apostles dayes Universality comparatively that is the greater part the Arrians had at least of the Bishops The doctrine of the Mâ—llenaries with many such like may plead more antiquity than Popery can And as for succession there is no doubt but a Bishop or Church in the line of succession may turn Heretical and have successors in their Heresie Have none of the Greek Churches nor Alexandria Antioch c. had a succession till it fell into the hands of a Heretick and it would have beeen no good plea for the first Heretical Bishop or Church to plead such succession If there be not a succession in Apostolical doctrine the succession of persons will be no proof of the truth or soundness of the Church 3. And for the Minor of your Argument I answer 1. The Ethiopian Alexandrian and other Churches can as truely boast of these qualifications as Rome 2. The Papists lay a higher claim to them then they can make good As 1. I have shewed already how far they are from unity who are not only of so many Religions or wayes of Discipline and of so great distance in many doctrinals as the controversies among themselves do manifest but also are so disagreed about the very center of their union their infallible soveraign Power whether it be in the Pope or a General Council or both Besides their unity is but of their own party the Romanists And so all other parties are at some unity among themselves or many at least If John of Constantinople had prevented the Pope and got the Title of universal Bishop or Pope as he did by composition of universal Patriarch and had pretended that this would have united the Churches I think it would not have justified his cause 2. How can the Papists for shame pretend to universality either as to the present or former ages Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian Greek and Reformed Churches are not of their party besides many a thousand more Or will they arrogantly condemne all the rest of the Christian world as heretical and then say that they are the whole Church Did they not learn this of the Donatists But what is become of their modesty who pretend to an universality for the time past when all the Christian world was against their present belief and there was not such a thing as a Papist known and revealed to us in the world of six hundred years after the birth of Christ 3. And for their succession we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago and that there were no true Bishops at Rome of a long time Though men have sat there that were chosen by Cardinals and call themselves Bishops or Popes yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils they were matter utterly uncapable of that form then its plain that they were but Statues and had but the name without the thing i. e. the office or authority and therefore are unworthy also of the name it self Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witness of this And first their great parasite Cardinal Baronius saith ad an 912. § 8. What then was the face of the holy Romane Church how exceeding filthy when the most potent and yet most sordid Whores did Rule at Rome by whose pleasure Sees were changed Bishops were given and which is a thing horrid to be heard and not to be spoken their sweet hearts or mates were thrust into Peters chair being false Popes who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Romane Popes but onely for the marking out of such times And after he well addes to shew that the interruption was not like to be onely in the succession of true Bishops And what kind of Cardinal Priests and Deacons think you we must imagine that these monsters did choose when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like See more in Baron ibid. Platina speaking of the evil of those times de Benedict 4. saith that By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather seized on then possessed Genebrard in Chronolog l. 4. secul 10. speaking of the great unhappiness of that age saith that In this one thing it was unhappy that for neer one hundred and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their ancestors being Apotactici Apostaticive potius quam Apostolici Disorderly and Apostatical rather then Apostolical What shall we think of all those that murdered their predecessors to obtain the place were they capable of being true Bishops What shall we say of Pope Silvester the second who was a conjurer and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by suddain death Doth the Devil make true Bishops of conjurers I know the deceiving Papists would make the simple people believe that all these things that we say of their Popes are lies of our own forging but men that have eyes in their heads may see who are the lyars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the same that we affirm A Cardinal of their own Benno in vita Hildebrandi affirmeth this of Pope Silvester and he lived in the times next him and therefore might know Platina another of their own affirms in vita Silvest that Gesbertus impelled by ambition and devillish desire of rule did first by bribery or Simony get the Archbishoprike of Rhemes then of Ravenna and at last of Rome the Devil giving him more of his help but on this condition that after his death he should be wholly his by whose deceits he had obtained such dignity The like hath Lyra in Gloss ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hystorians unanimously confirm it Yea Aeneas Sylvius who was a Pope himself de gest is Concil Basil l. 1. saith We are not ignorant that Pope Marcellinus did at Cesars command offer incense to Idols and that another which is a greater and more horrible thing did come to be Pope of Rome by the fraud of the Devil In a word if Murderers Adulterers Conjurers that come in by the Devil and Hereticks may be true Bishops of Rome and yet a man that believeth not the Popes Univerversal Vicarship can be no true Catholike Christian then it seems it is a greater sin not to Believe in the Pope then not to Believe in Christ or then it is to bargain with the Devil or be a Murderer or Adulterer Certainly these men were as uncapable of being true Bishops when these things were once publikely known of them at least as a Mahometane would be And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their succession And many a schism there hath been wherein two or three Popes have raigned at once and he that had the greatest strength hath carryed it when his Right was not the greatest QUERY Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Romane Pope or his Clergy must be the
presbyter ordinatur Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem Quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas That is For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do Nor is the Church of the Romane City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another Both France and Brittaine and Africk and Persia and the East and Jndia and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ and observe one Rule of truth If you seek for Authority the worlds is greater than the Cities of Rome Wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanis of the same Merit he is also of the same Priesthood The Power of riches and the lowness of poverty make not a Bishop high-eror lower But they are all the Apostles successors But you say How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon What tell you me of the custome of one City why do you defend a few of which superciliousness is arisen against the Laws of the Church It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers can put such a sence on these words of Hierom as shall consist with that which he purposly doth oppose But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words he was acquainted with Romes claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters in the beginning and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops how then could Hierome believe the Popes universal jurisdiction Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church Greg. Nazianzene saith of Councils If I must write the truth I am of this mind that I will flye or avoid all Councils of Bishops for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils then a removal of them To this of Nazianzene Bellarmine answereth that Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful for he lived between the first and second general Council where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Hereticks had a bad end And he names five of them Answ 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregories words to some Councils which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may erre and then where is the French Religion 3. I would fain know where was the Churches infallibility and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens dayes If there were no lawful General Councils nor could be then it was not in them therefore it must be either in the people and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them or else as Bellarmine will say in the Pope alone or in the Romane Clergy with him I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Romane Clergy in particular are Infallible though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world and not talke of the whole Church and all the Church when they mean but one man 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmines how far the universal Church was visible at that time when all Councils were bad and none could be lawful The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole and the â—aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong â—o that the Church was visible onely in one man or â— few particular persons according to the Papists common reckoning who judge by the Pastors visiâ—ility Yea the Church of Rome it self was invisible â—hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Hereâ—ick If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man or in the Laity of many partes opprest by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say then we will â—ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther and more too 5. It s confest here also that â—ot onely a Council but the greater number by â—ery many of the Bishops of the Church may be â—eretickes or erre in faith 6. And then the Church may lye in the smaller oppressed part and why then may not the most erre now Stapleton himself confesseth â—hat Luther was not much out of the way when he said â—here were scarce five Bishops â—o be found that turned not Arrians And Hieromeâ—aith â—aith Dialog advers Lucifer The whole world â—â—aned and wondred that it was turned Arrian â— And did the authority of the Scripture at that time â—ll quoad nos when the judge was turned heretick â—ven Liberius and the Councils And if the high Elogies of the Romane Church would prove its Authority then see what Nazianâ—ene saith of the Church of Caesarea In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta found among his own works Edit Paris Tom. 1. pag. 785. and also in Basils works translated by Musculus Edit Basil 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. Seeing every Church as being Christs body is to be watched over or looked to with greatesâ— care and diligence then specially yours which anciently was and now is and is esteemed almost oâ— nigh the mother of all Churches on which thâ— whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the center not onely for the soundness of doctrinâ— long divulged to all but also for that conspicuouâ— grace of Concord which God hath given them What would the Papists say but that this were foâ— their supremacy if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome And I think there is no doubt but that in thosâ— ancient times the Church was acquainted with thâ— true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further 8. Whether thâ— truest Government may not stand with great desolations divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors Greg. Nazianzene saith Orat. 20 pag. mihâ— 345. That when Basil seâ— upon the great work of healing the Church The holy
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God 4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts or some of them that speak of Peters own person were also spoke of certain successors of his as well as of himself as that on them the Church shall be built and their faith shall not â—ail c. 5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter 6. To this end they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus and was Bishop there but they must know that he was the only Bishop there or at least the chief and that Paul was no Bishop there who is more likely to have been or else that he was the inferior and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls or else succeedeth them both and hath his infallibility but from one unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too 7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once and if there be two which of them is to be believed when they disagree But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome the one of the Circumcision the other of the uncircumsion then it must be known by what right their successors made them one or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision when all Jews were banished from Rome and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing the Pope be not only Pauls successor 8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome yea of Antioch before Rome and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture either as to the Church oâ— the Bishop seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ as they do how shall we know whom to believe and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome 9. It must be known what it is that makes a Pope what is necessary to his being Peters successor Iâ— it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope Or that his party call him so Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror though a Lay maâ— did so he should be Pope And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peters infallible successor at any time But if there must be an ordination and Election then it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration and Election will serve or not If it will then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once they were all Saint Peters infallible successors though one condemned the other If not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of election which being the act that determineth of thâ— person is the maine that must resolve our doubts and also of consecration or ordination And hoâ— shall the people know this when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves 10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect If they have then how came they by it And then whether werâ— all those that were elected by the people in the first ages and by the Emperors in after ages true Popeâ— or not If they were not then Saint Peter hath no successors because of the interruption of the succession so long and the Church had then no visible head If they were then the sufficient power is not onely in the Cardinals And if it be not onely in them then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen onely by them of late ages 11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved when Popes have been chosen three several wayes sometime by the people or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church and sometime by the Emperors and now by titular Presbyters who are Bishops of other Churches and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome If all these several wayes of Election may make true Popes then it seems any way may serve and then the three Popes at once will be all true If not then there hath been an interruption of the succession and so according to their own Principles there can be now no true Pope 12. And here it must needs be known too whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary that he can be no true Pope without it If not then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope If there be then it must be known what that is which few private men at least do know 13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Hereticks yea judged so by Councils or by their own successors and those that were notorious Whoremongers Sodomites Murderers Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedome Simonists buying the Popedom with money c. were capable of being true Popes 14. If they are not capable then we must all know that all the Popes were none such when the Papists themselves confess they were such before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter 15. But if such may be Popes then must we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise and the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church and whether such were infallible in their judging falshood to be truth as they did 16. And we must know that the Pope onely is lawless and under no power of Canons or Decrees of former Popes and Councils Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null and so the succession still hath been interrupted And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty and so null his calling 17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre through ignorance even in universal questions of faith Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick and reach Heresie so it be without a General Council And that most of the rest do only hold that whether the Pope be
of his contradictions Did it never come into the mind of Celsus Porphyry or any other unbeliever that we read of to doubt of and object against this fundamental infallibility O what an incredible thing is this Yea and yet the more incredible will it appear if you consider that all the whole cause between the Christians and the Infidels according to the Popish conceit must depend upon this one point of their infallibility For what man will be so mad as to contradict the Church if he once believe that the Church is infallible Can they think that all the learned Heathens were such fools It must needs be therefore that their first stop must be at the Major proposition even at this principle of the Churches infallibility and therefore certainly their most objections would have been against it and the most of the Christian Doctors labor would have been in the defending of it But that its certain they then believed no such thing and the Church was at that time utterly unacquainted with the foundation of the present Romish faith Moreover if this Popish foundation had been then known do you think that the Fathers would not have appealed to Rome for a decision of all their perplexing controversies What readier way to have silenced all gain-sayers and ended all strifes and to have saved the labor of so many volumes then to have bestowed their pains with all dissenters upon this one point alone That Rome is infallible and then have sent them thither for satisfaction in all the rest Common reason must needs have told men of such principles that this was the way But do we find that this way was taken How come we then to have so many volumes of the Fathers controversal writings and not one Book or Chapter or leaf or line to prove the Romane infallibility And because the order of our discourse hath brought us up to the judgement of the Fathers I shall here give you a brief taste of their judgement in this point and so conclude this argumentation In the contention about Easter day between the Eastern Western Churches Policrates with the Asian Bishops resisted the Popes judicial determination anno 198. And therefore doubtless they believed not his infallibility nor universal jurisdiction In the Council of Nice the first that subscribed was Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch before the Legates of the Bishop of Rome Theodor. li. 1. c. 7. So did Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain as Athanas Apolog. 2. In the Council of Africk the Popes Legates had the last place Conc. Afric Can. 100. In the Council of Calcedon there was 157. subscribed before Philip the Popes Legate In the fifth Council of Constantinople Menna their Bishop was President Evangri l. 4. c. 38. And if the Pope had not then so much as the Presidency how much less an universal jurisdiction with infallibility When Stephen the Bishop of Rome determined judicially against rebaptizing Hereticks and excommunicated Firmilianus for not assenting and wrote to Cyprian about it what did they do Did they either submit to the judgement of the Pope as infallible or obey him as their universal Ruler No but Cyprian Firmilian with the rest of the Bishops did unanimously joyn against the Popes decree I would fain know by what spectacles the Papists can read these words of Cyprians to find out their infallibility in them In his Epist 74. ad Pempeium he saith thus I have sent a Copy of our Brother Stephens letters which when you read you will see his error more and more who endeavoureth to maintain the cause of Hereticks against the Christians and against the Church of God For among things which he writeth either proudly or nothing to the purpose or contrary to himself and ignorantly and unadvisedly he addeth c. Here mentioning Pope Stephens pleading of Tradition he saith Whence is that tradition Is it from the Authority of the Lord and the Gospel Comes it from the commands and Epistles of the Apostle For that we must do those things that are written God testifieth and propoundeth to Joshua saying Let not this Book of the Law depart out of thy mouth c. If therefore it be contained in the Gospel Epistles or in the Acts then let this Divine and holy Tradition be observed What obstinacy is this And what presumption to prefer Humane Tradition before Divine appointment and not to consider that God is angry and offended as oft as humane Tradition doth lose or pass by the commands of God As Isaiah saith This people honoureth me with their lips but their hearts are far from me in vain do they worship me teaching the doctrines and commendements of men and as the Lord in the Gospel reproveth them Yee reject the commandments of God to establish your Tradition So Paul 1 Tim. 6.3 If any teach otherwise and rest not in the wholsome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his doctrine he is proud or lifted up with stupidity knowing nothing from such we must depart The custome which hath crept in with some ought not to hinder the truth from prevailing and overcoming For custome without Truth is but antiquity of error therefore leaving error let us follow truth It is through a study of presumption and contumacy that a man will rather defend his own wicked and false opinions than consent to anothers that are right and true Paul therefore saith that a Bishop must be no quarreller but mild and teachable for a Bishop must not onely teach but be taught And there is a speedy way for Religious and simple minds to lay down error and to find and disclose the Truth For if we return to the Head and Original of Gods tradition humane error ceaseth and whatsoever was in cloudy darkness it opened in the light of truth If the water Pipes be stopt do we not run to the fountain to see what 's the matter So now must the Priests of God that keep his commandement that if in any point Truth have changed or wavered we may return to the original even the Tradition by the Lord by the Gospel and by the Apostles and the Reason of our action may rise from thence from whence both order and beginning did arise So far Cyprian If the Papists can make their followers now believe that Cyprian believed the Popes infallibility or that the Church of Rome was the onely keeper of Tradition or that Traditions were not to be tryed by the Scriptures then you may see to what purpose it is that they must needs be the judges of Controversie and the sence of Scripture and why they call it a Nose of wax even that it may be at their service and so flexible as to yield to what sence they will put upon it when they will needs exercise the same Authority on the Fathers themselves who in their familiar Epistles speak as plain as they can Firmilianus a famous Bishop writeth a confutation of Pope Stephens Epistle
their testimonies And for any Reader Papist or Protestant that would have more Testimonies to this end to see whether it be Romes authority or infallibility or rather the Scriptures that is the Testimony which must support our faith and is first to be known I desire them to read them already collected in Chamier in Doctor Sutlive in Sibrandus Lubbertus de princip Christ Dogmat in Chemuitius and Bellarmine himself who reciteth them out of Chemnitius and pretendeth and vainly pretendeth to answer them to whom Lubbertus and many more of ours have therein replyed But specially read that excellent Treatise of Philip Mornay Lord du Plessis of the Church Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians useth not once to them any argument from his authority and infallibility which sure he would have done for the healing of so great a schisme if it had been true Nay when he doth earnestly press them to submit to and obey their own Presbyters he never requireth any obedience to himself or to the Romane Church Nay so far is he from taking any notice of any universal Monarchy or infallibility in himself that he doth not so much as take notice of any Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in their own Church nor once call them to be determined by any single or supereminent Bishop at all but onely to obey their Bishops or Presbyters Ignatius writing to the Romanes calleth them onely the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quae praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum or as Bishop Vshers ancient Version hath it Quae praesidet in loco chori Romanorum which is not a presidency over the whole Church And towards the end he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Memores estote in precibus vestris Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae prome jam Christo Pastore utitur as Hier. Vairlenius Sylvius interpreteth it in his Edit pag. 69. I know that the old vulgar Latin Edition which is in Joachimus Perionius his Edition pag 494. and in Bishop Vshers pag. 89. translateth it Mementote in orationibus vesiris illius qui pro me recturus est ecelesiam quae est in Syria as if it were his successor that he would have them pray for But as Vairlenius so Vedelius also better translateth it Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae pro me jam Domino pastore utitur Edit Vedel pag. 250. And Bishop Vshers old Latine Translation is Ecclesiae quae pro me pastore Dei utitur And the next words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. solus â—am visitahit sit vestra in eo dilectio as the vulgar Latin Version or Solus ipsam curabit visitabitque As Vairlenius and Vedelius or rather as Bishop Vshers old Latin version Solus ipse Jesus Christus vice Episcopi sit From whence I gather that the Bishop of Rome was not the Bishop universal of that Syrian Church or else Ignatius 1. Would have sure commended it to his care 2. Or at least not have expresly said that Christ onely was their Bishop when he was gone Moreover is it a probable thing that Ignatius would have so frequently and importunately have pressed the Church that he wrote to in all his Epistles to be subject to and obey their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and yet would never have given them one word of advice to be subject to and obey the Bishop of Rome if the peace and unity of the whole Church and the very faith and salvation of the particular members had so much depended on this as the Papists would perswade us Certainly a Negative Argument from the silence of the writers of those times is a sufficient confutation of the Romish usurpation Policarp in his Epistle to the Philippians perswadeth that Church to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ not mentioning any other superior Bishop much less an universal Bishop to whom also they must be subject And whereas Valens one of their Presbyters was faln with his wife into some sin which Policarpe professeth his sorrow for he doth not direct them to seek remedy at any higher power but perswadeth them to reduce him themselves as a straying member And having before mentioned divers heresies of those times be addeth as the Remedy not an advice of appeal to Rome or to seeke for their determination or to hold to their infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Wherefore leaving the vanity of many and false doctrines let us return to that Word which from the beginning was delivered to us It is to the first word and not to Rome that this blessed Disciple of John doth send the Philippians for stability against errors Irenaeus is said by Eusebius Eccles Hist li. 5. cap. 26. to have sharply reproved Victor for breaking the Churches peace by excommunicating the Asian Churches about Easter day and tells him that The like was never heard of and that his predecessors did otherwise therefore he took not Victor to be infallible And it is apparent that all the Asian Churches â—ho stood against Victor and were excommunicated by â—im did little dream that he was the universal Bishop or infallible Nay their Bishops sharply reprehend him and their words are yet extant saith Eusebius Moreover in the same Chapter of Eusebius it is expressed by Irenaeus to Victâ—â— that Policarp the Disciple of John differed from Anicetus and neither of them could be perswaded to alter his opinion Therefore Policarp never dream't either that the Romane Bishop was infallible or was his Governor whom he should obey And its worth the reading in the 24. and 25. Chapters of Eusebius how confidently Policrates opposeth Victor alledging a General custome from the Apostles and resolveth never to change his custome And the Bishops and Churches here in England did follow the same custome and differ from Rome And in the 28 Chapter Eusebius mentioneth an ancient writer that opposed the heresie of Artemon and whereas they alledged that all the Bishops of Rome till Zephyrinus were of their mind and preached it even Victor himself that is against the Godhead of Christ he answereth them thus This peradventure might seem to have some likelihood of truth if it were not oppugned first of all by the holy Scriptures next by the books of sundry men long before the time of Victor As Justin Miltiades Tatianus Clemens and Irenaeus So that this old writer supposed it no impossible thing for a Bishop of Rome to have taught heresie And in the very conclusion of the Chapter and Book Eusebius recites many more of the words of that old writer among the which there are these against the hereticks of those times for presuming to correct and so deprave the Scriptures which methinks should touch the Romanists to the quicke Belike they are altogether ignorant what presumption is practised in this wicked deed of theirs For either they perswade themselves that the holy Scriptures were not
Images They elevate not the Sacrament nor reserve it after Communion Their Priests labor but beg not The Emperor conferreth Bishopricks and Benefices They use no confirmation nor extreame unction They admit a first marriage in Bishops and Priests They eat flesh on Fridays And yet this man saith they differ not from them The second Chapter is the meer ebullition of foolish malice deserving no reply to those that do not desire to be deceived He would prove that according to these laxe principles of our charity we may agree with Jews Turkes Mahometans As if we needed a dispute to prove that these are no Christians and that the Greeks Abassines c. are But such disputes do the Papists put us upon The Bishop had concluded in his Sermon that If we should survey the several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world and put by the points wherein they differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the Articles wherein all generally agree we should finde so much truth in them as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation neither have we cause to doubt but as many as do walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a leud and wicked conversation Peace shall be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God And what hath the Confuter to say against this Why first he begins with the Sacraments to try whether those commonly agreed on may save And here he first tells us that Some Churches are for seven some for three and some for two â—â—d no more therefore here is no agreement Rep. 1. Leâ— the nominal differences about the word Sacrament be first laid by unless you think that word necessary to salvation and then we shall the better see what real difference remaineth 2. The two Sacraments then are confessed by all and the use of the rest which you call Sacraments This much in its own place then may save where no more is confessed 3. You vainly put in the exclusion of more for that 's none of the things that all agree on All agree that there are two Sacraments and those may save But all agree not that there is but two This man therefore seems to dote when he should gather up the common agreements according to the Bishops proposal he gathers up the disagreements or vainly pretendeth that we agree in nothing What do not you confess that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments and do not we do so too Next he comes to the use of Baptisme and saith that The Romanes and Greeks say that there is no other use of baptisme but to wash away sin The Protestants of England and Geneva say that it is no laver of Regeneration at all but onely a seal of Gods promise made to the party baptized and that the childe unbaptized may be saved and the baptized damned Repl. 1. You make your selves much more the Greeks worse then you are Do not your own maintain that Baptism admitteth into the Church and granteth many other priviledges besides washing away sin 2. We say that to the children of promise it doth secondarily and by obsignation wash away or pardon sin by way of obsignation and solemne exhibition as the promise doth primarily as a deed of gift or legal Grant as also that in the same way it secondarily conveyeth further Grace according to the capacity of the subject and admitteth into the Church And all this is commonly confest by your selves and all Christians of the Greek or Abassine Churches c. This much alone without your additions is as much at least as is necessary to salvation to be believed concerning baptism Next he cometh to the Lords Supper and saith that one party holdeth the real presence and the other not And what of this Doth that prove the insufficiency of what all are agreed on what we hold you deny not We hold the signifying and sealing and exhibiting use of the Sacrament though we deny Transubstantiation And dare you deny these We hold that it is the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered once on the Cross for the sins of the world and that it is a means of Church-communion And dare you deny these Lay by your Additions and that which we are all agreed in is enough to salvation His next instance is about Faith Because we say that Historical faith may be in Devils and Miraculous faith in the wicked and Calvin defineth justifying faith to be a firme and certain knowledge of the love of God to us c. and the Lutherans that it is an undoubted perswasion of the pardon of our sins and adoption c. and this faith is by the Councel of Trent condemned to the pit of hell therefore he concludeth that there is no saving faith common to Papists and Protestants Repl. Here again you vainly and fallaciously bring in the disagreements and over pass the agreements 1. We are agreed that all those which the Protestants call the Canonical books of Scripture are the word of God and true and particularly all the Articles of the Creed and many things more We are agreed that Christ and life is offered by the Universal promise in the Gospel to all that hear it and that all must first believe the truth of this promise and then heartily consent to the offer and accept the benefit and also believe and fear the threatning and joyn sincere love and obedience to all this This we are all agreed in And this is certainly saving to all that sincerely believe and do as they thus profess But then whether Historical faith be common or not whether assurance or strong perswasion of pardon be faith or justifying faith with other the like these we are not agreed in and without these we may be saved The next exception is only this The Bishop tells us not what be those Heresies that destroy this common faith Rep. And doth that cross his former charitable conclusion What because he undertakes not an alien task Why in general they are any thing that is so held as that the common Articles of faith cannot be held with it and that practically The sum of the next passage is this That its absurd for us to call them the true Church or say they may be saved when we have charged them with so much error and idolatry c Repl. 1. We onely say that you are a polluted part of the Church 2. If your salvation be made so difficult by your errors look you to that The Bishops conclusion of the sufficiency of the communiter credita is nevertheless sound though you destroy your selves by your corrupt additions 3. Multitudes among you believe not your Infallibility Transubstantiation and many the like errors 4. Many that behold them as opinions
speculatively may yet hold the contrary truthes practically not discerning the contradiction I would gladly have shewed the vainty of the rest of that Pamphlet because I see he hath contracted most of their common cavils into a narrow room but the rest is less to our present purpose and the same things are already answered by many and therefore I shall no further Digress in the pursuit of this Confuter having already said so much against the chief of their objections as may leave the impartial Reader confirmed in it That notwithstanding the Popish cavils to the contrary it is apparent that the Christian Catholike Reformed Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to Salvation Query Whether Popery be a safe way to Salvation Neg. IT is not as other mens Judges that we determine this Question to their own master do they stand or fall but it is to render an account of our own Belief and practice and for our further confirmation in the truth for the defence of it against gain-sayers and for the establishing of our people against the sophistry and seduction of Deceivers For the explication of the terms I shall tell you 1. What I mean by Popery 2. What I mean by Salvation 3. What by the way to it 4. What by the word Safe 1. Popery is a certain farrago a mixture of many grievous errors in the doctrine of Faith Government and Worship expressed in their Authorized writings especially in their decretals and Councils corrupting the Christian Religion which they profess the whole being denominated from that one falshood that the Pope of Rome is the Universall Bishop and Visible Head of the Universal Church and Christs Vicar-General on earth and that only is the Catholike Church and those only Catholiks that so believe Where note 1. That the Papists professing to be Christians do first own the substance of Christian doctrine and then corrupt it and contradict it by this fardle of their own inventions superadded They profess to believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to be true every Book that we believe and more They profess to believe all the Articles of the ancient Creeds commonly called the Apostles the Nicene or Constantinopolitane It is not the Christianity or true doctrine which they profess which we call Popery 2. It is therefore onely their own invented corruptions by which they contradict the Christian verity which they profess which we call Popery 3. Note That the common denominating corruption is the forementioned doctrine of the Popes Universal Episcopacy and Headship or a supreamacy at least if not Infallibility and that the Catholike Church and the Romane Church is all one and the Pope is the visible center of its Unity 4. Note also that as to the rest of their corruptions they agree not among themselves what is to be esteemed of their faith or Religion and what not and therefore it cannot be expected that we should give you an exact enumeration of the points of their faith and so a compleat description of Popery which is such a self-contradicting unreconcileable hodg podge But their errors may be distributed into these three rankes 1 Those that are established by the Pope and his supposed general Councel These they all receive and own 2. Those that are established by the Popes Decretals without a Council These some own as points of their faith and some reject them I will not adde as the third those that are established by a Council without the Pope not because there never was a Council that dissented from him in Good but because it is a difficult matter at least to find any Council that did go beyond or without him in Evil or erred without his Approbation 3. The third sort therefore shall be those opinions that are commonly maintained by their most Approved Writers which are published in books that are licensed and commended by the Popes Authorized agents but are not determined by the Pope or his Council These though they contend for and lay great weight on them in their disputations yet dare they not own them as any part of the matter of their faith lest they seem to be what they are divided and mutable A man would think that those volumnious hot disputes about Divine things did intimate that the Authors did fide divinâ— believe those points which they do so zealously dispute of But if it be their pleasure that we should so distinguish we will call the rest the Popish faith or Religion and these last the Popish opinions because we would fasten on them nothing but their own If you ask me which be those doctrines which they take for points of faith which we call Popery I must refer you to their Decretals and Councils on one side and Gods word on the other and all the Doctrines in those their Canons or determinations that are against the word of God are the doctrines which we mean by this name If they do lay greater stress upon any one point than others its likely to be on those that are put into their Creeds and Vows and therefore I shall onely recite the latter half of their Tridentine Creed seeing they will own that or â—othing When they have begun with the ancient Constantinopolitane Creed containing the true Principles of Christian Religion and have ended that they proceed thus as followeth The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the Observations and constitutions of the same Church I do most firmely admit and embrace I admit also the sacred Scripture according to that sence which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sence and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and I will never take and interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I do profess also that there are seven truely and properly Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the salvation of mankind â—hough not all to every one to wit Baptisme Confirmation the Eucharist Pennance extreame Vnctiâ—n Order and Matrimony and that they confer â—race and that of these Baptisme Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacriledge I do also receive and admit the received and approved Rites of the Catholike Church in the solemne Administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments I do embrace and receive all and singular things which in the Holy Council of Trent were defined and declared about Original sin and Justification In like manner I do profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true pâ—per and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and fâ— the dead and that in the most holy Srcrament of â— Eucharist there is Truely Really and Substantiâ—â—y the body and blood together with the soul and Diâ—â—nity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there 〈◊〉 change made of the whole substance of Bread â— the Body and of the whole substance of Wine 〈◊〉 blood which change