same Faith with the now Roman Church from Christ and his Apostles to this time For 1. According to his own allegation the agreement of profession is never in any age entirely the same in points of Faith afore the sixteenth Century and the Trent Council In all the ages before the most he can produce is that after the five or sixth first Centuries some in each age held some of the points now held by the Papists but denied by Protestants the most we can find in the first ages is some agreement in rites and some priviledges of the Roman Bishop taken either from forged writings imposed on the first Popes or some sayings of Fathers misinterpreted 2. He confesseth sundry ages to wit the second and third produced no Councils and that he finds no general council nor yet provincial in the tenth age in which any controversie of moment was decided 3. Of those Councils he doth produce there is no one general Council alleged in the four first Centuries which was held at Rome or did acknowledge subjection to the Bishop of Rome as now they require and they being all or most of them of the Greek Church which did and doth yet deny such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. means it is falsly said that they prove his continued succession in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome 4. For the Nations converted and Christian professors in his Catalogue there were few of them Romans or converted by any from Rome or had any acquaintance with the Roman Church or Bishops and therefore to make them witnesses of a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the profession of the same Faith continued from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is extreme impudence and vanity nevertheless let 's view his Catalogue SECT VII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years IN the first age he alledgeth Christ and St. Peter the Apostle Linus Cletus Clemens and the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem St. Peter presiding Act. 15. as a general Council and then he recites eleven Roman Bishops from the year 100 and having said somewhat for Peters presiding and the translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome he names some Catholick professors to the year 100. and the spreading of the Church over all those Countries to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles and some others as France Spain England and some Catholick professors to the year 200. with a falsly so called Canon of the Apostles approved in the sixâ—h General Synod Answ That all this is little to his purpose appears by considering 1 That it is manifestly false which he supposeth 1. That because Christ is the chief Pastor of the Catholick Church rightly so termed and the Roman Church hath arrogantly usurped the title of the Catholick Church and the Pope is Bishop of that See therefore the Pope must be successour to Christ in such a peculiar manner as no other Bishop or Pastor is and that the title of Vicar of Christ belongs to him peculiarly which is the title blasphemously ascribed to him by flattering Romanists 2. That Christ hath a successor in his Pastoral office though the Scripture ascribe to Christ because of his living for ever an office which passeth not to any other as Aarons did Heb. 7. 24. 3. That Peter is successor to Christ in the Pastoral office he had and no other Apostle or Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though if there were any that could challenge succession to Christ or Peter it should be rather the Bishop of Jerusalem the mother Church if any where Christ Preached and as the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession offered himself being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. and Peter was Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and Paul when he went to see him which Romanists make an acknowledgement of superiority went to Jerusalem Gal. 1. 17. not to Rome and if he were President in the Council Act. 15. as H. T. imagins it was at Hierusalem not at Rome 4. It is false that either Christ or Peter or the Catholick Professors he names in the first and second ages held the same profession of Faith with the now Roman Church in the points wherein the Protestants who hold the Doctrine of the Church of England do dissent from them 2. That if all were granted H. T. which he saith about the succession in the two first ages yet it doth not amount to the proof of so much as one of the twenty eight Articles he holds in his Manual or the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed to have been held by any of them not the Popes supremacy transubstantiation invocation of Saints deceased half communion worshipping of Images c. For Peter might be President at the Council at Jerusalem he might translate his chair from Antioch to Rome it might be decreed lawful to appeal from other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome chief honour might be given to the Bishop of Rome yet neither Peter nor the Bishop of Rome the head visible Monarch or Ruler over the Apostles and the whole Church mention might be made of oblation and sacrifice yet the masse no properly so called sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead There 's not a word in any of Christs or John Baptists or Peters or Pauls or James or Johns or Judes Sermons or writings to prove any of the points of Popery but enough to the contrary Nor is there any of the rest of the Martyrs or Confessors alledged of the two first ages of whom he is able to produce any one sentence of theirs which may demonstrate their acknowledging of any one of the points now held by the Romanists which are by the Protestants forenamed contradicted which will appear by considering the frivolousness of what H. T. here produceth Peter saith he defined Act. 15. 7 8 9 10. That the Jewish ceremonies were not to be imposed on the Gentiles therefore he had the premacy over the Apostles and the whole Church as if the defining in a Council or Colledge did prove superiority By the same reason it might be proved that James had the premacy sith he spake least and according to his sentence was the decree Paphnutius in the Nicene Council as Sozomeâ—â—l 1. hist c. 22. relates when the Council was about to forbid Priests the use of wives defined the contrary and the Nicene Council approved it was he therefore the primate over the other Bishops in the Council as in consequence it is which H. T. adds Hicrom saith Peter was Prince and Author of the decree therefore he had the primacy that is the supreme headship over the Apostles and whole Church though being Prince and Author of the decree imports no more but to give sentence first according to which the decree was
framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
will and operation to be in Christ But this Author deceitfully conceals it that the same Council in the thirteenth action did solemnly condemn Honorius the Pope of old Rome as a Monothelite together with the rest and again in the Greek edition the first Chapter and that Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the sixth Council doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite and Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor inserted in the eighth action of the sixth Synod which was also done in the second Nicene Council termed the seventh synod in the last action As for that which H. T. adds of the definitions of the sixth Council against Priests marriage not giving grapes mingling water and wine adoration of the Crosse consideration in him that binds and looseth invocating Saints it is not worth while to insist on the examination thereof partly because some of the definitions serve not the purpose for though it be granted that there ought to be a particular knowledge of the sin of him that is to be absolved by his confession of it yet is not thereby the necessity of Popish auricular confession proved or the Priests power judicially and authoritatively to absolve and remit sins established partly because they are not all points of faith but either of disciplin as about the marriage of men in orders or of Ceremonies as about the mingling of water and wine in the Eucharist and partly because it is doubtful whether those Canons are truely ascribed to that Council there being some reasons tending to the contrary and partly because if they were their determinations there is little reason to ascribe any authority to them after the first six hundred years barbarism and many corruptions being gotten into the Christian Churches and the simplicity of the Christian profession very much changed into contentions about Bishops Sees Ecclesiastical priviledges humane ceremonies and such like abuses yet were all granted which he allegeth of the councils definitions neither the now Roman supremacy nor faith is proved nor from the Catholick professors as he terms them or Nations converted are either of them avouched in that age In the eighth Century things grew worse In it H. T. reckons thirteen Popes among whom there 's not a man of whom their own writers relate any thing that belongs to the Pastors of the Church of Christ to wit the Preaching of the Gospel but their intermedling with the business of the Empire and Kingdoms making Kings monks contentions about images in Churches enlarging their dominions building walls making decrees about shaven crowns and such like toyes ... Two Popes Zacharias and Stephen the second can hardly be acquitted from being sinfully instrumental in the deposing of Childerick King of France and the traiterous usurpation of Pepin As for the second Nicene Council in which H. T. saith were three hundred and fifty Fathers Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 787. against image breakers in which were decreed for images in Temples and the veneration and worship of the Saints Reliques Images and the Council of Sens about traditions though these things are but a few of the Popish doctrins yet we grant that then the Popes had gotten to such heighth as to justle Emperors and that the Churches in Communion with the Papacy were in that age and the following so corrupt as that traditions of men and decrees of Bishops were more regarded than the written Word and that thereby placing of images in Temples and their worship got into the Christian Churches to the promoting of that Idolatry in the Roman Church which hath made her the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth yet this was not done without opposition not only in the Greek Empire but also in the Western Charles the great calling a Council at Frankford which condemned the second Nicene Council And for the Catholick Professors such as venerable Bede and others though they were tainted with the superstitions of those times about monkery and ceremonies and ecclesiastical dignities and orders yet that they held the now Roman faith cannot be demonstrated nor that the Nations mentioned to be converted were converted to it And for the miracles mentioned there is no credit to be given to them many such tales having been made or such miracles counterfieted in those dayes for deceiving the ignorant people nor were they done in such manner and to such purposes as the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were by which the Gospel was confirmed In the nineteenth age H. T. reckons up eighteen Popes omitting the mention of one of them as a woman though a great number of Popish writers set her down as Pope and relate the story of her sitting in the chair some years till she travailed with child in procession But if that were not true yet the things related by themselves of Formosus Stephanus Romanus shew cruelty and wickedness in the Popes of that age one hating and undoing what another had done and thereby shewing that they were rather of Cadmus than St. Peters race And for the fourth Constantinopolitan Council Fathers one hundred and one Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 869. against Photius and for the Pope and images and against temporal Princes medling in the election of Bishops it is an argument that the Roman Bishops were gotten then by many wicked practices to a great heighth of unjust power And the deposition of Photius for reproving the Emperor together with his opposition of the Pope whose works extant do shew him to have been of more worth for learning than any Pope in that age and the Epistle of Ulderick Bishop of Auspurg to Pope Nicolas the first in which he rebukes the wickedness of Popes in denying marriage to the Clergy do prove that the doctrin and tyranny of the Popes of Rome did not freely pass without controul even in that age which by the confession of Genebrard himself Chron. l. 4. was an unhappy age for want of any writer of worth in the Latin Church As for the Catholick professors mentioned by H. T. in this age that they were all of the Roman church or professed her faith is not shewed not that the Nations converted were either converted by the Roman Bishops or owned their now claimed supremacy or professed faith H. T. saith the Russians were converted by a Priest sent by the Emperor Basilius and therefore had their conversion from the Greek church whom they followed and with whom they now hold communion not acknowledging the Bishop of Romes supremacy to this day and therefore that instance is manifestly against H. T. his purpose In the tenth age are reckoned twenty six Popes whereof there 's scarce any that may be termed a Christian much less a chief Pastor of the Christian churches Their own stories tell us of some of them that got the Popedome by means of Mororia a notorious whore others by cruel practises one to wit Sylvester the second by the help of the Devil
authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his
he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was therefore Elias spake figuratively when he complained he was left alone 3 Kings 19. Nay the contrary follows that he did not speak figuratively because God corrects him and shews his mistake in saying he was left alone that is there were no more besides himself left 2. But yet if it were granted that the speech is figurative and the meaning as H. T. would have it it no whit avoids our objection that the Church of God though consisting of seven thousand yet were so obsâ—ure that they appeared so few to Elias as that he took himself to be left alone As for the other exception of the Kingdom of Juda it takes not away the objection as the Protestants frame it but as H. T. frames it it is not our objection and so though the consequence be false yet it hurts not us who gather not hence the failing of the Church but the obscurity of it and that there may be a true Church which is so hidden that it is not discerned at some times no not by such an eminent Prophet as Elias and so though we cannot shew our Church in every age before Luther yet there might be then and we may be now a true Church for all that The next objection he brings is that though Arian heresie infected the whole world Ergo c. and answers you mistake the fury of that lasted not full fouâ— years viz. from the council of Ariminum to the death of Constantine and that only in the Eastern Churches the Western feeling little or nothing by it St. Augustin answers the Donatists objecting the same that even the canonical Scriptures have this custome that the word seems to be addressed to all when it reaches home only to some few Epist 48. To which I reply If the Arian fury lasted but four years and in the Eastern Churches only yet it might have been more than one hundred and then the succession had ceased and the Eastern Churches then were so obscure that a catalogue of professors could not be given though there were doubtless then true Churches in the East But it is false which H. T. writes that the Western felt little or nothing by the Arian fury for in Italy the Arians prevailed so far as to bring Liberius Bishop of Rome to subscribe to the council of Ariminum Nor do I know how the words of Augustin yeild any thing in answer to the objection that in the time of the Arian prevalency the Church was so obscured that the whole world seemed to be Arians therefore the Churches succession may be so interrupted or obscured at least as that a catalogue of it's pastors and professors at all times cannot be framed For suppose the meaning of the speech should be that the words concerning the number of Arians seem to be addressed to all when they reach home only to some few yet if the words shew the number so great as that the other part of the Church were obscured so as not to be discerned they serve to prove there may be Churches which are so hidden as that a catalogue cannot be framed But the objection is further pressed thus Object St. Hierom says the whole world groan'd and admired to see it self become Arian in his book against Luciferius To which H. T. saith Answ If she wondred she knew not when it was done if she groaned she approved it not being done therefore the major part were still Catholick To which I reply if H. T. did not presume he should meet with silly readers he would not have thus frivolously inferred from those words which were delivered to shew the Arians to be the greater part that the major part was still Catholick For who knows not that the expression is Rhetorical and the meaning this that Arians prevailed so much that the whole world that is all the churches of the East and West were so infected that they were burdened with Arians as a man that groans under a burden and that on such a sudden as that the accident was as it were a wonder now from such Catachrestical metaphors to infer as if they were proper that while the world was Arian it knew not it was done or approved it not is all one as to say when they were Arians they knew not nor liked Arian doctrine that is while they were Arians they were not Arians which is to make Hieroms speech self-contradicting But H. T. adds Let St. Hierom answer for himself The Bishops saith he against Luciferius that did the fact of Ariminum were deluded viz. by the new Creed there made which might have born a good sense few defending the fact and some lamenting it And St. Augustin tells us that the church then appeared in her most constant members Athanasius and others ep 48. To which I reply It is true that when they came to see their error they did lament it yet were for the time Arians and though Athanasius did not yeild to subscribe to it yet Liberlus Bishop of Rome did And I believe H. T. his fellow Papists will not allow his speech that the decree made at Ariminum might have born a good sense It is added by H. T. thus Obj. The church will fail in the time of Antichrist according to that unless there come a revolt first c. 2 Thes 2. 3. Answ No she will not she shall then suffer great persecution Apoc. 20. 8. and therefore shall be to suffer many will revolt all shall not I reply that if the revolt be of so many and the persecution so great as that they shall be dispersed and obscured so as not to appear it is sufficient to prove the succession to be then either so interrupted as not to be or so obscured as not to be discerned by enemies or brethren further off and so as that the making a catalogue of Pastors and professors in that age cannot be expected justly from the churches in after ages which is enough for our purpose to shew that the defect of such a catalogue shews not the nullity of the Protestant churches nor is with any justice or reason such a catalogue of Pastors and professors in all ages required of them by Papists Yet however this Author conceives his fellows the Rhemists Annot. on 2 Thes 2. 3. think the Apostasie shall be so great as that Antichrist shall pull down generally all kind of religious worship saving that which must be done to himself alone nor is that Apoc. 20. 8. to the contrary For neither is it certain that time is the time of Antichrists reign nor if it were doth it appear that the thing done is afore the end of that reign But H. T. adds Obj. What if men would not persevere how then you hold freewill I hope Answ With St. Augustine to the Donatists as if the holy Ghost were ignorant what would be the freewill of men which yet foreseeing he foretold that the church
when Athanasius and others were not And he might have so interpreted the Speeches he allegeth of Hospinian and the rest I have not all the Books he citeth but some of their words I finde not as this Author would have them Bishop Jewel having said pag. 208. And to be short all the World this day crieth and groaneth after the Gospel adds And all these things are come to pass at such time as to any mans reason it might seem impossible when all the World the People Priests and Princes were overwhelmed with ignorance when all Schools Priests Bishops and Kings of the World were sworn to him that whatsoever he took in hand they would uphold it Which Speeches are to be understood onely of the Western Empire as when it is said Luke 2. 1. A Decree went out that all the World should be taxed it is meant onely of the Roman Empire and when John 12. 19. The World is gone after him it is meant by an Hyperbole of a great part so the words of Bishop Jewel are to be understood as is usual in such rhetorical expressions though the words are not as this Authour sets them down that the whole World Princes Priests and People were bound by Oath to the Pope Jewel Serm. on Luke 11. In like manner when Calvin saith lib. 4. instit c. 18. sect 18. that the abominations of the Mass presented to drink in a golden Cup hath so made drunk all the Kings and People of the Earth from the first to the last he alluding to the words Revel 18. 3. is to be conceived as in that Scripture and many more to be understood by an excess of Speech a great part in comparison of whom the rest are as if they were not To the same purpose were the words of Perkins Exposition of the Creed vol. 1. pag. 260. col 2. c. as the whole period recited shews which is this And during the space of nine hundred years from the time of Boniface the Popish Heresie to wit of the Popes Supremacy spread it self over the whole Earth and the faithfull Servants of God were but as an Handfull of Wheat in a Mountain of Chaff which can scarce be discerned The next words of Dr. White himself in the same period shews his meaning to be of freedom wholly and of appearing conspicuously and to the World visibly to be seen by all and separated from the rest For thus it follows And whether any company at all known or unknown were free from it wholly or not I neither determine nor greatly care Nor do I question but that the same is the meaning of the rest if their words were rightly cited and the Reader might perceive how they are wrested by H. T. against their meaning and they wrote those expressions in like meaning with those passages of holy Scripture which complain of corruption as universal when the greatest or most conspicuous part are so as Psalm 12. 1. Micah 7. 2. Phil. 2. 21. SECT II. The Argument of H. T. to prove the nullity of the Protestant Churches for want of Succession is turned against the Roman Church H. T. further argues thus Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Protestants have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the nine and thirty Articles or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points Therefore Protestants have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Protestants have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their nine and thirty Articles or Luther in his Augustan Confession when he revolted from the Catholick Church no nor yet any one single Diocese or Biscop Answ 1. THis Argument is thus justly retorted Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Papists have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the Canons of the Trent Council the Articles in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points therefore Papists have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Papists have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their Trent Canons and the Articles of the Creed injoyned to be professed and sworn to in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth If any man pretend to such a Catalogue let him name none but such as held explicitely the Doctrine of the Tridentin Canons the Roman Catechism the Articles of the Creed injoyned by Pope Pius the fourth his Bull all granting and denying the same points that the late Faction of Romanists or Italian popish Sectaries granted and denied or that our new Reformers the Jesuites deny and grant for if they differ from them in any one material point they cannot be esteemed Catholiks Let him not name Christ John Baptist Peter Paul or any the Apostles or the Roman Church in their days For they did not admit and embrace the now called Apostolick Ecclesiastick traditions unwritten and other observances and constitutions of the Roman Church nor held it the right of the Roman Church to define the true sense and interpretation of holy Scripture to be received by all nor truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary to the salvation of mankinde nor allowed the received Rites of the Roman Church used in solemn administration of all the Sacraments nor all the things which concerning original sin and justification were defined and declared in the Council of Trent nor did acknowledge that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and that in the holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and blood with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood which conversion the Roman Church calleth Transubstantiation nor that under one kinde onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received nor that there is a Purgatory
and the souls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull nor that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto nor their Relicks to be worshipped nor that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God always a Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them honour and veneration is to be given nor that the power of Indulgences such as the Pope grants was left by Christ in the Church nor that the use thereof is most wholesome to Christ's people nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church nor the Mother and Mistress of all Churches nor that true obedience is to be vowed and sworn to the Bishop of Rome nor that he is the Successor of Peter nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the first five hundred years for they held not these points Papists pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years is very idle because were it true as it is most false that those Fathers were Papists yet could not that suffice to prove them a continued Succession of sixteen hundred years Secondly because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed then our modern Papists can now do and they have not protested on their salvation that it was the very same with the now popish Doctrine nor that they received it from them by word of mouth and so from age to age and finally because if our Tenets in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years then it is wholly impossible they should be for Papists and against us But our Doctrines in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years Therefore it is impossible that the Fathers of the first five hundred years should be for Papists and against us The Major is manifest of it self The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of those Fathers as also by what shall be cited out of them in the following dispute 2. By the ingenuous confessions of our Adversaries Cardinal Cusanus in his second Book of Catholick Concord cap. 13. saith The Pope is not the universal Bishop but the first above or among others Cardinal Bessarion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist We reade that these two onely Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel Cardinal Cajetan tract de Indulg cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the beginning of Indulgences there is no authority of the Scripture or ancient Fathers Greek or Latin that brings it to our knowledge Durand in lib. 4. sent dist 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be said of certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Rochester Assert Luth. confes art 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was very little mention or none at all among the ancient as the Greeks to this day believe it not which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine lib. 5. de Just cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteousness and for avoiding of vain-glory it is most sure and safe to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part 2. Th. qu. 80. art 12. qu 3. The custome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church Georg. Cass in his Defence of his Book entituled De officio pii viri saith The use of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the ministring of this Sacrament is both of the institution of Christ and observed by the custome of the whole Church for above a thousand years and unto this day of the Eastern Churches And although the use of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the most learned of those times never taught that it was necessary so to be observed Tonstal Bishop of Durhom de verit corp sanguinis p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist Polydor Virgil. de invent rer l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expurgatorius put them out had these words By the testimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worship of images for fear of Idolatry Cassand consult tit de imag It is verily manifest out of Augustin writing on Psal 113. that in his age the use of Images in Churches was not Claudius Espencaeus a Bishop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apostles by reason of the want of others Priests were married Greg. de Val. tom 4. disp 9. punct 5. sect 9. with others confesseth that in the most ancient times of the Church and after the Apostles death Priests had their wives Harding in his answer to Jewel on the third Article Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary when the faith was in learning And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people for cause of their further instruction who being of late converted to the faith and of Painims made Christians had need in all things to be taught John Hart in his Epistle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower In truth I think that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend of the other Whereupon I gather as a certain conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes is unreasonable and improbable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly much less to depose them or give away their Kingdoms that is no part of his commission He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himself taking no such title on him nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Disciples Bishop Jewels challenge and performance is known Bishop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal besides many other books are extant by which it may be plainly discerned that Papists have not the Fathers of the first five hundred years for them and that even the learned writers of the Popish party have vented so much in their writings as yeilds an apology for Protestants in all or many of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists SECT III. Protestants have had a sufficient succession to aver their doctrin in the Latin Churches BUt I shall add a direct answer to H. T. his argument 1. By denying his syllogism to
V. The Romanists Doctrine as it is now was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by the learned Protestants H. T adds a third Argument to prove that his with other Romanists Doctrines in which they differ from Protestants and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years which he thinks to prove by that he hath cited and shall cite out of the Fathers and the confessions of his Adversaries and to that end cites some Speeches of Fulk Kemnitius Whitgrft Calvin Whitaker Peter Martyr Duditius Rainolds Jewel and then infers triumphantly therefore the Father of the first five hundred years are not for Protestants but for us therefore Protestants are utterly at a loss in the point of continued Succession Answ 1. WHat is before cited hath been shewed to be insufficient and so will what is after if God vouchsafe me time and strength to that end 2. Of the passages cited the two last are not to the purpose and they are maimedly and corruptly cited The Speeches as they are cited say not any thing of the popish Doctrin taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years but the uncertainty of finding out the truth by their sayings without the Scriptures And that the dealing of this Author may appear I shall set down the words as I finde them in Jewel's Apology part 4. cap. 22. divis 3. For where these men bid the holy Scriptures away as dumb and fruitless and procure us to come to God himself who speaks in the Church and in their Councils that is to say to believe their fancies and opinions this way finding out the truth is very uncertain and exceeding dangerous and in a manner a fantastical and mad way and by no means allowed of the holy Fathers Which Speech is a most true and savoury Speech yet not in the least intimating a diffidence of the Fathers of the first five hundred years being for the Papists the contrary to which Bishop Jewel shewed in his famous Challenge at Paul's Cross and his making it good against Harding but onely vindicating the holy Scriptures from the foul Speeches of Hosius Pighius and other Romanists and asserting the authority of the holy Scriptures The other passage which is cited out of Dr. Rainold's Conference in H. T. it is printed Confess cap. 5. divis 1. is as corruptly and maimedly cited the words being thus at large Indeed Vincentius Lirinensis preferreth this mark of truth the consent of the Fathers before the rest as having held when they failed Nevertheless he speaketh not of it neither as that it may serve for trial and decision of questions between us For what doth he acknowlege to be a point approved and such as we are bound to believe by this mark even that which the Fathers all with one consent have held written taught plainly commonly continually And who can avouch of any point in question that not one or two but all the Fathers held it nor onely held it but also wrote it nor onely wrote it but alotaught it not darkly but plainly not seldom but commonly not for a short season but continually which so great consent is partly so rare and so hard to be found partly so unsure though it might be found that himself to fashion it to some use and certainty is fain to limit and restrain it Which words were sound and are necessary but not spoken out of any distrust of his cause or imagination as if the Fathers of the first five hundred years were for the Papists For in that very conference he largely proves that not onely the Fathers of the first five hundred years but also the succeeding Councils and Fathers till the sixteenth Century did onely yield the Pope a Primacy among other Patriarchs but not a Supremacy over the whole Church and that Primacy that was given him was by custome of the Church for the honour of the Imperial City which was auserible not because of any grant of Christ which was irrevocable Duditius was one whom by Thranus his description of him Hist l. 96. towards the end Martyr's Speech respects onely the point of vows which is not a point of saith Whitaker's Speech is not of the Fathers of the first 500. years but of the ancient Church which might be after or onely in some part of that time The words of Calvin lib 3. instit cap. 5. parag 10. are not rightly alleged being not together as H. T. cites them but injuriously pieced out of Speeches that are distant one from another He doth not deny nor yet expresly say that it was a custome thirteen hundred years ago to pray for the dead but whereas it was objected by the Adversaries he urgeth that if it were so it was without Scripture that it came out of carnal affection that what we reade in the Ancients done therein was yielded to the common manner and ignorance of the vulgar he confesseth they were carried away into errour but faith not they were all of that time carried away into errour that same testimonies of the Ancients might be brought which overthrow all those prayers for the dead that their prayers for the dead were not without hesitancy that they were different from the popish in divers things The words of Whitgifts Defense pag. 473. are mis-cited being not as H. T. cites them All the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church too for the most part were spotted with the Doctrines of Free will Merit Invocation of Saints but thus How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church yea and the Latins also for the most part spotted with the Doctrines of Free-will of Merits Invocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this time The words of Kemnitius I finde not perhaps because the Edition is not named with the Page But this I finde in the third part of his Examen pag. 628. Francos Edit 1609. that he not onely asserted but also proved that in the Primitive Church unto two hundred years after Christ born the Doctrine of the Suffrages Patronages Intercessions Merits Aid Help and Invocation of Saints in Heaven was altogether unknown and the reason or account of the veneration of Saints was then far other as we have shewed than that which was brought in I have not Fulk's Retentives against Bristow's Motives by me which I imagine is the Book which H. T. cites under the Title of Riot Briston but his citing with an c. and so small a shred of the Authour makes me conceive that he wronged Fulk by that maimed citation however sith the confession is but of three Fathers and the Saints whether living or dead
do prove the infallibility of the Roman Church or Oecumenical council or Pope but are impiously wrested to uphold the most cruel tyranny that ever was in the world SECT IV. None of these texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14. 26. John 16. 23. Act. 15. 28. do prove the infallibility in points of faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general council approved by him H. T. adds a third argument for the Churches infallibilâ—ty thus If Christ be alwayes with his Church and have made her the pillar and firmament of truth against which the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and given her the holy Ghost to assist her to all truth so that her definitions in an approved general council are the very dictates of the holy Ghost then is it impossible the Church should erre in faith But all this Christ hath done for his Church therefore it is impossible the Church should erre in faith The sequel of the Major is manifest by the very terms of the supposition the Minor is proved go ye teaching all Nations c. And behold I am with you all daies he is with her teaching St. Matth. 28. 20. The house of God which is the pillar and firmament of truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it St. Matth. 16. 18. He will give you another paraclere that he may abide with you for ever â—c He shall teach you all things and suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you in all points of faith St. John 14. 26. He shall â—â—ach you all truth no errors St. John 16. 13. It hath seemed good say the Apostles in council to the holy Ghost and to us Act. 15. 28. Answ This Author still abuseth his reader by putting his conclusion otherwise then his tenet For whereas his tenet was that the Roman Catholick Church is infallible he puts his conclusion thus the Church is infallible as if the Church and the Catholick Church were all one and the Catholick and the Roman were all one and the Church of Christ and the visible Church militant were the same which are indeed fallacies which easily take with silly or prejudiced Papists that take what is said of the Church to be meant of the visible militant Church and what is said of the visible militant to be said of the Catholick Church and by the Catholick imagin the Roman meant and by the Roman the Pope But to discover the vanity of this argument 1. The sequel of the Major is denied nor is it manifest by the terms of the supposition For Christs presence is with every believer and he hath made every believer a pillar and firmament of truth and against every true believer the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and he hath given the holy Ghost to every true believer to assist him to all truth as well as to the Church and his definitions are the very dictates of the holy Ghost when he defines according to Scripture and yet it is not impossible he should erre in faith Christ hath made promises of his presence and of his spirit and his spirit is said to be in and with every true believer as well as the Church Rom. 8. 1 9 15. 1 Cor. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 1. 22. and 13. 5. Gal. 4 6. Ephes 1. 13. 2 Cor. 6. 16. John 10 16 27 28 29. and yet believers may erre in faith Rom. 14. 2 3 5. 1 Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 1. and 4. â—0 21. And therefore it is not true which this Author supposeth manifest Not is the Minor trâ—e or proved by the texts he brings For the promise Matth. 28 20. is not to the Church but to the Apostles and other teachers who succeed them nor is the promise made to them that they should teach no error in faith but that teaching as H. T. speaks or as long as they teach the true faith he would be with them by assisting and prospering them in their work The words 1 Tim. 3. 15 may be meant of the mystery of godliness mentioned v. 16. thus the Mystery of godliness is the pillar and firmament ground or seat of truth and without controverâ—ie great which I do conceive after Cameron and others to be the truest exposition as the same Apostle in other places gives such elogies to the great points of faith 1 Tim. 1. 15. and 4. 9. and 2 Tim. 2. 11. and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 16. doth make it very probable Nor doth Grotius his reason avoid it For the mystery even according to this exposition is the subject not the predicate Others refer it to Timoâ—hy but then it should be in the accusative case But let it be granted that it is meant of the Church which is said that it is the pillar and firmament of truth yet it is certain from the very words that it is meant of that Church in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself which was the Church of Ephesus as appears 1 Tim. 1. 3. not the Church of Rome and therefore must be understood in such a sense as agrees to it which the Papists themselves will not say was infallible or could not erre in faith And therefore they must yeild it to be meant either of what they were in duty to be or what they were actually thus they were such as by profession and practice did hold forth and maintain and uphold the truth in those parts not that they held nothing but tenets nor so held forth the truth but that they might erre and decay in their holding out the truth For it is certain they did so Rev. 2. 4 5. Act. 20. 29 30. The terms the pillar and firmament or ground or seat of truth are but metaphors and whereas there are these two things signified by hem 1. The upholding of the truth so as that otherwise it should fall 2. The fixing of the truth there so as that it should abide and be permanent there doubtlesse the former sense cannot be true For though God should have no Church on earth or in heaven no Apostle Prophet Bishop yet his truth would be upheld his word is for ever settled in heaven Psal 119. 89. Christ who is the truth John 14. 6. abides for ever and the spirit of truth remains for ever and will uphold his truth If it were as some of the Romanists say the Church only abode in the Virgin Mary at Christs death or as others say in the time of Antichrist there shall be no sacrifice nor ceremonies nor religion yet the Gospel of Christ shall be everlasting as the Angel terms it Revel 14. 6. therefore of necessity it must be understood in that sense in which it notes stability permanency fixednesse or abiding and the sense is the Church is the company among whom the truth abides unshaken in which sense Revel 3. 12. it is said him that overcometh will
I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Maâ—omâ—tan who deny such inâ—allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confesâ—edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal moâ—ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.
the Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Constanâ—inople equal power with the Roman in his Province and ascribed the Popes dignity not to any grant of Christ to Peter but to custome out of regard to Rome as the imperial city not to the council of Basil or Constance which made the council above the Pope But H. T. adds an argument for the Churches supreme power of judicature That is the supreme Judge in every cause who hath an absolute power to oblige all dissenters to an agreement and from whom there can be no appeal in such a cause But the Catholick Church hath an absolute power to oblige all that disagree in controverted points of faith nor is there any appeal from her decision therefore the Catholick Church is supreme Judge in controverted points of faith The Major is manifest by induction in all courts of judicature the Minor hath been proved above by the first second and fourth arguments Answ It is denied that the Minor hath been proved or that there is any other Judge besides the sentence of God in holy Scripture which can so oblige dissenters in those points Nor do a great part of Papists themselves at this day namely the French Papists make such account of the Roman church oâ— Popes judgement but that they do conceive they may and sometimes have appealed from them to a general council Occham held that the Pope was haereticabilis that is might be an heretick some of them being suspected of heresie have been fain to acquit themselves to Emperours by Apologies some of them have been condemned as hereticks by general councils Fathers universitie of Paris Gerson wrote a book de auferibilitate Papae and the French churches conceive their churches may be without a Pope and well governed by a Patriarch of their own It is but a new and late invented doctrine of Jesuits and other flatterers of Popes that the Roman church or Pope or a general council approved by him are infallible nor is there a word in any of the Fathers cited by H. T. to that purpose The words of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 40. are cited maimedly by H. T. they are entirely thus For where the Church is there is also the spirit and where the spirit of God is there is the Church and all grace but the spirit is truth By which it may appear that truth is ascribed to the Church by reason of the spirit and that by the Church he means not only the Roman but any where the Spirit of God is and in the words before he sets down the truth he means to wit that if one God and salvation by Christ which he terms the constant preaching of the Church on every side and equally persevering having testimony from Prophets and from Apostles and from all Disciples By which it is manifest that he commends no other preaching of the Church then is in the Scriptures not the definitions of any now existent Church or after Church without the Scriptures The next words of Irenaeus are not as here H. T. themâ— 1. c. 49. there being not in my book so many chapters but l. 4. c. 43. and are alleged by H. T. art 4. and answered by me before art 4. sect 7. The other words of Irenaeus The Church shall be under no mans judgement for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect faith of the Father and of all the dispensation of Christ and firme knowledge of the holy Ghost who teacheth all truth I finde not any where as he cites them In l. 1. there are not sixty two chapters and in l. 4. c. 62. which I suspect by his former quotation he would have cited the words are thus After he had said ch 53. such a Disciple meaning who had read diligently the holy Scripture which is with the Presbyters in the Church with whom is the Apostolical doctrine truely spiritual receiving the Spirit of God c. judgeth indeed all men but he himself is judged of none in several following chapters sets down various hereticks whom he shall judge and ch 62. saith he shall judge also all those who are without the truth that is the Church but he himself is judged of none For all things constant are known or manifest to him both the entire faith in one God omnipotent from whom all things are and in the Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord and the dispositions of him by which the Son of God was made man the firm sentence which is in the spirit of God who causeth the acknowledging of truth who hath expounded the dispositions of the Father and Son according to which he was present with mankind as the Father willeth By which any one may perceive that H. T. if these were the words he meant hath corruptly cited them mangling them and perverting them to prove an infallibility and supreme judicature of the Roman Church or Pope for others which are meant of every true spiritual Disciple and his private judgement for himself and in the main points of faith and according to and by means of the Apostolical doctrine of the Scriptures which is the very doctrine of Protestants concerning the judgement which each Christian may have and hath in points of faith and the certainty of it according to the Scriptures which while he follows he is judged of none nor needs any ones judgement Popes or others to define what he shall believe The words of Origen That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagreeth from the tradition of the Church And in our understanding Scripture c. We must not believe otherwise than the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us prefat in lib. periarch Whether they be rightly cited I know not having not the book to examine them by and by his other citations as by his citation of Origen art 4. where the same words as I conceive are cited somewhat otherwise which are answered art 4. sect 7. before the words from the Apostles being here left out and his c. here I suspect fraud Yet if the words be as he cites them they prove not what he brings them for there being no restriction to the Roman Church much lesse to the Pope nor is the tradition of the Church said to be that which is unwritten and other then is in the Scriptures and the faith which by succession the Church is said to deliver is not meant of any of those points which the Pope would obtrude on the Church of God and Protestants reject but in probability the points of faith which were in the Apostles Creed professed at baptism which Irenaeus Origen Tertullian c. were wont to hold forth against the hereticks of their times and Protestants do still avouch The words of Cyprian de unitate Eccles are not meant of the Roman Church but of the Church throughout the whole world as the words precedent shew and the freedom from adultery and the uncorruptednesse and chastity of
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian nor to take on him to juâ—ge their cause but to remit them to their own Bishops 2. It appears by the fact of Cypriâ—n who opposed Stâ—phen Bishop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks as his Epistle to Pompeius shews and joyned with Firmiâ—â—anus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen and so involved in the same censure in which state he died without repentance for ought is known and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible or his judge or himself subject to him but counted Stephen an usurper over his brethren by reason of his imposing his decree on others and censure of dissenters And for the words in the Epistle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them To Peters chair and the principal Church infidelity or false faith cannot have access But to the Romans meaning not only the Bishop but the rest of the church and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or false faith whatsoever but those perfidious persons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian nor doth he say that perfidiousness could have access at no time but not at that time which he ascribes not to the priviledge of the place but their constancy in the faith heretofore praised by Paul and to the providence of Cornelius their Bishop and their own vigilancy as the words in the end of the Epistle shew Although I know there your fraternity to wit being fenced by your Providence and also wary enough by their own vigilancy cannot be taken with the poysons of hereticks nor deceived and that so much the magisteries and divine precepts prevail with them as the fear of God is in them yet our over abundance of carefulness or charity hath perswaded us to write these things to you being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epistle Marvailing enough when he observed by his letter that he was somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came and therefore doth earnestly press him to take courage and to withstand them Which being rightly understood the speeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman constancy and the inaccessibleness of perfidiousness to them appear only expressions of his confidence and good hopes not of any certainty that it would be so much less of any infallibility of their Bishop or church and this he did to engage them to withstand the schismaticks it being a great argument with persons to be constant to those who express their confiding in them and their expectation thereof And therefore he would have his Epistle read to the most flourishing Clergy there presiding with Cornelius and the most holy and most ample common people or Laity that if any contagion of poysoned speech and pestiferous sowing had crept in it might be all put off from the ears and breasts of the brethren and the entire and sincere love of good men might be cleansed from all filth of heretical detraction which shews that he conceived them liable to such contagion and pollution and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free All these things being considered it will appear that these passages of Cyprian are so far from proving the infallibility and supreme judicature and supremacy of the Pope and church of Rome which H. T. asserts that they prove the contrary The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worship of God this is the well-spring of truth the dwelling place of faith c. are true but nothing to the purpose it being a meer dream that the Româ—n and Catholick church are the same nor if they were do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith or supreme judicature in controversies of faith but the enjoying for themselves the true worship truth and faith The words of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed l. 3. c. 4 in apolog cont Ruffinum we subscribe to who profess our ready reception of what faith the Apostles commanded The words of Vincentius Lyrinensis adv hares c. 41. are thus not as H. T. cites them In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and studiously to be observed unto which they ought altogether to stick who will not be hereticks the first if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an universal council from all the Priests of the Catholick Church which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible much lesse that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible Nor are the words of Augustin which I finde not l. 4. de bapt c. 4 I know by Divine revelation that the spirit of truth teacheth it all truth if they be as H. T. cites them for his purpose For if by it he means the church it follows not he means the Roman church and if the spirit teach it all truth it cannot be meant of all truth simply nor at all times But I finde these words l. 4. de bapt contra Donat. c. 5. In vain some when they are overcome by reason object to us custome as if custome were greater then truth or that were not to be followed in spirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit This is plainly true that reason and truth is to be put before custome The words of Augustin epist 118. c. 5. are not fully set down by H. T. They are thus If the authority of divine Scripture prescribe which of these speaking about offering and fasting is to be donâ— it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read In like manner also if any of these things the whole Church through the world doth frequent For to dispute whether we are so to do is of most insolent madness Where 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture not in points of faith 2. Neither doth he count it madness to dispute against the use of the Roman church yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambrose to fast as they did at Millan when he was there and as they did at Rome when he was there Epist 86. ad Casul no nor to dispute against the whole church of one age but against the whole church in every age Other words of August cont epist fundam c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romanists for the asserting the authority of the church above the Scripture thus And I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it But the words are not thus rightly alleged For 1. The word Catholick is left out which shews he meant it not of the Roman onely and some words following seem to extend it to the church comprehending
thou me more than thou lovest them or more than they love me And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profession and shamefull denial 2. That Christ made Peter a Head or gave him a supreme Dominion under the term of Feeding But 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to rule but onely to provide pasture or to eate as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth Jude 12. being intransitive both of them where they are enjoyned to Apostles Bishops or Presbyters note teaching not imposing Laws on persons excommunicating depriving and such like acts as Popes claim as belonging to them as Pastours as may appear by viewing the places Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 20. 28 29 30 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power Jurisdiction and Government in Peter it proves every Bishop and Presbyter to be also a supreme Head and Governour over the Church of God 2. That Peter had no such Headship of Government and Jurisdiction given him in those words John 21. 17 18. is proved by the description of the persons to whom these acts of feeding were to done they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Christ not Goats now to the Lambs and Sheep of Christ no act of lordly rule such as imposing Laws excommunicating depriving or the like acts in which the Pope placeth his power of Jurisdiction could be lawfully done nor did Peter any such acts but teaching them being guides to them directing exhorting and comforting them which the Pope regards not to do were to be done to them Wherefore it is plain that lordly rule was not appointed by Christ but fatherly care and tenderness in that injunction and that which Christ enjoyned in his Commission to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do noâ— thinks it his work but another thing to wit princely dominion which Christ forbade 3. The third thing supposed is that because the terms are indefinite my Lambs my Sheep therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep even the whole Catholick Church which if true then it is false which Paul saith Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and the Gospel of the circumcisiou unto Peter and vers 9. James and Cephas and John did sin against Christ's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Heathen and James Cephas and John to the Circumcision and Paul did ill to style himself the Teacher of the Gentiles 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he should have boasted in another mans line or rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. sith all places had been within Peter's line or rule and he did ill to say Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and never mention Peter's Supremacy no not in that very Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Rome so much as once naming him who was if Papists say true the Universal Bishop and Bishop of Rome and sate there at that time when he wrote that Epistle nor doth Paul salute him when he salutes many of less note As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Christ it is very frivolous For an indefinite term is not all one with an universal unless the matter so require it but in such kinde of speecheâ— as these it notes onely indefinite particulars as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we should remember the poor that is so many as we could and when Christ bids Matth. 10. 8. Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead it is meant without exceeption of any yet not an injunction to heal every individual or to raise every dead person but such as there was occasion of healing and raising And when Mark 16. 15. the Apostles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature the Command is to preach to any one without exception yet not to every individual which had been impossible so here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely yet not all universally which had been an impossible task 4. It is supposed that John 21. 16 17. was a Commission conferring power authority rule and that over the very Apostles themselves and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection of Christ Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care not dignity or authority of empire and hath nothing in it of jurisdiction as a Judge or Commander but of faithfulness and diligence as a servant and guide And in this the Apostles were equal to him H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 97. The Apostles were equal in their calling to the Apostleship to which this of feeding the Sheep of Christ belonged and therefore Peter reckons himself but a fellow Elder and requires other Elders to feed as well as himself 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Ephesus are appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the Church of God which is as large an exppression as is John 21. 16 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headship in them as in Peter And Paul counted himself not behinde the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to â—im nothing Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him but was equal to him And to bid Peter to feed the Apostles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds The Doctrine of the Gospel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter but of the Apostles in common Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted persons and they were together nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd or by his direction but by agreement Gal. 2. 9. yea they sent Peter to Samaria Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection but a task enjoyned to him because of his more open denial three times charged on him as he thrice denied Christ and used as a stay of Peter's weakness rather than a mark of his worthiness much less a proof of his Supremacy SECT V. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy THe second Argument of H. T. is this He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith and is generally set bâ—fore others in the Scripture must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apostles in the faith and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures therefore St. Peter was above the rest of the Apostles in power and dignity and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest Answ The Conclusion it self might
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by
It is false that the Roman Church falsly by H. T. called Catholick was in most quiet possession of her Tenets when Luther began his Separation in Germany Tyndal in England It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught in many if not all the points in which Protestants do now oppose it 7. It is false that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception about the Popes Supremacy above a Council and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed as the event shewed no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day but each when occasion is offered contending for their way 8. It is false that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great or that Protestants do confess it It is most certain to the contrary that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy the Worship of Images Transubstantiation half-Communion in the Eucharist and many other points were brought into the Roman Church as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley 's Apology to King James hath proved 9 It is also most false that their Doctrine and Government were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles The contrary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans by Bishop Robert Abbot against Dâ—ctor Bishop and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fathers 10. It is false which H. T. saith It is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as may be seen in the Councils The contrary is most manifest that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage in which Augustine was present opposed the Popes Supremacy as schismatical that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical besides many other as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth SECT III. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks BUt H. T. saith Fathers for this Point though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Protestants being guilty of Schism or Heresie or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages or that in no case there may be dividing from it or teaching contrary to it without Heresie or Schism yea it is certain that Irenaeus Cyprian and Austin thought the clean contrary Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him Cyprian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization Augustine opposing Popes Boniface Zozimus and Celestine about the Appeal of Apiarius But let 's view their Sayings The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church ambitious men who have not the honour of God before their eys but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so important as the evil of Schism is prejudicious lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put prejudicious for pernicious or his Authour whence he had it for it is in Irenaeus Quanta est Schismatis pernicies But it appears 1. That he hath either not read the place or not considered it because he puts in God will judge whereas it is manifest out of the words following But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth that is without the Church but he himself is judged of no man and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God and the Apostolical Doctrine chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters the love of God into the honour of God before their eys 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes which was most true of Victor then Bishop of Rome in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eusebius hist 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants who neither make nor continue Schisms and that Separation which they make they do it for very great causes And he saith No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes as is the mischief of the Schism they make but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation or correption which is Irenaeus his word is so necessary that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent I add the words of Irenaeus the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors and Churches as Schismaticks and Hereticks who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints humane Satisfactions inherent Justice justifying Merit of Condignity have departed from the Apostolical Faith and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture The words of Cyprian de unit Eccles in the third Age against the Novatians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism that it could not be purged by suffering for Christ nor they be Martyrs though they died for the Confession of his Name is too heavy a censure yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants who are not guilty of that Schism The words of Chrysostom hom 11. in Ephes shew how grievous an evil Schism is but prove not that they are all Schismaticks that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof or the Romanists free The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controversie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be
subject which if so meant the words are not true if meant as Cyprian meant that there is one Bishoprick of which each Bishop holds a part intirely in respect of unity of Doctrine the speech is good but not against Protestants who hold the unity of that Episcopal Chair The words of Augustine lib. 4. de Symb. fidei ad Catech. cap. 10. if they were true yet are they nothing to the purpose unless it were said that by the holy Church he meant the Church of Rome or that he who is found out of the Church of Rome is a stranger from the number of sons that he hath not God for his Father nor will have the Church for his Mother none of which are said by him It is true there are these words in Austin's second Exposition on Psalm 21. with us 22. ver 18. He who hath charity is secure or safe No man moveth it out of the Catholick Church But these words are not against Protestants but against Papists who move it out of the Catholick Church and confine it to the Roman and most uncharitably damn them who are not of their party therein following the Donatists whom Austin there condemns who confined the Church to the part of Donatus in Africa And there is another passage in the same Exposition which doth justifie the Protestants and condemn the Papists in the main point of controversie between us what shall determine controversies between us they say the Church when the great controvesie is which is the Church we say the Scripture and so doth Augustine in these words The Testament of our Father that is the Scriptures as the words a little before shew is come out of any hole I know not what Thieves would take it away I know not what Persecutours would burn it Whencesoever it is brought let it be read Why strivest thou We are brethren why do we strive The Father died not without a Will he made his Will and so died he is dead and risen again So long there is contention about the Inheritance of the Dead untill the Will be publickly produced and when the Will is brought into the publick all are silent that the Tables may be opened and recited The Judge hears within the Advocates are silent the Criers make silence all the People is suspended that the words of the Dead not perceiving it in the Tomb may be read He lies without sense in the Monument and his words are in force Christ sits in Heaven and is his Testament contradicted Open let us read we are Brethren why do we contend Let our minde be pacified our Father hath not left us without a Will He that made the Will lives for ever hears our voices acknowledgeth his own Let us read why do we contend Where the Inheritance it self is found let us hold it These words were spoken by Austin against Donatists and may rightly be applied to Papists who are the true canse of all the horrible Schisms and bloodsheds among Christians because they will not try who hath the Inheritance of the Church by the Scriptures which are God's Will but usurp the name of the Catholick Church as the Donatists did and under that pretence trample under foot all their Christian Brethren in the World who have as great and better Portion in the Inheritance of God their Father and of the Church than themselves The words of Augustine in his Sermon super gestis Emeriti are not that out of the Church an Heretick may have all things but Salvation For he saith He may have the Faith which he would not say of the Heretick but he speaks it of the Donatists which whether it be true or no is nothing to Protestants who are and may be in the true Church of Christ and have salvation though they be not in the Roman Church The words of Augustine Epist 48. concerning the Donatists that they were with other Christians in Baptism in the Creed and in the other Sacraments of the Lord but in the spirit of unity in the bond of peace and finally in the Catholick Church you are not with us do not at all touch Protestants who are in the Catholick Church with other Christians though not with the Roman party who are most like the Donatists and the Protestants hold with Augustine in the same Epistle that that kinde of Letters to wit of Bishops such as Hilary Cyprian c. is to be distinguished from the authority of the Canon of the Scripture For they are not so read as if testimony were brought out of them that it may not be lawfull to think to the contrary if perhaps they thought otherwise than the truth requires SECT IV. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquiting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists It follows in H. T. Objections solved Object We separated onely from the Church of Rome's errours Answ Yea from her Catholick and Apostolical Doctrines She doth not erre in Faith as hath been proved I answer therefore with St. Augustine to the Donatists I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations cont Petil. Add no nor with any Nation before Luther I Reply that we separate from any other than the Church of Rome 's errours and sins is said but not proved and that she that is the Bishop of Rome and his party do not erre in Faith is not proved but impudently said against plain evidence of Scripture Councils and Fathers and I reply by retorting Augustine's words I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations particularly you English Recusant Papists H. T. and the rest are manifest Schismaticks for you separate from the Catholick Church in that you do not communicate with the Protestant Church of Christ in England It is false that those who held the same truth with Protestants under other names held no communion with any Nation before Luther For as far as they could and ought they held communion with a. called on the Name of the Lord Jesus in France Bohemia England and elsewhere under the names of Waldenses Hussites Picards Wiclevists Lollards and such like H. T. adds Object We refused onely the Church of Rome's Innovations and Superstitions Answ You slander Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same then that they have been in all precedent Ages Did the Church perish saith St. Augustine to the Donatists or did she not If she did what Church brought forth the Donatists or the Protestants If she did not what madness moved you to separate your selves from her on pretence of avoiding the communion of bad men lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap 7. And again We are certain no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations yet Martin Luther and Mr. Tyndal did it Epist 48. And in another place All Separation made before the
drawing of the Net on the shore at the Day of Judgement is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism which surpasseth all other crimes lib. 2. cont Epist Parmen I reply it is a Scolds trick to say we slander and not to prove it We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the Roman Church then held Justification by Faith without Works that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith that the Church of Rome might fail that the Roman church is but a particular Church that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days that it is Idolatry to do as Papists now do worshiping the Creature with such Worship as belongs to the Creatour that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not with sundry more in which the present Roman church hath sweâ—ved from the primitive We prove out of Gregory the Great himself that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope and disavowed the Worship of Images with other things now received at Rome and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious Augustine himself hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon yet his speeches touch not us who do not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours and practising such Idolatry as are damnable We do not say that the church perished but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints We need not allege any Church for our Mother but the Jerusalem which is abovâ— which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsiderate speech to say any visible church is the Mother of Christians it is in my apprehension all one as to say the church is the Mother of the church Christians or believers being all one with the church and therefore count such speeches whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them no better than ridiculous non-sense and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel and allege that we have been begotten by it which way soever it be Were not the â—berians a church of Christians who were converted by â— captive Maid when there was no church there before and the Indians by â—rumentius without a Church to bring them forth May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations but were expelled and peâ—secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome when they endeavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans English and other Nations If Augustine meant simply that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable he wrote that which is not true it being contrary to Paul's practise Acts 18. 9. God's command 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess 3. 8. Revel 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist Pâ—rmen cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have society with them but by doing evil with them But if he meant it of such Separation as the Donatists made as it is likely he doth it toucheth not us who separate not from the Romanists because some evil men are tolerated but because Errour Idolatry and other evils are urged on us by them and such is their tyranny that without yielding to them there is no communion but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning Once more saith H. T. Object We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome Therefore not from the whole Church Answ I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome iâ— universal or Catholick and in what sense she is particular take it in which acception you will your Consequence is false for whosoever separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular he consequently separates from the whole and is an Heretick or Schismatick I reply neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church in either sense is an Heretick or Schismatick And to his proof I say 1. That many Protestants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther separated but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church and they that acknowledge it a true Church in respect of the truth of being yet not of Doctrine and they that say it had the truth of being say it not of the predominant part but of the latent conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them or avouched by them though living among them or if they did yield to them or some of them they had pardon as doing it in ignorance retaining the old Creed of the Apostles And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held who were in it though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance yet they might say to Rome being found uâ—câ—rable as the Jews to Babylon Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon but she is not healed forsake her and let us go every one into his own countrey for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven and is lifted up unto the Skies 2. That it is not universally true that he who separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total privative not positive out of prejudice and passion in heat not in heart as between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius temporary not perpetual in prudence though not out of absolute necessity necessary not voluntary just and not rash without revolt from the Faith or persecution of those from whom it is made In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from