skill in Appelles Art that he drew that exquisite picture of Christ which Rome has representing unto us his posture whilst the Jews whipt him I must confess that for these matters of importance we must submit to the traditions of Rome But all things touching God and the means to attaine faith in him are plentifully therein to be found Chrysostome sayes in his 41 Hom. upon the 22 of Matth. Quicquid queritur ad salutem totum eam ademptum est in Scripturis and upon the 95 Psalm Si quid dicatus absque Scriptura c. If any thing be spoken without the Scripture the cogitation of the Auditors faile but so soon as the Testimony of Gods voice is heard out of the Scripture it confirmeth both the word of the speaker and the mind of the hearer Saint Hierom upon the 9 of Jeremy Nec parentum ne majorum error sequendus est sed author it as Scripturarum Dei docenti imperium Saint Cyprian who writ almost 1400 yeers ago would not yeeld to Stephanus Bishop of Rome but reproved him for leaning to tradition and demanded of him by what Scripture he could prove his tradition Cyprian Epist ad Pompeium 74. So then if in his time it was not enough to alleadge tradition for the proof of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome much less is it lawful to follow the Popes definitive sentence in matters of faith and doctrine When the Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it could not be found in Scripture Athanasius did not plead tradition for it but said Although the express words be not found in the Scripture yet have the Scriptures that meaning and sense in them as every one that readeth the Scriptures may plainly understand and therefore by warrant thâ—eof that word might be maintained Saint Austine de unitat Eccl. cap. 10. Nemo mihi dicat quid dixit Donatus quid dixit Parmenianus quid Paulus aut quillibet illorum quid nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est sicubi forte falluntur ut contra canonicas Dei Scriptures aliquid sentiant Methinks the very word Canonical which the Church of Rome having approved Canonical Scripture disprove â—raditiods what Scriptures shall be Canonical what not is sufficient of it self to prove this point for signifies a rule and thereupon those books are called Canonical because they are the rules of our faith and consequently whatsoever is not consonant to the Scripture ought to be rejected as pernicious and swerving from the rules of our faith For as whatsoever is not of faith is sin and as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God therefore whatsoever is extra Scripturam cum ex fide non sit peccatum est This was the saying of Basil one of the Church of Rome's Saints in his Ethicks difinit ult prope finem And for my part I shall not be so harsh with her as this St. was I should be willing to allow of her traditions if they do not impugne the Scriptures and not to be so rigid against her traditional power as upon Basil's rule utterly to reject all if not expresly contained in Scripture I say for my part I should allow of such and approve of them as to be cerdited for the matter of fact but if she enjoyn them as doctrinal and to be rules of faith then â—ith Cyprian I desire to examine them by this Touchstone of truth the Scriptures For if once she propound traditions to be rules of faith then with Hierome Cyprian and Austin I must examine the truth of them by the rule of Scripture and with Saint Chrysostome in his 13 Hom. upon the 2 Cor. 7. do pray and beseech the Church of Rome to reject what this or that man says and search the truth out of the Scriptâ—re that learning true riches we may follow them and so attain life everlasting neither let any Church be wedded with her own traditions or give her self to believe the traditions of other Churches unless saith he she can bring authority from these truths to a warrant her doctrine and not to receive for doctrine the commandments of men and with Saint Cyprian examine from whence such tradition came whether it descended from authority of our Lord Jesus Christ or his Gospel or whether it came from the Mandates of the Apostles or their Epistles If so saith he let such divine and holy tradition be observed if no let it be rejected especially any tradition that shall contradict the written verities of God for such certainly proceed from spirits of error Here is a cloud of witnesses all agreeing in one that no traditions are to be embraced that have not warrant from the word of God so that for the Church of Rome to put her traditions upon the people for rules of faith upon that score that it is the power and authority of the Church that awarrants those traditions is vain and not binding to the conscience of men unless she can justifie and maintaine them warrantable by the word according to Saint Pauls saying to the Galat. 1.9 Though an Angel from heaven come and teach any other doctrine then what we have preached let him be accursed For the Testimony of no Church whatsoever is to be received if it be contrary to the Scripture Sâ—riptures above the Church Ante 73. Chapter 9. according to that of Saint Austin upon that text The Scriptures are not true because the Church sayes they are the word of God but the testimony of the Church is true because they are the word of God and should Rome or any other Church teach contrary to the holy Scripture it is to be rejected as that which hath nothing of verity in it Now sith the Scriptures are the onely rules of our faith The vanity and falseness of the traditions of the Church of Rome and do containe in themselves the necessary points of our faith what shall we think of the traditions of the Church of Rome which have no warrant from the holy Scriptures but many of them being repugnant and utterly contrary to those Scriptures which therefore by the rule of Christ himself in the 7 of Matthew and by the general consent of the fathers of the primitive Church are to be rejected yet notwithstanding are by her enjoyned upon her pretended authority of universality and infallibility to be rules of faith unto others And lest any should think me injurious to the Church of Rome in this particular I wiâ—l give you a smal taste for I delight not to lay open her infirmities thereby to draw a scandal upon her of such of her traditions as are not warranted by the holy word of God only maintained out of self interest and to warrant her claim of universal power Spiritual and Temporal by these ensuing examples and further refer you to the 7 Chapter The Church of Rome that she might perswade the world of Peters being Bishop of Rome by
if it be hid it is hid unto them that are lost whom the God of this world hath blinded â—hat the light of the Gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them 2 Cor. 4. For it is plain by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ Acts 18.28 And Joh. 5. The Father hath sent the Son and his works bear witness of him and the Scriptures testifie of him God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost the Comforter his Passion Resurrection Ascension and the coming of the holy Ghost being so plainly preached and set down that a man may read them running and this Word endureth for ever and this Word is preached unto us 1 Pet. 1.25 And Joh. 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and what need we any more This is eternal life to know the Father and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17.3 He is the Way the Truth and the Life We believe that thou art Christ the Son of the ever-living God and thou hast the words of eeternal life Joh. 5.68 Hence S. Austin lib. de doctr Christianae cap. 9. did affirm that all things pertaining to mans salvation are plain and easie to be understood And Chrysostome upon 2 Thessal 2. Hom. 3. Omnia plana sunt sunt eÌ„x divinis Scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt It is not therefore an idle and presumptuous doctrine in the Church of England to maintain this since we have both authority of Scripture and the Fathers for the same Nor do we hereby rob the Church of her authority to judge of and determine controversies and those things that are doubtful in the Scriptures There are some things of Discipline and pertaining to Manners in which the Scriptures may be doubtful or not easie for every capacity to understand and for those it is fit the Church should determine them and having determined them to impose them by the Princes authority as Rules of faith upon the people and so teaches the Church of England in the twentieth Article Lay-men to read Scripture But the main things necessary to our salvation concerning our faith to be grounded upon Jesus the Son of the ever-living God the author and finisher of our faith those as I said before are clear and manifest and though Angels from heaven should teach any other doctrine they are to be accursed Gal. 1. Wherefore sith this is plain and manifest in Scripture that Jesus gave himself for our sins and whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life and for that this faith is given by the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 12. Phil. 1.29 2 Pet. 1.3 and Matth. 16.17 and is the gift of God and no man hath it of himself for flesh and blood doth not reveal it and for that Christ has prescribed the way how and by what means we shall obtain this gift even by searching the Scriptures Rom. 10 It must needs be a grievous and intolerable sin in the Church of Rome to debar the people of this means to attain this precious jewel the salvation of their souls Upon these grounds do we allow the Laytie to read the Scripture but we do not hereby give them liberty to interpret it according to their will and humour They may in them finde Jesus to be the life everlasting the Spirit giving them faith and therefore must not be debarred the means But they are not allowed in points of difficulties to be their own interpreter but to repair to the Fathers of the Church to declare the meaning of those Oracles of God to whom it is given by the power of the holy Ghost to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God Matth. 13.11 For which end Christ has commended the Scriptures to the Church that she may discern keep and publish them Christ opened the Scriptures to his disciples Luke 24. and they preached it to all nations The Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 3. calls the Truth the fountain of the Church and the Church the pillar of Truth as Solomon made his Chariots to have a golden axletree and pillars of silver understanding by the axletree says one sound doctrine by the pillars the faithful teachers of the same The Scripture is the truth of God and the Church the house of God the Scripture the foundation the Church the pillar and the foundation is not sustained by the pillar but the pillar supported of the foundation Truth makes the Church not the Church the Truth We are to observe the Scripture as it were the Candle the Church as the Candlestick according as S. Austin upon Gal. 1. says Church how to interpret The Scriptures are not true because the Church says they are the Word of God but the testimony of the Church is true because they are the Word of God Now as we ascribe to our Church this priviledge of interpretation of difficult and obscure places Scriptures above Councels â—nte Chap. 9. we do not either deprive Rome of her right or too much extol our own Church Nor do we hereby make void the Laytie's reading of Scripture The Laytie may read it because the main points are easie and it is the means to obtain faith as well as by hearing the Church in those points that are easie and it is the way enjoyned by God to attain faith as well as by preaching and he has promised his Spirit to those that seek him earnestly and with unfeigned lips And when it shall please God by their reading to give them of his holy Spirit that Spirit will guide them to come to the Church to be informed in those things they understand not or shall the Church understand that through weakness they misunderstand any point in those Scriptures and she shall reprove them the same Spirit guiding them into the way of Truth will lead them to hearken to the dispensers of the sacred Oracles And if the Church shall deliver any thing which to other Churches may seem strange and not satisfactory she as I said before in the precedent Chapter will call a Synod and if there the business receive not an absolute and satisfactory resolution to submit the business to a General Council rightly constituted and free in it self And in the mean time if our Church offend the Church of Rome for that she differs from her in any particular let her make her self capable to reform by a General Councel by taking off the slavery that lies upon it by the Popes Canonical Law and we shall submit our Church to the free debate in a perfect Council to decide the points wherein we differ otherwise the Church of Rome might seem to have just cause to accuse us for that we cast off the discipline of the Primitive Churches as to that particular but in the mean time upon the former recited texts of Scripture upon the authority of
of her spots and deforâ—mity whereas if any please to seaken them both he shall finde that Englands Church which is thus presented to him is black but comely and like the curtains of Salomon is set all with precious Stones and Jewels on her inner side Cant. 1.4 I am black but comly as the curtains of Salomon And if he please to make inquisition into the Church of Rome he will finde that she has onely a glorious outside she is a painted Jezebel that cares not to venter through a Sea of blood to take possession of her Neighbours Vineyards causing the Prophets of the Lord to be slain 1 Kin. 18. She is Harpy-like with a fair face and a foul heart and in that fair face were but the Ignatian paint taken off would rivelled browes and wan-worn cheeks appear How much therefore is the Doctors case to be lamented who hath joyned himself to the Heathen to open his mouth that he may praise the power of the Idols and to magnifie a fleshly King for ever Esth 5.10 Hence is it that in his second and third Chapters taking for granted that Rome is the onely Catholick Church and her Bishop Peter's Successor and absolute and sole possessioner of all Apostolical Power and Jurisdiction he doth hereupon conclude that the Protestant Churches are heretical Conventicles and that they know not the Scriptures without the Tradition of Rome nor can disperse and teach them without Commission from thence Now for that it is my desire not to multiply words I will forbear any particular answer to these Assertions and refer the Reader to my second Chapter where his Holiness Universality is fully refuted And as touching that Assertion of his concerning the Scriptures my 2.8.11 and 12. Chapters are sufficient answers where first I have proved equal Commission then that the Scriptures are to judge the truth of themselves Traditions and Councels and that other Churches had the Scriptures and not from Rome that the Provincials of Apostolical plantation have equal power having the same Spirit to guide them as by the outward means the visible sign of the invisible grace given in the Sacrament of order is in Christian charity to be presumed and therefore may as well judge of those points of Scripture which admit of explanation as the Church of Rome And the many arguments used by the Doctor in those Chapters are not onely grounded upon false suppositions but in themselves are injurious wrongfully accusing the Church of England laying opinions to her charge concerning the wayes and means to understand the meaning of those Scriptures which she doth not profess as Doctrinal And then in the 22. Chapter he would disprove our ground of separation from Rome as to this I have in part touched in the 2.4 and 6. Chapters and in the 11. Chapter I have proved aright in Provincials to reform Schismes and Heresies And whereas he saies we ought not to have separated from Rome hecase saith he we pretending the truth of our opinions ought to have demonstrated them to the world whereby to have reformed Rome and not to have separated our selves To this I answer The first occasion of the separation was about the difference of the Popes Supremacy and he having in a high way got the upper hand of many Churches which were vassallized under his power and the Councels being so abused and made invalid by the late Lateran Prerogative it was to no purpose to offer the difference to a general Councel which must either act for or not against his Holiness having no power to decree any thing against his Holiness as I have proved in the tenth Chapter This gave occasion to other Provinces which could get opportunity to back the right and priviledge proper to their own Sees to cast off any further appealing either thither or to Rome And they knowing this to be an usurpation in Popes it gave them occasion to suspect the truth of many other of her Doctrines and betaking themselves to the holy word of God delivered to them and approved through all ages for the verities of God himself and searching into the Primitive Churches and practices of the antient Fathers they found Rome to have changed her faith as those particulars I have already treated on make mention Vincentius adversus Hereticos sayes that Doctrine is to be accounted Catholick quod semper ab omnibus credendum est and if this must be the rule then are neither we Hereticks nor Rome Catholick Rome cannot be said Catholick in respect the faith of Christ was at other places professed when it was not at all at Rome nor may we be by her called Hereticks because she has changed The Doctor upon Saint Austin's rule fol. 120. sayes that Doctrines without known beginnings are not to be disputed against but those Doctrines of Rome of which I have treated I have fairly proved them to be innovations and therefore by that we are not to be censured for opposing them And whereas the Doctor sayes that Rome must either be the true Church or else there is none he hereby proves himself to be in darkness he has confessed it in Aethiopia without her planting and in several other places I have proved it to have been planted and not from Rome wherefore it is not necessarily to be concluded upon the score of her onely dispensing the Gospel that she is the visible Church if the Gospel be hid it is hid to those that are lost the lost sâ—eep's gone to Rome to idolize the pontifical Pope whom the God of this world hath blinded that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ which is the Image of God should not shine unto him for saith Saint Paul We preach not our selves but Christ Jesus our Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake Which is neither the Jesuites Doctrine who teach nothing but the infallibility of his Holiness nor the Popes profession who would every where be a Master but no servant to the Saints and people of God We therefore because of his change from this Doctrine and because of his intolerable pride and usurpations and as the other Churches shake him off but do not change from the Primitive faith taught by the Apostles and formes maintained by the Church of Rome it self And though we lay long under Romes innovation yet this is no Argument for the Doctor to urge against us that we should not at all reform Christ has withdrawn his Spirit for a time from several Churches as I have proved in the 5. Chapter Magna est veritas praevalebit Truth is stronger than all the power of man as I have proved by Zerubbabel 1 Esdr 4. And though the Pope with the inventions and polices of his Cardinal conclave had so warded the several Churches of the West that he thought them absolutely mastered and under his command to be servants to do his drudgery he did as we say reckon without his Host he did consult with flesh and
Churches founded by them equall as so many members of the mysticall Head Christ Jesus and as to one was given by the Spirit of God Faith to another gifts of healing to another Prophecie to another interpretation of Tongues destributing to every one severally by the same spirit yet this is but to make up one body compleat for the gathering together of the Saints for verse 27. ye are the body of Christ and members for your part so that he that thinks he hath the greatest gift must not because he thinks himself the head say he hath no need of the other members for all are not Apostles all are not Prophets wherefore let the Church of Rome remember what S. Paul said to the Romans chap. 12. that none presume to understand above that which is meet to understand â—ut that he understand according to sobriety for as we have many members in one body and all members have not the same office so we being many are one body in Christ and every one anothers members wherefore then shall the head say unto the feet I have need of thee will the Church of Rome cast off all other Churches because she supposes her Bishop is Peters Successor will she be the Rock and Foundation of the Church and leave others as built upon the sand S. John in his Revelations ch 21. sayes the Apostles are counted the twelve Foundations or twelve stones of the house of God and will the late Popes allow no other Foundation but Rome The Apostles are called Builders and Foundations but none the chief Stone but Christ elect and precious 1 Peter 2. Behold I put in Sion a chief Corner-stone elect and precious and he is the Head of the body of the Church Colos 1.18 Bellarmine being ingaged to maintain the Popes Supremacy is not ashamed to ascribe the Prophecy of Esay cited by S. Peter to be meant of the Pope which S. Peter himself expounds of Christ I much wonder that so great a Schollar should commit so great an absurdity he strains the Scriptures to maintain the Supremacy of Rome because of Peter being there expounding Babylon from whence Peter directs his Epistle to be meant of Rome and yet he against S. Peters interpretation wil expound the chief Corner-stone Elect and precious to be put in Sion to be the Pope of Rome and so he makes Rome to be both Sion and Babylon he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there and Sion to exclude Christ from being Head of the Church contrary to S. Peters own interpretation and contrary to the interpretation of Cyprian Bede and severall Fathers upon the 21. of John who agree that Christ was the Rock upon which Foundation even Peter himself was built The Papists when that text of Matthew 16.18 will not serve their turn for to warrant their pretended title to lord it over all other Churches they then fly to the 21. of Iohn to the treble pasce construing to feed to signifie to govern and because generally spake to feed my Sheep to govern all not some The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to rule but to feed An answer to the treble pasce and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not Rectors but Pastors wherefore to me it seems a strange interpretation But why should I think it strange it is but like that other interpretation of S. Peter afore mentioned The grand Doctor and Conclave of Rome have the Keys of the Scripture in their Cabinet and can by a word of their mouth make the dead letter speak as they please and like an Italian Padlock open at a private kue of their own invention they make Scripture like the Fish Popile which turns it self into the similitude of every object and they make the leafs of the holy Bible as it were a pair of Cards which they can so pack by false gaming that they can cut Christendome the head and make the Knave of the Clubs trump when they please I hope Christians in these later times when as deceivers are come abroad will be more wise then to be insnared by the novell Doctrines of Rone which she holds forth to the people for her self-interest and not their good and welfare and doth quite forsake the Primitive truth exalting her own Traditionall rules above Christ the Apostles or the ancient Fathers as it were to fascinate the people under a colour of Holinesse to become slaves to her new acquired Prerogatives though inconsistent with her See and function The Fathers severally concur upon this place of the 21. of Iohn that it was not said to Peter whereby to exclude the power of governing and feeding the flock of Christ from the rest of the Apostles not for any honor but rather comfort to Peter or if for honor not that it was hereby enlarged to Peter above the rest but that it was restored to Peter of whom Christ required a threefold confession of love that with his threefold confession he might blot out his threefold deniall Besides the words are my Sheep not thy Sheep as my sheep seek my glory in them not thine own my gain not thine Ezechiel 34. Woe to the shepheards of Jsrael that feed themselves not my flock Christ here demands if he loved him then he should shew that love to them feed them not thy self Chrysostome lib. 2. de sacerdot when Christ said to Peter feed my sheep it was to teach Peter and all the rest how much he loved the Church not to teach Peter alone but all the rest and fo S. Austin liber de agon cap. 3. it was spoken to all when it was spoken to Peter dost thou love me feed my sheep to him to put him in mind of his threefold deniall to the rest to make them mindfull of their charge that the same love they bare to their Master Christ they should now henceforth extend that love towards his Flock And whereas the Church of Rome doth urge that Christ gave this power to Peter after his Resurrection which should therefore carry more efficacy as coming from immortall Christ I may answer that this was the third time he appeared after his resurrection but after this he gathered them together and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but to watch for the coming of the Holy Ghost Acts 1. which when they were together with one accord it came and sate upon each of them Acts 2. After this the Lord Jesus appeared to Paul Acts 9. in a shining fire about him and he was thereupon converted and ordained an Apostle and Minister oâ— the Gentiles So that admit Peter did receive by the treble pasce a generall Jurisdiction which cannot from thence plainly be evinced yet Christ did after restrain this power that it should not extend to the Churches of the Gentiles Paul only being appointed an Apostle and Minister over them Successor of Peter not equall to Peter I might for Argument sake grant that Peter had not only a Primacy but
it was superfluous for expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur It doth but argue he is covetous and ambitious covetous in that he hereby makes himself master of anothers Interest and ambitious in that he would be thought the Author of Princes dignities As for King Hen. 8. his adding that stile to his other distinguishments of Dignity it did not proceed from any conceit that he could not have stiled himself so had not the Pope saluted him with that courteous appellation But only in respect it was grown into fashion to adde to their temporall Styles some denotement of their ecclesiasticall power as the Emperour of Ethiopia stiles himself the Pillar of Faith without deriving that dignity from Rome It is true the French embrace the stile of Christian and the Spaniard of Catholick King from Rome yet I suppose they might without that be so dignified As for England it is plain that her King may without any donation thereof from Rome for that it is warranted by her antient Lawes and Eleutherius called Lucius Gods Vicar the King was stiled Persona mixta cum sacerdote which was many hundred years known before Hen. 8. Ante 37. Cap. 4. and therefore sith by the antient Lawes of the Land the King is Vicarius sūmus infra Regnas He must nominate or ought to Authorise some by vertue of his power all forrain provinciall Jurisdiction being lockt up by consent of Councels within its proper provinciall precincts to appoint Bishops this antient right being grounded upon Gods Word in that I have proved that the Temporall Magistrate did elect such as should be ordained and therefore for the Doctor to deny us to be a Church because we want succession of Bishops the new ones being appointed by the Temporall Magistrate when as they wanted nothing to compleat their Order seemes to me strange and unreasonall If the Doctor when he denies our succession of Bishops No discontinuance of Succession of Bishops in England when Queen Elizabeth turned out the old ones could prove that the new ones had no Imposition of Hands by Bishops then his Argument touched us something though it be not absolute necessary that Bishops ordain Bishops Ante 33.4 chap. For what if all the Bishops should die so neer at one time that none were left ordained by them shall not the Presbytery make Bishops they have right to the Keyes which are called Claves ecclesiae non episcoporum and they are the remaining Pillars of the Church and certainly may confer the Order of Bishop upon others and that the rather because the Councells forbid Bishops of another Province to ordain in a forrain Province and though it may seeme strange to some that Ministers which are subordinate should ordain Bishops and so confer Superiour Orders it is not if rightly examined contradictory to reason For in this first ordination of Priests and Deacons they are infra ordines majores which orders are called Holy and Sacramentall and are the Highest Orders witness Pope Vrban decret dist 60. sum Sacr. Ro. Eccl. 226. as for the Order of Bishops it is no more then a Priest as to the Holy and Sacramentall Order onely more excellent in respect of the Order of Governing which is rather of Humane then Divine right Priests ordain Bishops for as it is Divine it is no more then what every Priest hath by the Sacramentall order but as it is Humane it is transcendent in relation to Discipline Ante 33.4 chap. and therefore the Presbytery may agree to ordain one over them to govern them in ecclesiasticall Rites as the people may choose a Prince to Govern in civill affairs Hence it was that the Apostles sent John to Ephesus Peter to Antioch and appointed James over the Churches at Hierusalem which before such their Consignations were but equal with the other Apostles in every respect but after that if any other of the Apostles came where they had the over-sight they were observant of them Hence was it that James was prolocutor of the Councel at Hierusalem and not Peter because James was Bishop there I may from thence infer that if Peter came to Rome for the same reason he was observant of Paul and therefore it is conceived that in case of necessity Priests may ordain Bishops for that Bishops in relation to their Jurisdiction are not a Sacramentall Order but onely as they are Priests But if this opinion be by the learned condemned I shall submit and yet with confidence affirme that we may in England claim a Church notwithstanding For when Queen Elizabeth turned out some Popish Bishops those that were put into their roomes were ordained by the remaining part of the old Bishops For all the old Bishops were not turned out then nor in Hen. 8. his time For first in Hen 8. time the controversie was about Supremacy which question the Insolencies of the Pope occasioned though I doe not justifie that Prince for all he did and being once started it gave occasion of further scrutiny into the primitive Fathers and Councels Reformation of England Infra 55.5 chap. which did so far perswade the Consciences of the then Clergy that many of them did adhere to the Prince against the Pope and by that and other after inquisitions they found they had primitive right of calling Councels and reforming things amisse in their Church without appealing to Rome and thereupon having the authority of Scriptures Councells and Fathers they restored to themselves their just rights and shook off their servile obedience to the See of Rome which the Popes continued over them by keeping them up in ignorance not allowing them their own judgements and illumination ecclesiasticall to understand the plain letter of any thing be it never so far demonstrated to the easiest capacity without his Holinesse interpretation and having thus shaken off that slavish yoke of Rome the scales of blind obedience fell from their eyes and they clearly perceived the Popes false cunning and damnable abusings of Scriptures Fathers Councels and what not thorow his unjust usurpations of universality and infallibility whereby he became a new Legislator of Divine rules of Faith which had in them too much of grosse and fleshly compositions tending meerly to enslave Christendome and to set up the Popes triple Crown for all the people to worship thereby making them forsake Christ and his Truth for the fables and traditions of that abominable Idoll And as In Hen. 8. time all the Bishops were not turned out so neither at the coming of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown but continued in their Bishopricks excercising their function ordaining others as formerly onely the Archbishop of York the Bishops of Elie Lincoln Bath Worcester and Excester were outed and the Bishops of Saint Asaph Bangor London and Chester fled the rest continued and ordained others The Queen her self being Enaugurated by Bishop Oglethorp one of Queen Maries Bishops and Bishop of Carlisle and Parker the Arch-bishop
Council at Ravenna and sentenced the Acts of Pope Steph. which were in a Synod by him decreed to be burned The Council of Constantinople took away the cup which another Council restored and which decree of the Council of Constantinople and the now present practice of Rom's Church in that point is utterly against the doctrine of Christ and the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church as I shall shew in the sixteenth Chap. The Council of Nice declared Angels to be circumscriptible and the souls of men and that they have bodies and are visible and circumscriptible which is against the rules of our faith for we believe that God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible and if Angels and Spirits be visible then are there no invisible things as one argues upon this point But I do not much urge this in regard some hold that spirits may assume visible shapes nor doth my argument much rely upon this mistake in that Council I need not rifle much into Councels to pick out contradictory Canons sith the Councils themselves declare they are not infallible insomuch that the whole Council prayeth at the end of every Council in a set form of prayer that God would pardon their ignorance and errors quia conscientia remordente fabescimus c. and because our own conscience accusing us we do faint lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error and hasty will driven us to decline from thy will and pleasure of heavenly Father c. In which it appears that they confess the frailty of that Assembly that it may not onely err in matter of fact through ignorance but in faith also by declining from justice Lame and frivolous therefore are those distinctions Alledged that the contrary decrees of later are but the explications of former Councils by which the Papists would deceive the world that Councils do but declare and explain the meaning of former Councils but do never gainesay any by a contrary decree for the contrary is absolutely proved to you already in that they are diametrically opposite one to another and besides the four first Councils were reputed and taken to be so holy that Gregor the Gr. in regist primo libr. 24. and Masilius def pac dict 2. fol. 229. affirm they are to be believed sacred tanquam quatuor Evangelia and if a later council shall decree any thing contrary to them it shall not be received into the Church How then can the Church of Rome for shame claim universality to her self and supream jurisdiction the Church of Rome being but equal with Alexandria and declared to those Councils sicut Alexandria as I have proved in the second chapter But the Church of Rome by vertue of her new-acquired attributes of universality infallibility and supremacy may declare as she please and none to question her for it and she has her champions with Sophistry to make good whatsoever she proposes and therefore whereas those first councils were accounted sacred by the ancient Fathers even as the four Evangelists and therefore none might add to or diminish from them notwithstanding Rome may by her new prerogatives being declared above Councils do what she please and so upon the matter all Religion is by her made arbitrary we having neither Scripture Fathers nor Councels but must be interpreted by her after her own fancy and no other sence to be received of any thing though never so plaine but what she gives and whatsoever interpretation she makes through never so repugnant to the plaine text words and sense of Scripture Councils and Fathers must not be denyed but understood to be growings and explanations of the first faith spun out of the stock or depositum Ecclesiae with which delusive pretences of her strange contexture drawn from her own Spiders womb she entangles the lesser and small flies but the more sollid break the net of her artificial cunning and leave her in the snare she prepares for others and hereupon she has in the Council of Milan added a new Symbole of faith to the Nicene Creed which she cals new rules of faith which indeed are new articles of faith Explanations of Councils as common under one kind worshiping images supremacy c. which cannot be as they would have them understood explanations for explanations are declarative illustrations of a truth involved in some former article and not additions of a doctrine newly conceived for truth I allow that out of the depositum Ecclesiae Depositum Ecclesiae as the Doctor says fol. 123. there may be growings in faith and knowledge and new articles imposed upon the people by representatives in collective or Provincial Councels which upon new questions and disputes may resolve being the proper interpreter and reconciler of differences and by the authority of Scriptures frame new articles which before were not thought of as occasion to that purpose may be administred and having framed such articles by authority of the Church may deliver them to be received as matters of faith by which the people by the approbation of the civil magistrate of the respective jurisdictions are bound But if those be contrary to what former Councils have resolved it proves their decrees peccant as Romes supremacy by the Laterne and Trent Councils as against the first Councils of Nice and Constontinople or if those new rules or articles of faith be not warranted by Scripture they are not binding to absent provincials as I shall shew in the twelfth Chapter for it is cleer and evident that the Scripture is above the authority of any Council that ever was since the Apostles Council at Jerusalem and it self doth in matters of points necessary judge it self Infra 102.112 as is in that Chapter plainly proved though all those points were not at first digested into a Symbole of faith Scriptures above Councils For if by authority of explanation the Church represented in ordinary councils shall not be bound by Scripture so that she shall not frame new rules contrary to the plaine letter of those points of our salvation the Holy Ghost has set down in the Scriptures we do then submit the whole matter of our salvation unto the power of humane judgements and so make void the dictates of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures at the wils and discretions of mortal men which though they were Angels sent from heaven in that case are not to be believed shall they teach contrary to that the Apostles here delivered therefore I say because all points of salvation may not be methodized into a certaine Symbole and rule of faith the Church as occasion may require may out of the treasure of the Scriptures take new rules but those rules must not impugne the plain letter of Scripture which because such a Council is fallible must be made the square and rule to judge that Council by Now because God has promised his Spirit to his Church and Councils are the representation of
must we admit that they taught any thing contrary to what they writ they had the Holy Ghost that never-erring Spirit that did lead them into all truth and could not at one time write one thing and after teach another We allow that they did deliver traditions to the people but Saint Peter in his 1 Epist 1.25 tells us it was the word of the Lord that was preached amongst them for nothing contrary to that was preached and delivered and that the people were bound to observe all things they did teach by the commandment of God Mat. 28.20 and therefore Saint Paul enjoynes the Thessalonians 2 Thess 2.15 to hold fast the traditions they had learned whether by word or Epistle The old Testament was delivered by the Jews and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles and therefore the Church of Rome did embrace that and reject the other traditional books of the Jews which were not by Moses written or by Christ approved of Now we make bold in this to follow her example if the Church of Rome have any traditions which are not repugnant to the written word we shall not disallow of them but if they make against that with the Evangelists and the Apostles have delivered to us in writing which writing we approve in our Judgement as the infallible oracles of God we by her own eâ—ample as rejecting those traditions of the Jews which were not consonant to the written law of Moses or approved of by Christ and likewise by warrant of Christ not to leane to the traditions of men and to cast off the commandments of God desire to be excused for not embracing every tradition the Church of Rome would obtrude upon us and we perswade our selves that sith she hath rejected the traditions of the Jews because not warranted by the written word she cannot be so impartial to deny us the same liberty to reject her traditions upon the same score and that the rather because she hath not so good a ground for her traditions as the Jews had in respect Moses talked with God face to face Exod. 33. Besides the Jews traditions were certaine and reduced into writing by the late Rabbins and therefore the Church of Rome might better have embraced them then think that we shall follow hers which are daily of new invention After the destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of the Jews Papist traditions uncertaine one Rabbi Juda Hannasi got leave of Antoninus to assemble the people and because the books of their old traditions were utterly lost and perished they then being met writ all that they could remember The Jews Talmud calling it Mischna that is Deuteronomy or a Law reiterated which was a memorial of their Cabala or traditional law which collections of theirs were afterward Anno Christi 219. by Rabbi Jochanan enlarged and called the Talmud which Talmud was after Anno Christi 500. perfected and received as a Rule in all cases Ecclesiastical and civil So that the Jews having thus reduced their traditions into certainty it were more reasonable for the Church of Rome to embrace them then to think that we shall hand over head accept of her ever-growing traditional rules which are not held forth in any certainty to us but every day upon colour of Church-traditions she plays an Affrican trick and brings out new monsters so that I may say it is as easie to make a gown for the Moon as for any man to think he can keep and observe her traditional rules The variety of her strange production in this particular might serve to cloy the appetite of any that should desire to render himself obedient to her rules but the vanity of them and their contrariety to Gods word doth more especially and justly detaine every good Christian for being her superstitions proselyte to embrace them and eâ—pecially those Christians which are not within her jurisdictions nor belonging unto his charge Amongst whom I may rank our English Church which being of Apostolical foundation and in power and Church-authority equal with the Church of Rome and for that the Law of God was as well extended to other Churches and particularly to her as to Rome as I have proved in the second and fourth Chapters may in that respect as well prescribe traditional law to the Church of Rome as she should send forth her historical edicts to England Yet lest some may think that if uppon this score we cast off her traditions we do but thereby evade the question of validity and authority of her traditions in themselves as they are by her held forth unto the world I will therefore make it evident that neither those of her own Church and province nor the Romane Catholicks of other Kingdomes are bound or ought to receive and embrace whatsoever traditions the Church of Rome shall hold forth to them as being so imposed upon them to be received for matter of faith I have in some measure in the former Chapter treated upon the authoâ—ity and excellency of Scriptures wherein I have shewed that she is the ground and foundation of the Church and if so then it follows that whatsoever tradition the Church shall deliver as matter of Doctrine must either stand upon this ground-work or else â—t is a paper-building an airey peece a black cloud of humane condensing hurried to and fro by contrary winds â—ill the loosly-contracted vapour dash â—t self upon this rock of Christ and â—â—ke smoak vanish into nothing She â—s the touchstone must distinguish the gold from the drossy and courser peeces of Rom's treasure she is the Fan must winnow and purge the floor of the Churches granary from all chaff and light corn and from those Tares which being cast into her field by Satan sprung together with her better graine And hereupon the good Emperor Constantine as it is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History lib. 1. cap. 7. did say That seeing the Evangelical and Apostolical books and the Oracles of the Old Testament do plainly teach us any thing that we ought to know or learn concerning God whether concerning his Divine Nature as Saint Luke useth the words Acts 17.25 Or his attributes and qualities as Saint Peter applies it 2 Pet. 1.5 Or his Law and Religion as the penner of Maccabees takes it 2 Mac. 4.7 Away therefore with all strife and seek for the solution of these matters out of the Scriptures inspired by God himself And herewith agreeth Bellarmine Tom. 1. Col. 2. saying That the books of the Prophets and Apostles are the true word of God and the sure and true rule of our faith And as I said before in the precedent Chapter All things necessary to our salvation are contained in the Scriptures It is true indeed that in the Scriptures we do not finde any mention of Peter being Bishop of Rome or of the Assumption of Mary the mother of Jesus nor can we finde by Scriptures that Saint Luke was a Painter or that Nicodemus had so much
which she would derive all her power and jurisdictions doth therefore teach the people this tradition under paine of Anathema That Jesus met Peter as he was going out of Rome and the steps of their feet as they two stood talking have left an impression in the place which remaines to this day Now let a man examine the Scriptures and he shall find Saint Peter himself witness against this tradition in the third of the Act. 21. where he says That Christ ascended and the heavens shall containe him till he come which coming is called his second coming to Judgement according to the Article of the Apostles Creed and therefore that he should be bodily there with Peter so bodily as to leave the impression of his footsteeps is against Saint Peters own saying against the whole current of the Scriptures and against the Apostles Creed So I referr this to the Reader whether to believe Saint Peter himself or his pretended successor in this point It may be that Peter might see Christ in a vision as Stephen did Act. 7. but not bodily for that he is there in heaven whom the heavens must containe till all things be dissolved Another tradition the church of Rome teaches How that in the Church of the Fryers minors at Rome is a picture of the Virgin Mary drawn by Saint Luke which Gregory carrying in procession in the time of a Plague the Plague ceased and they taught the people that it was by our Ladyes meanes for the honor done to her Image and so ascribe that to her which is due unto the Lord God he correcting by Judgements and out of his goodness extending his mercy as seems best to his divine wisdome and hereby they neglect that duty God has enjoyned them in that they did flye to the Lady Mary for succor in that day of their visitation whenas God has commanded them to call upon him in the day of trouble and he will hear them The Papists likewise teach that in the Church of Sebastian in Rome an Angel appeared to Saint Gregory as he was saying Mass at the Altar of Saint Sebastian and said to him these words In this place there is true remission of all sins brightness and light everlasting joy and gladness without end And this favours of Atheisme to affirme that on earth there can be light everlasting as if the world should never have an end which is contrary to Scripture for that they plainly affirm an utter dissolution of all things 2 Pet. 3. And Saint Matthew witnesses How that at the end of the world the Sun shall be turned into darkness and the Moon and the Stars shall lose their light the Stars shall fall from Heaven and the powers of the Heavens shall be shaken They likewise teach that in the Church of Calixius is the Altar whereon Saint Peter said Mass which is not probable in respect he never mentions it in Scripture nor Saint Luke that ever he used any such thing besides the sacrifice of the Altar is against the Scripture as may appear in the sixteenth Chapter The Church of Rome likewise teaches that in the Church of Saint Johns the Lateran in Rome is a Chappel called the Sacrists wherein is remission of all sins both à poena culpa and that not far from the same Chappel is an ascent of thirty two steps which were the same Christ went up when he went before Pilate and were brought from Hierusalem thither and that whosoever ascends those steps for every step he hath a hundred yeers of pardon which is contrary to the Scriptures Matth. 1.21 It is Jesus that must save his people from their sins and the whole Scriptures witness that by his stripes we are healed it is his blood that is shed for many for the remission of their 〈◊〉 It is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world Joh. 1.29 Neither is there salvation in any other Act. 4.12 and through his name all that believe shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 he being for that end sent into the world 1 Tim. 1.29 which gave himself for our sins that he might redeem us out of this present evil woâ—ld Gal. 1. and is a reconciliation for our 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 4. without which we are not cleansed his blood onely being our remission Hebr. 9. Wherefore how â—bominable is this Romish tradition which is for no other end but to cozen people out of their money who for the pardon to be received by going up those steps must liberally disâ—urse to his holiness use who more thinks upon that private advantage then Christian-like considers how by â—hat tradition he makes the death of Christ in vaine With many such like traditional stories doth the Church of Rome delude her blind votaries which I blush to repeate and will rather send the Reader to her own Legends where he shall finde great store of these Papal knocks then that I should be the â—uthor to discover these her fopperies which I rather wish were not at all then to her shame to be remembered For my part I honour Rome as the metropolis of Europe and her Church as being at first of Apostolical faith and doctrine and do heartily wish that these late gross absurdities I finde repeated of her were not true that so we might embrace her as one sister and might together serve the true and everliving God who is a Spirit and will be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth and that we might together keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace for GOD is not the Author of confusion but of Peace as we see in all the Churches of the Saints Thus Reader I have briefly run through most part of the Doctors book and though I have not observed the very same method the Doctor has followed yet many of his Chapters being to one and the same purpose as who please to peruse his book will finde it true I have couched an answer to most material parts thereof in what I have formerly writ and now I am come to his twentieth Chapter which is concerning the Popes headship Now for that I have given answer to this in the second Chapter in relation to his universality it may be thought by some needless to treat any further thereof in relation to his spiritual jurisdiction and for that the Doctor hath not at all treated of his Temporal power it may be others be thought extravagant in me to add a Chapter concerning that particular Yet because that the Pope is bolstered up in this point by vertue of his Spiritual headship by many who extend it generally as well over temporalties as spiritualties And for that the Doctor having formerly treated of Romes Catholickship and of her universality and of her being the onely Catholick Church yet notwithstanding adds this twenteth Chapter of the Popes headship and for that as I said this headship is by same extended unto Temporalties I crave pardon to add this ensuing Chapter
thereof as may be proved by these examples Pope Agatho who when Constantine Pogonot the Emperour called a Councel Consiant Pogonot ante writ that he had sent his fellow-servants to his most excellent Lord according to the most holy Decree of his Princely Majestie and the duty he owed him After that Leo the fourth shewed to the Emperour Ludovicus the second that if he had not dealt justly with them over whom he was placed whatsoever was amiss he would amend at the discretion of his Excellency And some other Presidents of this nature I have shewed in the fourth and tenth Chapters Thus you see in all Ages Ante ch 10 and ch 4. the Popes acknowledged themselves obedient and subject to the Emperours till that fire-brand of dissention Haldebrand ante Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh opposed Henry the fourth which by the Fathers of those days was called Novellum Schisma Neither did it pass unpunished he being afterwards thrust from the Popedom and himself confessing at his death the unjustness of his proceedings as I have formerly touched in the sixth Chapter And as Hildebrand escaped not the divine hand of Vengeance so did none after him attempt the like but it was punished either in themselves or their immediate successor Pope Innocent the third did excommunicate Frederic the second but the Bishops of Germany denyed to obey the Bull insomuch that one Eberhardus Archbishop of Saltzburg did condemn that proceeding of Pope Innocent against Frederic and likewise disapproved of what his Predecessor Pope Celestine the fourth had done to Henry the sixth uncle to Frederic basely and unworthily crowning him with his foot and what Pope Alexander the third most insolently and antichristianly did to Frederic the first treading upon his neck and calls them worse then if Luther or Calvin had been to have spoken their epithets in a full Councel all agreed to withstand the Pope in those his unjust proceedings The French and Spaniards oppose the Pope Nor were the Germanes sole opposers of his Holiness in this point as may appear by the practices both of the French and Spaniard The French as I have formerly expressed in the eleventh Chapter And anno 1600. the whole body of the Sorbonne and the University of Paris did condemn this tenent as Schismatical and pernicious And the Spaniards his dearly beloved Catholike darlings did in a Councel at Toledo oppose his Holiness in this point as may appear by the six Councels of Toledo can 18. Testamus coram Deo omni ordine angelorum c. We protest before God and his angels that no man ought to intend or enterprise the destruction of the King they having formerly by the fourth Councel of Toledo and can 75. established an Oath of Allegiance indispensable which was done anno 633. and was revived by the sixth Councel and since observed and kept even to this day the Pope having no right or usage to dispose of that Crown England not under the Pope And as of right this is due to other Princes especially may England claim this immunity she having had Kings to govern her before ever there were Bishops of Rome Nor can Rome lay any title to dispose of her Crown she having still continued a succession of Princes without any appointment by the Pope and having an ancient Law to establish them in her Throne without any appealing to his Holiness And should any under pretence of Religion as Allen did go about to betray the Magistracie of his native Country into the hands of a forraign power he becomes a sinner against the God of Nature rebelling against his own native Country to which he stands inseparably engaged to reverence obey and love and such his Treason is not any jot extenuated for that it has the cloak of Religion for no man must do evil that good may come thereon unless he think with the A theist that in nomine Domini begins all mischief Wherefore how Allen would answer his Treason before the court of Heaven he being naturally bound to his King and Country and not against that tye to confederate with strangers to make it a prey as he confessed to persons he did Quod lib. S. Art 7. page 247. let God and his Truth witness Alas it was not the Popes Bull could excuse that the Pope cannot dispense with inseparable duties especially when the interest of Kings is concerned he has no Commission but one of the Popes forging to dethrone Kings or to disengage Subjects from their stipulation of obedience Peters authority He as he pretends to be Peters successor is to use the Spiritual sword the Word he is to make intercessions and prayers he is not in that capacity to use the material Sword Peter had command to put up his sword he might not use it though in defence of Christ his Master his office was to perswade not to compel his commission was to feed not to kill to obey not to rule Christ commanded his Apostles to wash one anothers feet Peter was not to tread upon Kings necks nor was any to kiss his toe Peter would not suffer Cornelius to fall down at his feet and worship him but took him up and said Stand up for even I my self am a man And now that the Pope should cause all these things to be done under pretence of power derived from him seems to me a meer Solcecism and a knot so inexplicable that let the whole tribe of Ignatius Loyala study till their brains resolve to jelly they shall never produce a convincing reason for it And it is an arrant shame for Princes in the mean time thus to be troden by Romes Crows which like Aesop's Chough being made fine with others feathers moveat Cornicula risum It is brave pastime for the Grand Seignior to see his Holiness with borrowed feathers mount above the Eagle whilst other Princes like little birds onely stare with wonder to behold such a monstrous Owl abroad at noon-day neither offering to beat her back to her Ivie-bush nor to take from her their own proper plumes by which means they make the Pope an object of admiration and glory themselves of scorn and misery And whilst they suffer him to trample upon any one particular Prince they consent to their own ruines whenas they ought to make it their own case in general and every one ought to consider it as a wound in his own side in particular which whilst it is suffered and not remedied it grows to gangrene the very body of Kingship and all Temporal Magistracie Be wise therefore O ye kings and learn ye that be judges of the earth CHAP. XV. That Christ is spiritually eaten and drunken by the faithful and worthy Receiver That Christs calling the bread and wine his flesh and blood was a figurative speech That the outward elements are not changed and That the doctrine of Transubstantiation is utterly against the truth of the Catholike faith THe Doctor in
in it one earthly another heavenly by the heavenly understanding the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God and by the earthly the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies Shortly after Irenaeus was Origen about 200 yeers after Christ who affirms in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly and is voided downward but the Word spoke upon the bread is it that availeth Eusebius Emissaenus who wrote about 300 yeers after Christ de consecrat dist 2. says that outwardly was nothing changed all the change was inwardly As man made new in Baptism doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward without making any change in the outward man not seen not felt but believed so likewise when thou dost go up to the altar to receive the spiritual meat in thy faith look upon the body and blood of Christ and feed upon him with thy inward man By which it is plain that it is onely a spiritual change by faith not an outward and corporal change Epiphanius contra Haereses lib. 3. tom 2. The bread saith he is meat but the vertue that is in it giveth life Chrysostome who wrote about 420 yeers after Christ ad Caesarium Monachum The bread saith he before it is consecrate is called bread but after it is consecrate it is delivered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of the Lords body although the nature of the bread doth still remain S. Austin who lived about the same time in Sermone ad Infantes That which you see on the Altar is the bread and the cup which your eyes shew you is the wine but faith sheweth you that that bread is the body and that cup the blood of Christ Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Eutichem Nestorium proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ he enforceth it with two reasons the one drawn from the example of Man who being but one is made of two parts and hath two natures the Body and the Soul the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which saith he is a godly thing and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still This was the opinion of the Fathers of those days and thus Transubstantiation is a new doctrine and no otherwise held the Church of Rome for a thousand yeers after Christ there being never so much as question made about this point for a thousand yeers compleat the time of Satans being let at large Apoc. 20. at which time by reason of some pretended miracles this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach which being once published it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast if once they get rooting in any garden it presently got abettors and champions to justifie it against all opposers some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blinde Truth with subtil reasons others out of dulness of apprehension God having withdrawn his Spirit from them were given up to this delusion so that in 60 yeers this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth A mongst the rest one Paschasius was one that first publikely maintained it and after him the Popes enclined to this opinion insomuch that Berengarius a French-man and Arch-deacon of Anjou opposing this Heresie was himself censured of that he urged against the then Pope of Rome and was the first that ever was questioned for maintaining against this doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Pope adhering to the adverse party which was for Transubstantiation Berengarius was forced to recant the Councel of Vorcellense held 1051. swaying against him which opinion of his he again resumed and did recognize the Truth again after that the then-Pope was dead which when Pope Nicolas 2. heard of he sent his busie agent and Cardinal-Chaplain Hildebrand into France to bring Berengerius under coram nobis who being sore troubled and molested and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hildebrand that the current was against him through the treachery of a base timorous nature he suffered his noble parts his intellects to be clouded with the mists of the times errour and tamely did recant his former tenents and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holiliness in this point of Transubstantiation And thus this doctrine began And although Pope Nicolas did avouch this doctrine in a Councel at Laterane held anno 1059. Ante chap. 14. and there framed the term of Transubstantiation yet notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresie was Christned and put forth to nurse yet nevertheless it grew not to be free and to bear rule till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling and by another Lateran-Councel did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholike Faith enjoyning all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie Johannes Scotus who was called Duns lib. 4. writing of this matter saith that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly without Transubstantiation but it pleased the Church to chuse this sense which is more hard being moved thereunto most chiefly because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold Which kinde of blinde obedience Blinde obedience makes the Popish Religion in no better condition then the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the arbitrary power of a standing Legislative Councel which daily gave new Laws unto the people so that the people could not by any known Rule say their clothes were their own all the Law by which they derived any property being under an arbitrary power insomuch that as they were not secure by walking after any known Law so neither was it safe for them to rely upon such new Laws as the Councel it self proposed the Councel altering every day her own Laws as time administred occasion for self-advantage so that Athens was in a miserable condition during this slavery of her Legislative power not dissolvable by any Authority the people not having liberty to dissolve it and to call as occasion shall require a Councel to redress grievances and not otherwise to continue but to be dissolved that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable amongst them Even so stands the Religion of the Papists Now that the Pope is declared above Councels and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith by vertue thereof their Religion is a meer nose of wax alterable at his will and pleasure who has a faithful tribe of Ignations which will blandish his new doctrines and make the people believe they are but growings in faith whenas they are diametrically opposite to the Catholike Faith of the Primitive Church but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures it must be believed
as a matter of faith and that upon pain of damnation as witness this novel point and some others which are of later times crept into that Church And when any thing of Papal will and interest must be held forth to the other Churches then is the Lateran at Rome pitched upon Ante chap. 14. as I have formerly said as the onely convenient place to have the matter debated it being there likely to receive the least opposition by reason his Holiness is at hand to take notice of his enemies and to punish them and to flatter and promote such as stand for his Papal pleasure In this Councel of Laterane The Councel of Laterane chap. 17. likewise was hatched that other Cockatrice that strange brazen-fac'd and staring opinion of deposing Kings from which root of bitterness springs many tart branches of dangerous and poysonful Errours the nauseating juyce of whose sowre grapes being given to some other Churches to drink it hath intoxicated them making their Vertigious heads turn after the Laterane Weather-cock and in their brain-sick fit conceit that her high-reared Spire is the onely supporter of the heavenly Pole whilst the sober and discreet Christian knows that her proud top being exalted to that height is but so much the neereâ— the pattern of Babels Tower And whilst they think she is dignified before others her head being lifted above them others know she hath not whereof to boast unless in this That shee has the upper room in Satan 's airy principality which how much the higher she is lifted she is but thereby rendered more subject to be muffled with the black contractions of the Devil's Cimerian clouds of Errours And though the top thereof be forged out of that material Sword as is by the Romish Legends maintained which cut off Saint John Baptist's head it should not therefore arrogate to be the onely decolling instrument of Principality and Temporal power But I return to the subject matter of this Chapter That I may the further lay open the errours of the Church of Rome in this particular Miracles the cause of Transubstantiation and that the Papists shall not have whereof to boast in that I said they were induced by Miracles to maintain this doctrine should I pass those Miracles by in silence I will let the Reader know what they were It is reported that a Bishop of Canterbury about the time of this change did shew unto some for their conversion the Host turned into flesh and blood in outward appearance dropping into the Chalice and that thereupon they believed Transubstantiation Another is reported by Paschasius of one Plegildus a Priest of Almain who did see and handle visibly the shape of a childe upon the Altar and after it turned into bread and he was to receive it Another is reported of a Jew-boy who coming into the Church with another boy which was a Christian he saw upon the Altar a little childe torn in pieces and afterwards by portions distributed which he reporting was condemned to be burned but was after rescued from the flame by the Christians These Miracles were the onely arguments used against Berengarius and the convincing perswasions of the facile consciences of those days which how it stands with the doctrine of Christ Joh. 6.63 the practice of the Apostles the profession of the Primitive times and the faith and doctrine of the ancient Fathers let any judge S. Paul says 1 Cor. 11. That which he had received of the Lord Jesus that he delivered That as often as they did eat the bread and drink the cup they shewed the Lords death till he came Saint Paul calls it bread and the Evangelist wine and that after consecration and the Fathers of the Church taught that doctrine with them and Christ himself calls them bread and fruit of the vine and S. Paul The communion of the body And this being the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles though an Angel from heaven should come and teach any other doctrine let him be accursed Gal. 1. Wherefore these miraculous apparitions were no ground for Rome to change her faith in this point If these stories be true they ought to be considered as extraordinary apparitions like the light from heaven which shone about S. Paul These external miraculous apparitions were but to perswade the consciences of Infidels and Heathens to turn to the faith of Christ and to be perswaded of the truth of that Sacrament and not to make the true and already-grounded Christians to change the nature of their faith which is the ground of things hoped for and the evidence of things which are not seen Heb. 11.1 This was to perswade the mis-believing Jew of Christ and of the truth of this blessed Sacrament whereby he was to be made partaker of the benefits of his precious death and passion not to teach the Christian any new doctrine concerning the same These miracles should rather confirm him in his faith received that it was a spiritual banquet in respect that after the apparition as the story runs at the receiving that which was received was become bread again and not to ensnare him into this novel errour which was contrary to Christs doctrine the Apostles preaching and the practice of the Primitive Church But I will no longer insist upon this point I submit to any good Christian whether it be safer to follow Christs explanation of this mystery to be spiritual with which S. Paul and the ancient Fathers do concur then to humour the times and to be observant to the late Popes which about the time of this change were grown great and since have by cunning practices enlarged that power insomuch that now they are declared above Councels and whatsoever they propound must de fide be received upon the score of their infallibility be it never so contrary to the truth of Gods Word And they by this doctrine receiving advantage by their Altar-Sacrifices will not easily be induced to renounce the errour thereof and though never so palpably against the Truth of God yet the Jesuites will maintain it for their Masters advantage this doctrine tending more to his avail then any good to the souls of his flock Wherefore the Church of England having a right to reform errours in her own Province has chosen to cast off this blinde tenent of the Pope and his Parasites and she having the warrant of Christ the rules of the Apostles the practice of the Primitive Church and the consent of the ancient Fathers for her doctrine in this point hath therefore made choice with them in unity of Spirit firmly to hold and maintain that Christ in his humanity is not really and corporally in the Sacrament but figuratively in the outward elements being thereby signified and is spiritually eaten and drunken of the worthy receiver CHAP. XVI Against Communion in one kinde That the Church of Rome's withholding the Cup from the Layty is a novelty against Christs precept and the ancient
the Evangelists who witness with one consent that Christ took the Bread and also or after the same manner he took the Cup we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup for so we destroy the Sacrament as being of incertainty and having no certain ground either for its institution or the precept for the administring thereof Wherefore for the Doctor here to construe and or is to multiply contradictions and so his reason is become invalid in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is that this Sacrament is to be administred under both kinds therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sacramental Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup to be understood of the whole Sacrament rather then in many places to wrest and into or For the mentioning of Bread onely doth not exclude the Cup negatively but rather according to Cyprians speech by the naming of part of the action the whole is to be understood and herewith agreeth Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.17 And we that are many are one bread and one body because we are all partakers of one bread We must not think that because here Saint Paul names bread onely that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup for that is against the precedent verse where he saies The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ Besides in the ensuing Chapter he enjoyns both to be received and that to the people so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is onely mentioned we are not thereby to exclude the cup for the Hebrew phrase is under the breaking of bread to signifie the whole feast as in the Prophet Esay Frangere esurientis panem is as well to give drink as bread Besides should we admit of any other construction as that when bread is mentioned alone thereby to understand communion in one kind we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ and the rest of the Apostles which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds which were an impious and presumptuous charge Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein and let her not longer wrest mangle and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christs rules herein contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church and contrary to the judgement and practice of the antient Fathers and her own antient Bishops and that but for self-interest to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing taken up upon a light score and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years after Christ and let her confess the truth with us herein by which means she shall neither alter the sense nor wrest any particular word to maintain her doctrine herein and if she will not for unitie sake and for communion with us yet for avoiding an absurdity against her own principles let her never construe that place of Luke to signifie an entire Sacrament for then she makes the whole Sacrament onely breaking of bread and destroyes Transubstantiation As for the Doctor if he be not herewith satisfied but that he will persist notwithstanding that it must be understood of communion in one kind and furthermore to maintain that opinion will here construe and for or I must tell him that he has hereby wiped off one error which he elswhere fol. 337. taxed our Translators with 1 Cor. 11.27 which if it be mis-translated it makes nothing for communion in one kind but whether we receive the one or the other that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet and it doth further illustrate to us that though we receive the bread worthily yet if we receive the cup unworthily we are guilty of the body and blood which is an argument and indeed an absolute proof that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood therefore I encline to think with the Doctor that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles rendring and for or I find it various from the old copies and I will not presume upon the Doctors rule to justifie it however it is something excusable for that in the very same Chapter 26 28 and 29. verses eating the bread and drinking the cup is expressed and not eating the bread or drinking the cup which upon the Doctors rule for avoiding contradiction should be construed or but whether it be taken or or and yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind The Doctor layes down for the Priests receiving in both kinds Of the sacrifice offered upon the Altar by the Priest because he offers up a sacrifice I will therefore a little consider of that I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reasonable soul that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sacrifice and if so then by the Doctors rule they are to receive in both kinds because saith he Christs sacrifice upon the Cross is not perfectly represented but by both kinds as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacrifice of bread and wine For the better explaining of this point it is to be understood that there are two kinds of sacrifices one is a perpetual sacrifice pacifying Gods wrath whereby mercy and forgiveness of sins is obtained which is onely the death of Christ prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving which doth not reconcile us unto God but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him by faith in him which is the reconciliation for our sins even Christ Jesus By the first Christ offered us unto the Father by the second we offer our selves and all that we have unto him and his Father according as David sayes Psal 50. A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and Hebr. 13. Alwaies we offer up to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ and Saint Peter saith of all people that they are A holy Priest-hood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul Heb. 9. Every High-priest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar offered up in their Mass which who please to read may plainly discover that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law who did offer Bullocks and Goats for the sins of the people and therefore in the old Testament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices being indeed but shaddows and types of Christs sacrifice which was to come which was the true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats verse 1â— By
his own blood entred he once into the Holy place and obtained Eternal Redemption for us Christ was such an High-priest that he once offering himself by once effusion of his blood did cleanse the sins of all that believe he took unto himself not onely their sins which many years before were dead and put their trust in him but likewise the sins of those that until his coming again should believe in his Gospel so that we look for no other Priest or sacrifice to take away our sins but onely his sacrifice made once for all If he should have made any oblation for sin more then once he should have died more then once but he hath made a full and plenary oblation for sin by his death by the will of God are we sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made Heb. 10.10 For with once offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified If Christ then have taken upon him the burden of our sins and become a reconciliation not onely for our sins but the sins of the whole world if he himself have made a full oblation for our sins by the offering of his body once made how shall the Popish Priests be excused who presume daily to perswade the people they offer in their Mass a Propitiatory sacrifice and the same that was offered by Christ himself upon the Cross Which if it be so then may we say of them that they crucifie again the Lord of life whereas the Scripture tels us plainly he was not to be offered often as the High-priest offered every year but onely once did put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 For as a man must once die so Christ was once offered to take away sins for many and to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation for Heb. 10. Every Priest appeareth daily ministring and offereth ofttimes one manner of offering which can never take away sins but Christ after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sitteth at the right hand of God It is a rule in Logick Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur the Papists deduce this Doctrine from their other errors of Transubstantiation and so they proceed from iniquity to iniquity they hereby when they have made the people believe their transubstantiated god that now they may as well rob God of his office and their Priest may make a Propitiatory sacrifice upon the Altar for the sins of the people which S. Paul saith was onely proper to Christ himself He himself entred into the holy place by his own blood It was the office of himself to offer himself the satisfactory oblation for our sins by the will of the Father he being the High-priest of good things to come having an everlasting Priest-hood being holy harmless separate from sin made higher then the heavens which needed not daily to offer up sacrifice as the other High-priest did first for his own sins and then for the peoples for that did he once when he offered himself up once for all Moreover when the Popish Priests take upon them to offer up satisfactory sacrifice at their Altar it must either be understood such a sacrifice as the Priest under the Law offered which were but typical of the Messias and so they become Jewes denying Christ to be already come or else if they think they offer Christ upon the Altar for quick and dead and make the same oblation which Christ made upon the Cross they do hereby either deny the sufficiency of Christs oblation as if his offering once for all did not satisfie without their daily offering and crucifie again the Lord of life or else if that sacrifice of Christ was sufficient they must needs confess that this of theirs is vain and needless being added to the sacrifice which is already sufficient and perfect or if this of theirs be requisite they make the death of Christ of none effect or in vain because this their offering is satisfactory for the sinnes of the people This doctrine is very well known to have sprung up of lucre the Priests by this doctrine finding a means to sell Masses for the quick and promising for and in consideration of such and such Legacies to say so many Masses for the dead whereby they should be released from pains in Purgatory and finding the sweet benefit that doth arise by this doctrine to the Priests and to his Holiness by this doctrine and the other of Indulgences they bend all their wits and wholly apply themselves to darken the truth with the mists of subrile sophistry and fleshly interpretations of the word to gain grateful and liberal Proselytes to this their new doctrine I do not deny that this Sacrament is by some Fathers called a sacrifice it is so properly called but it must not be therefore understood to be a sacrifice for sin onely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or else it is called a sacrifice to put us in mind of the sacrifice which Christ himself hath made and so is significantly a sacrifice as the bread is called his body and the cup his blood And herewith agreeth Saint Austine in his 33. Eplstle to Boniface and in his book de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 5. That saith he which men call a sacrifice is a figure and representation of the true sacrifice And Magist Sentent lib. 4. distic 12. That which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice because it is the memory or representation of the true sacrifice of Christ and that holy oblation made in the Altar of the Cross And Chrysostome upon the Hebr. That which we offer is but in remembrance of Christs sacrifice he himself in his own Person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross by whose wounds all our diseases are healed all our sins pardoned and so did never any man or creature but he the benefit whereof is in no mans power to give unto another every man must receive it at Christs hands himself by his own faith and belief we are made one body as many as are partakers of one bread If then this be a representation of Christs sacrifice which sacrifice by the Doctors own confession is not perfect without the cup then must the people either receive both kinds or else they do not sufficiently commemorate Christs sacrifice which they ought to do in respect the Priest doth not nor can offer up a Propitiatory sacrifice for the Reasons aforesaid As this Sacrament has the name of a sacrifice it is to be understood significantly of Christs sacrifice or else as it is in it self a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving if it be significantly a sacrifice the people ought to be partakers of it as it is a perfect sacrifice in both kinds and if it be a sacrifice of praise and laud unto the Lord then the people as well as the Priest are required to and concerned
I have partly shewed was beyond their compass to take from them The Jesuites being beaten from this hold of the Keys they betake themselves to the treble Pasce which after Christs resurrection was said unto Peter Joh. 21. and would fain deduce this power from thence and so perswade the world that the Shepherds Crook is the Arms of all other Sees not of Rome the Bishop thereof being no ordinary Pastor but one that is known by more Nable bearing viz. Mars a Papal Mitre ensigned with a triple Crown and a Cross Pater Sol which in my opinion stands for no good denotement of Episcopal dignity in respect it doth not sympathize with the Successor of Peter and therefore serves rather to denote him sprung of another tribe But this by the way They would fain perswade the world The treble Pasce doth not extend to depose Kings that this power was given to Peter by vertue of the treble Pasce and by his being Bishop of Rome is devolved upon the Pope which I have already touched in the second Chapter That nothing doth belong to Rome any more then anyother See Apostolique by any power thereby given I will onely for better illustration of the present point add this viz. That Peter and Paul both submitted unto Domitius Nero a cruel Heathen and persecutour neither did they thunder out any Excommunication against him thereby denouncing him uncapable to rule which if they had thought to have been so certainly they would not have concealed it at their sufferings when they saw they must die and all hopes of their natural lives debarr'd from them If Peter suffered at Rome he left no such Testimony behind him nor Paul neither so that for the Pope to aspire to this prerogative upon Peters score is an injury to that blessed Apostle he having received rules from his Master Christ to the contrary of which both he and the rest of the Apostles were faithful witnesses in their sufferings The Papists beaten from all Scripture there being neither from thence nor any practice Apostolical the least warrant for this their presumptuous claim they then begin to strive with flesh blood and forsaking the rules of Christ and the exmples of Peter and the rest of the Apostles notwithstanding they would have Peter to be the Rock of the Catholike Church they quit the harbor adjoyning to that Rock and rove themselves upon the billows of strange contests And as when the Fish Meron perceiving a storm lays hold upon a chance pimple stone thinks to save it self from the tossing of the waves by sticking to that whenas both it and its stone are tumbled to and fro at the will of the sea so these men think by a new-found invention of their own to make good this their bold assertion against all opposition whenas any reasonable Christian may easily refute the same and if with reason they will not be driven off it dash their brains against Peters Rock Wherfore they blush not to affirm that God was not provident enough to his Church if he should leave her without a head to rule and govern her and as a widow to be despoiled by any Heather or persecuting Prince and therefore of necessity the Pope must have this power they are the principal wards in S. Peters Keys to depose Princes and excite subjects to oppose them if occasion be otherwise the Church should want the Pope her Head that Pillar to support and that Eye to direct her as Cardinal Allen in his Apology observes Allen for deposing of Princes This Doctrine of Allen is gross and Heathenish tending to Blasphemy and infidelity infidelity in Gods promise he having promised his Spirit to his Church to the end of the world and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it she shall not be totally extirpated from off the earth till Shilo come though she may be invisible in this or that Country as I have shewed in the fifth Chapter and therefore Christ bids his Apostles suffer for righteousness sake for Sanguis martyrum shall be semen Ecclesiae Wherfore for Allen to affirme that the Pope must have this power or the Church will be lost argues his distrust in Gods promise to his Church And it likewise savours of Blasphemy to tye Gods providence to the Papal Chair and so denying him a power or will to remove the Candlestick from Rome and to give it to another Providence as Aquinas defines it Aquinas summa contr Gentiles is said to be invisible and remain in Gods secret councel Nondum rebus impressa for after it appears and showes it self in effects sensible then it is called Fate not Providence Now for him to tax God of improvidence unless the Pope should have this visible power of deposing Kings is neither Scholar nor Divine like he might as a Sooth-sayer of Egypt experimentally upon the coincidence of the effect of some inspection or Heathenish observation as that when the black Eagle shall preach upon Laterane Steeple the top of Saint Angelo shall be lifted up as was at the time of Otho 3. and Gregory the 5. c. Or have foretold that it was the Fate of Rome that if any Prince withstood the Pope he should be deposed as was in Henry 4. and Gregory 7. dayes but not to conclude this upon Gods Providence which no man by the reach of humane reason is able to pry into it is more transcendent then the consult of flesh and blood can apprehend Saint Paul cries out How unsearchable are his Iudgements and his waies past finding out who hath knowne the minde of the Lord or who was his Counsellor Rom. 11.34 And will Allen take upon him to circumscribe Gods Providence To know the secrets of mans heart is Gods attribute but such is the gross impiety of this blasphemous man that rather then the Pope should want excuse to depose Kings he will take upon him to know Gods heart and prove this prerogative by Gods Providence whereby he runs himself upon these absurdities He doth hereby spoyle the honour and credit of the glorious Martyrs by accusing them of error or ignorance of error for tamely suffering whenas they should have resisted of ignorance if they suffered because they knew not the will of God herein And he doth likewise give God the lye for if it was God's providence to his Church to resist in case Religion be opposed by the Prince sure he would not have bid Peter go back into Rome as the Papists pretend nor would he have prescribed the forementioned rules of obedience which are diametrically opposite to Allens pretended knowne Providence It is not the revealed will of God that the Crosier should resist the Scepter and the Mitre the Crown none of the Fathers of Romes Church ever practised or published that Doctrine before Hildebrands daies and if it was Gods Providence first known to Allen then Allen proves the Church of Rome to have been invisible for 1074 yeares
after Christ and hereupon he has quite spoyled the Doctor for by this means he has hudwinkt his marks of Romes truth to wit Antiquity Universality Unity in Doctrine c. But my Cardinal thinks to salve up this errour by another trick and that almost as gross as this onely this reflects upon the Divinity that upon the Apostles personally He takes upon him to make known to us what was the secret opinion of Peter and Paul c. which have suffered for Religion to wit that they suffered because they wanted power to resist not that it was the will of God they should do so and so he makes the blessed Apostles and holy Martyrs dissemblers speaking one thing and thinking another For saith he as soon as a Prince begins to appear heretical ipso facto though Excommunication be not denounced he shall be put from his Kingdom for as Fame so Heresie gathers strength by going forward Which Axiome of his is verified in this for that since he wrote Bellarmine plows with his heifer and perswades the same Doctrine So that hereby S. Paul is accused of dissimulation That he should bid the Romanes obey for fashion-sake to please the times and so he makes the blessed Apostle an object of scorn not pity That he should be a time-server and yet play his cards so badly that he could not humour Domitius Nero better Is it likely that the Apostles would have commanded others to pray for them if they would have taken their blood if they could Unless these Cardinals would have them like the Presbyters of England who prayed for King Charles whilst their Armies kept him in prison or like Charles the fifth who commanded prayers to be made for Clement the seventh his deliverance and suffered his own Bands to confine him Is it likely S. Peter preaching the Word would bid them submit which Word he said should endure for ever 1 Pet. 1.25 even that Word which was preached amongst them if he knew that it was lawful for them to resist if they had power This were to ascribe want of faith to Peter that God would never deliver his Church out of the hands of Persecutors but suffer her to be always under Tyrants or else that Peter taught one thing and thought another And why should both Peter and Paul press this duty of obedience and submission and that not for wrath but for conscience sake were it lawful to resist This affertion of the Cardinal is therefore gross and impious It is plain by the Scripture that this duty of submission to the Civil power was a precept enjoyned by God not proceeding from any fear the production of a base nature And whenas Paul and Peter did practise and recommend this duty to others it was to give a testimony of their faith in Jesus who as he had laid down his life for them who wanted no power to have withstood the Jews he might have commanded legions of Angels to have come and rescued him out of their hands in obedience to the will of the Father so they as obedient sons of Christ Jesus whom he had in his blood adopted would according to his precepts and example lay down their lives for the testimony of the Gospel Solomon forbade that any should curse the King secretly in his conscience which sure he never would have done if it had been lawful having power to cast him off Saint Jude calls them filthy dreamers that speak evil of Government and despise such as be in Authority I wonder what he would think of those two Cardinals were he alive who would have the Pope drive Kings out of their Kingdomes if he can There are some Roman Catholicks who being with Agrippa half perswaded to be Christians and being touched in Conscience decline these gross absudities of Allen and Bellarmine as being pernitious and tending to the injury of Christ and his A postles and the holy Scripture and in that injurious to the holy Ghost Scripture being nothing else but the dictates of that holy Spirit But yet for all that they are so bewitched to the Roman Faith out of a blind conceit of its Antiquity and therefore of its truth that they will not leave her but strive to justifie her in all things and to excuse this point for that it is a point controverted by some of their owne Church and not yet decreed by any publique Councel nor ever must it be decided may the Pope chuse Besides should it be referred to a Councel there is no credit to be given to the result of that Councel for that none must sit there but such as first must swear to maintain the Pope in the very point to be controverted and so it would be coram non judice or if it should be decreed against his holiness yet by the prerogatives Spiritual of his late Laterane and Trent-assemblies he might notwithstanding repeal that Decree or chuse to obey it for that he is by them declared to be above Councels And till this be rectified this error can receive no reformation from a Councel nor can any satisfaction from thence redound to clear the scruples of any mans conscience in this particular In the mean time Popery is like the Religion of the Pharisees Councels declare one thing de fide the Pope is found contrary de facto so that as our Saviour said of the Pharisees Matth. 23.3 so say I of these Roman Catholicks All that such a Councel should so decree observe and keep but after their works do not for they say and do not The last shift that the Jesuites have to maintain this point of Papal prerogative is The Pope 〈◊〉 a temporal Prince that the Pope is more then the Apostles having acquired a Principality on earth and so by Jus belli he may pull downe one Prince and set up another for say they the Apostles had no charge but onely to preach the Gospel but his holiness the Pope has other fish to fry then what Saint Peter left him he is a temporal Prince he weares a triple Crown he disposes of Kingdomes Crowns Emperours Grants Dispensations sends Indulgences receives Appeals answers Ambassadours takes Homages releases Oaths dissolves Leagues interposes in the Election of Princes has an Emperour to hold his stirrop bring up his first dish a King to serve him at Dinner and many a glorious matter more which Saint Peter never dreamed on so that for him to depose Kings he being more then ever Peter was is no such a strange thing To which I answer 'T is strange so great a Potentate should be thrust up into so little a Corner of the Earth as the Territories of the Papacie are and yet that his Jurisdiction over other Princes should be of such vast latitude I perswade my self that as our Saviour said a Prophet is nothing worth in his owne Country so the Popes power is made more glorious afar off then it is in Italy taken to be whence it is that