Apostolicall Institution But however though the Church of Rome may pretend but cannot prove for one St. Chrysostom is not enough Apostolicall Tradition for such and such Doctrines and Practices of theirs yet what Authority from Christ or his Apostles can they plead for those Articles of their new Creed which their Pope Pius the Fourth hath impiously imposed upon the Church of Christ and added to that received Nicene Creed as if it were of equall Credit even with that and to be believed upon penalty of Damnation When St. Paul delivered such and such Traditions to the Christian Church he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I received of the Lord but could Pope Pius say as much of his and can the present Church of Rome say as much of theirs when in their new-found Creed they teach us to say I profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Christ Do they indeed gather this Article of their Faith as we do all those in the three received Creeds from clear Testimonies of Holy Writ or do they collect this Doctrine and number of their Seven Sacraments as their Patriarch of Venice is said to have done from that particular expression of St. Andrew when he told his Lord There is a lad here which hath five loaves and two fishes When they require us to say I profess that there is a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice offered to God in the Masse for the Quick and the Dead do they indeed father this Tradition upon St. Paul who saith Christ was once offered and again Christ by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Again when they teach us to say I profess that in the Eucharist the Bread and the Wine and why not their Water too are transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Christ do they ground this Tradition upon the words of Consecration This is my Body when Scotus himself who was one of their own great Champions hath told the world that the words of Christ do not necessarily import it and that Transubstantiation for which Bellarmine indeed corrects him was no Article of Faith till the Lateran Council When they teach us to say I acknowledge that under one Kind whole and perfect Christ and the true Sacrament is received do they ground that Doctrine upon a Canon established by the Council of Constance or upon the Example and Command of our Blessed Saviour who delivered both the Elements to all his Communicants and gave them this express injunction concerning the Cup in particular Drink ye all of this And that this Command of our Blessed Saviour was observed in the Primitive Church where the Minister according to Christ s own Example delivered the Consecrated Cup to all the Communicants is evident from the Testimony of the most early Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. saith Dionysius there was then one Cup distributed to all And if this were the known Practice of the Primitive Church what ancient Tradition can the Roman Church produce for their Communion in one Kind onely Again when they bid us say I do constantly hold that there is a Purgatory do they derive this Tradition from the writings of Plato who mentions three Receptacles for departed Souls or from those Expressions of Prophets or Apostles which say of all departed Saints They rest from their labours and of all departed Sinners They shall be turned into hell Once more when they would have us believe that Saints and Angels are to be worshipped that there is a Veneration lawfully paid to the very Reliques of Saints to the Crosse of Christ to the Images of the Virgin Mary c. do they ground this Tradition upon the Second Commandment which they could as willingly blot out of their Bibles as they have done out of some of their Catechisms or upon any Expression of St. Paul both which do flatly condemn the Worshipping of any Creature No 't is well observed by Calvin Sub Traditionum titulo includunt omnes crassas abominationes manifesto Dei Verbo contrarias The Romanists under the name of Traditions do include all their grosse Abominations which are directly contrary to the Word of God and so are far enough from being those traditionall Doctrines or any whit like them of Faith and Worship that are recommended by St. Paul who imposed not any Belief or Practice upon the Church but what was as himself words it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures But 2. 'T is urged by the Roman Church that St. Paul and other Apostles too delivered some unwritten Traditions to their immediate Successours which concerned the external Discipline Order Policy Rites and Ceremonies of the Church Well and who denieth it not Calvin who though he were a great opposer of superfluous and burthensome Ceremonies doth yet grant thus much Paulus Ecclesiae Corinthiacae primus fundator Itstitutis piis honestis eam formaverat ut decenter ordine illic agerentur omnia St. Paul who was the first Founder of the Church of Corinth did so form it with pious and laudable Institutions that all things there might be transacted without the least Indecency or Disorder So runs that written and well-known Rule of his Let all things be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently and in order But besides this Rule that he hath left upon Record he farther tells them The rest will I set in order when I come And what he did or enjoyned to be done in pursuance of this Promise perhaps might be never written But as Calvin demands Quid hoc ad insulsas Ceremoniarum nugas quae visuntur in Papatu quid hoc ad Superstitionem plusquam Judaicam What 's all this to the insipid and foolish Ceremonies of the Roman Church how doth this justifie those Superstitions of theirs that are more then Jewish So numerous are their Ceremonies that I cannot imagine what St. Austine would have said had he lived in our times who thus complained of his own Religionem servilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum c. The Condition of the Jews in respect of burthensom Ceremonies was more tolerable then that of Christians I remember Bellarmine reckons up no less then twenty two Ceremonies used in the Roman Church in the Administration of Baptism and tells us that they are all of Apostolicall Institution or at least of great Antiquity some of which are these Exorcisms Salt Spittle Chrism the Wax-taper the white Apparrell and the Kisse c. And as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Bellarmine tells us Apostoli legem condunt ut sumatur ante omnes alios cibos nimirum à jejunis the Apostles established a Law that it should be receiv'd before all other food that is by persons fasting And yet that Rule of St. Paul which the Romanists can never satisfactorily answer stands
non dixit temerarium est velle praesumere dicere To affirm what those things were which Christ himseIf did not now declare were rash and bold Quis nostrûm dicat ista vel illa sunt Who of us can tell whether it were this or that And yet for all this whatever St. Austine thinks that Jesuite Maldonate as if he knew what Christ was pleased as yet to conceal tells us with more of Confidence then Truth Dicimus ex hoc loco constare Christum non omnia dixisse quae ad salutem nostram putabat pertinere idémque fecisse Spiritum Sanctum credendum c. From the warrant of this Text we do affirm that Christ told not his Disciples whatever he thought pertinent to our Salvation and that the Holy Ghost did not afterwards doe it neither we have cause to believe Nay to make way for Ecclesiastical Traditions and the Pope's Authority to create new Articles of Faith he makes bold to adde thus much Idem ab Apostolis factum ut non omnia scripta multa etiam nè vivâ voce traderent The same thing was done by the Apostles too insomuch that they did not deliver all matters of Salvation in their Writings no nor many so much as by word of mouth 'T is strange to think into what Absurdities and Contradictions the Romanists do run themselves that they may justify those Doctrines and Practices which they are loath to part with For this Jesuite Maldonate declares his opinion that there are some matters of Salvation that were neither taught by Christ nor by his Spirit nor by his Apostles either by Writing or Tradition and yet Cardinal Bellarmine doth positively affirm that the Church of Rome holds no Doctrines maintains no Traditions save onely such as they can clearly prove to be from Christ or his Apostles But as to those forenamed Discourses wherein our Blessed Saviour did privately instruct his Apostles and whereupon the Roman Church doth mightily ground their Doctrine of Tradition though it cannot be certainly discovered what was the very Subject and particular Arguments of our Saviour's frequent Talk with his Disciples at his several Apparitions to them after his Resurrection yet perhaps some probable guesses may be given and accordingly several Conjectures are offered us by Interpreters So Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What were those many things which Christ had to say to his Apostles which they could not bear He answers thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It was the design of our Blessed Saviour to teach his Disciples the utter abolition of the Ceremoniall Law and the Mosaicall Ordinances So St. Chrysostom guesseth too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whether our Saviour speaks of the Abrogation of the Law c. And to this Christ might well refer when he said I have yet many things to say but ye cannot bear them now considering how hard it was for them who were Jews and the professed disciples of Moses to embrace a new Religion and quit the Principles of that wherein they had been born and bred Nor indeed had this Discourse as yet been seasonable because the Ceremoniall Law was not abrogated till the Sacrifice Death and Passion of Christ which then was not actually accomplished But besides this Guesse of Origen's and Chrysostom's St. Austine gives us some ground for another when he tells us Mori pro Christo nondum idonei erant Apostoli The Apostles were not as yet fit and strong enough to die for Christ Which expression giveth us a fair Intimation of St. Austine's Judgment concerning our Saviour's words I have many things yet to say but about what probably about their Sufferings and Martyrdom but saith Christ ye cannot bear them now But why not now Surely it was now a time of trouble and sorrow with them their hearts were almost broken already with the consideration of their dear Master's approaching Death and Passion and therefore saith St. Austine Nunquid debuit illis ovibus dici in illo Tentationis articulo quòd certare usque ad mortem pro veritate oportebat pro Christi nomine vel Doctrina sanguinem fundere Was it seasonable for Christ to tell his Apostles in this juncture of time and hour of Temptation since as yet they were but as sheep infirm and weak that they must expect to shed their bloud and suffer death for the Truths Doctrines and Name of Christ No our Saviour was pleased to reserve these Lessons that as yet might have seemed too harsh as Origen words it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a fitter Opportunity namely the time after his own Passion and Resurrection That these Opinions of Origen Chrysostom and Austine concerning the matter of our Saviour's personall Discourses with his Apostles betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension which the Romanists urge for their Traditions are but conjecturall we do acknowledge but withall we do avouch that they are ten times more probable then that of Lorinus For that the many things which the Apostles could not yet bear and therefore Christ did not deliver till after his Resurrection should be such as concerned the Abolition of the Mosaicall Law or the Disciples own Sufferings rather then the Authority of the Romane Bishop the Invocation of Saints and other superstitious Doctrines and Practices now taught and used in the Roman Church as delivered by Christ in his forenamed private Discourses with his Apostles is much more consonant to Christian Religion humane Reason and the Authority of the written Word And if so if we may take the Judgment of Origen Chrysostom and Austine whose Opinions in this matter are countenanced by Holy Writ rather then the Judgment of Lorinus whose Opinion in this case the Scriptures themselves oppose though there be in this business no Certainty on either side yet if we have fairer Probabilities on our part then the Romanists have on theirs if it be more likely that the many things which Christ had to say before his Passion but did not for prudentiall considerations actually declare till after his Resurrection might concern as the forenamed Fathers probably thought the Abrogation of the Jewish Religion the Calling of the Gentiles and the Martyrdom of his Apostles rather then those unwarrantable Traditions for which the Romanists do now contend how then comes Bellarmine to assert that they are not written But upon the whole matter the Truth is this Since 't is altogether impossible to find out what those many things were which Christ had to teach his Disciples before his Death but did not doe it because as yet they could not bear them till after his Resurrection 't is equally impossible to prove that they are or are not registred But if the Romanists are of another mind and will undertake by infallible Testimonies to demonstrate to us what were the particular matters of our Saviour's severall Discourses at the time of his severall Apparitions to his Apostles before his Ascension then will we also
was the day of Christ's Passion their Sabbath of his Buriall and our Lord's day of his Resurrection 'T is mentioned by Tertullian who saith Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus To fast on the Lord's day we count it sin 'T is mentioned by Nazianzene who styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 'T is from the great Probabilities given us in the written Word and the pregnant Testimonies of Antiquity that the Reformed Church doth observe this Tradition which concerns the Lord's day with greater strictness then the Roman They tell us again that the Baptism of Infants is an Apostolicall Tradition we are so far from contradicting them that we do not onely practise it our selves but maintain it against all Opposers because 't is mightily countenanced in Sacred Writ and commended to us by all Antiquity I remember Dionysius the Areopagite if he that goeth under that name be indeed the man tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Children who were yet uncapable to understand the Mysteries of the Gospel were made partakers of Divine Regeneration and saith that the Church observed this Practice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taught so to doe by ancient Tradition Accordingly Nazianzene thus adviseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast thou an Infant let him be sanctified from his Infancy And so St. Cyprian and other Bishops give their Judgments Prohiberi non debet Infans qui recèns natus c. The Infant that is but newly born must not be debarred from Baptism Whoever denied this was condemned by the Church and accordingly the Council of Carthage which consisted of two hundred and seventeen Fathers passed this Sentence upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever denieth that little Children newly dropped from their Mothers Womb ought to be baptized let him be Accursed These and the like Authorities do induce us to believe that the Baptism of Infants though no-where in plain terms commanded in Scripture is yet a Divine Tradition and upon that well-grounded Confidence our Church doth as constantly practise and as strongly defend it as ever theirs did or can do They tell us again that the Institution of our Christian Festivals and the observation of Lent are Apostolicall Traditions Well though they will find it a difficult task to prove them such though the first Institution of Lent is by some ascribed to Telesphorus and though about the observation thereof there was and that very early too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubts and various opinions as Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us yet because our Christian Fasts and Festivals are very suitable to Scripture-Rules and were observed as great helps to and expressions of their Devotion and Piety by our religious Ancestours and indeed the Universality of the Christian Church we do readily embrace and practise both But when our Adversaries press upon us under the notion of Apostolicall Traditions many things of Faith and Worship defined in their late Conventicle of Trent though altogether unknown to the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church and contrary to the written Words we find reason to lie under the Anathema's and Excommunication of the Roman Church rather then to comply witâ— it in those Doctrines and Practices of theirs whicâ— are so exceeding far from being Apostolicalâ—â— They tell us indeed that their Veneration 〈◊〉 Saints is practised juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum according to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church and was received from the beginning of the Christian Faith whereas the Invocation of Saints now practised in the Roman Church is not mentioned by any of the Fathers till above two hundred years after Christ and consequently cannot be imagined to be an Apostolical Tradition And as for the Roman Custom of Praying for the dead by the Practice whereof in former Ages they would fain establish their Doctrine of Purgatory and that especially to keep up the credit of their dear Indulgences though we find this excess of groundless and uselesse Charity used in the Christian Church and that somewhat early too though St. Cyprian in the third Century mentions Oblatio pro Dormitione Deprecatio nomine defunctorum though Tertullian in the same Century mentions Oblationes pro defunctis nay more though Dionysius the Areopagite who if he be the man lived in the first Century tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy Priest makes an holy Prayer for or over the dead yet none of all these do assert this Practice to have had its Originall from any Divine or Apostolicall Tradition as the Roman Church contends Tertullian indeed concerning this and some other Practices used in his time confesseth thus Si legem expostules Scripturarum nullam invenies If you require a Scripture-command for this and that there is none to be found upon which score he ascribes these things to Tradition but whence that Tradition took its rise he doth not tell us But the truth is St. Chrysostom doth who in the behalf of persons deceased in the Guilt of sin exhorts his hearers thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us assist and succour them to our utmost power But what can surviving persons doe for the relief of departed Sinners he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us both pray for them our selves and beseech others to doe so too And that the Dead should be particularly remembred in the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was ordained by the Apostles and that not in vain And that this Practice spred and continued in the Church after St. Chrysostom's time is evident from that expression of St. Austine Non parva est universae Ecclesia Authoritas quae in hac consuetudine claret ubi in precibus Sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare funduntur locum suum habet etiam commendatio Mortuorum 'T is clear indeed from these words that to remember the dead in their most solemn Prayers at the celebration of the Eucharist was grown in St. Austine's time the generall Custom of the Church but that this Custom had its Originall from the Apostles he doth not say Nor indeed could this be the Institution of the Apostles that there should be a particular Commemoration of the dead and a solemn form of Prayer put up to God on their behalf at the administration of the Lord's Supper if that Observation be true which Chemnitius ascribes to St. Hierom St. Gregory and others in these words Apostolos ad solam Orationem Dominicam celebrâsse actionem Mysteriorum Divinorum If this be so that the Apostles themselves used no other Prayer but the Lord 's alone at their Celebration of the Eucharist how can it be imagined that those solemn Supplications which in after-times were made for the dead at the Altar should be of
Works of all Catholick Writers but chiefly those of the ancient Fathers to be purged and made clean from blots and stains of Errours that is from every thing that contradicts the Superstitions of the Roman Church But if it were a thing indeed so commendable to purge the Fathers yet is it a thing praise-worthy to falsifie and forge them too St. Chrysostom left upon record an Expression which the Roman Church doth no way like and that was this In times of Heresie there is no means to find out the Truth save onely the reading of the Scriptures Bellarmine confesseth Totus hic locus è quibusdam codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est This whole Passage is left out of some Editions newly set forth and corrected But how comes St. Chrysostom thus to deserve the Spunge The Cardinal gives this Reason Hoc Testimonium non est Chrysostomi This Testimony is not Chrysostom's but whose then Ab Arrianis locus hic insertus This place was inserted into St. Chrysostom's Works by the Arrians and therefore deserved rather to be expunged then believed We see what liberty the Romanists take to themselves to raze and blot out such and such Passages of the Fathers which make against them upon a groundless pretence that those Passages were inserted by some Heretick or other and can they then justly complain of us if we are not willing to credit some Expressions of ancient Authours upon which they ground those Doctrines and Practices of theirs which we reject since we have too much reason to believe that those Expressions are corrupted falsified and forged and that by some of their own Church That the Roman Catholicks have indeed miserably corrupted the ancient Writers in their Editions we are sufficiently convinced by the Testimony of our learned Doctour Featly who hath traced them through the several Ages of the Church and discovered to the world this unworthy dealing of theirs by giving us particular Instances and naming the Treatises and Expressions of several Fathers which their Adversaries as well as ours have abused perverted and corrupted thus or thus That of Ignatius is one who bespeaks Virgins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In your Prayers set Christ before your eyes and his Father c. To evacuate this great and ancient Testimony against the Invocation of Saints and Angels a late Popish Edition printed at Lyons reads it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In your Souls set Christ before your eyes c. Again those words of our Blessed Saviour The flesh profiteth nothing Tertullian thus expounds Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet The flesh profiteth nothing that is to quicken so saith the true Tertullian but a former Edition of theirs set forth at Paris though mended since by Rigaltius contrary to the meaning of Christ and Tertullian too reads it thus Caro nihil prodest sed ad vivificandum The flesh profiteth nothing save onely to quicken Once more our learned Authour mentions those words of St. Cyprian too Post gustatam Eucharistiam After the eating of the Eucharist which the Popish Edition at Paris to countenance a Ceremony of theirs changeth thus Post gestatam Eucharistiam After the Circumgestation of the Eucharist Nor can this Change be imputed to the mistake of the Presse because their Authours own and endeavour to justifie the Alteration These and a great many more Corruptions Forgeries and Falsifications of the ancient Fathers are reckoned up in that learned Treatise which give us fair warning not to believe every Testimony which our Adversaries pretend to produce out of such and such old Writers set forth by themselves for the justification of those Traditions for which they can bring no good warrant from the written Word of God For since 't is undeniable that they have notoriously abused the Records of Antiquity by suppressing changing and inserting what and where they pleased we have abundant cause to believe that these Alterations are made in those very places which they commonly cite in their own defence they being too wise to forge any counterfeit Deeds and suborn any other false Witnesses then such as are designed to speak for their Advantage But IV. The Champions of the Roman Church endeavour to justifie their Traditions by the Testimony and Authority of such and such Councils To which we have two things to reply 1. We cannot imagine but that whole Councils may erre in their Judgments and be mistaken in their Canons Decrees and Constitutions That no meer man save onely the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles ever was Infallible is acknowledged by some learned persons even of the Roman Church If Cajetane were not perfectly of this mind what means that Expression of his Solis Sacrae Scripturae Authoribus reservata est haec Authoritas ut ideo sic credamus esse quia Ipsi sic scripserunt That we should certainly believe things to be thus and thus barely because 't is so written by such and such is a Privilege peculiar to the Pen-men of Holy Writ alone Surely then that Assertion of Gratian mentioned by Bellarmine seems somewhat sawcy Epistolas Pontificum Decretales numerari debere inter Scripturas Canonicas The Pope's Decretal Epistles ought to be reckoned amongst the Canonical Scriptures And methinks the Cardinal himself seems somewhat confident when he speaks thus indifferently of Scriptures and Councils Vtraque sunt infallibilis Veritatis aequè certa They are both of infallible Truth and equally certain But if Cardinal Cajetane were in the right if all those Bishops and Doctours of whom Councils have consisted were but men subject to Mistakes and Errours in their own particular persons how the whole collective Body of any Synod should in the result prove infallible the Church of Rome will never be able to shew by any such clear Evidence as may satisfie a sober and impartial man We do not deny but that there is much of Truth in that Assertion of St. Austine Conoiliorum in Ecclesia saluberrima est Authoritas The Authority of Councils is of great Advantage to the Church of God we do with all thankfulness to Heaven acknowledge and own the Four first General Councils that of Nice which vindicated the Divinity of Christ against Arrius that of Constantinople which asserted the Divinity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius that of Ephesus which maintained the Unity of Christ's Person against Nestorius and that of Chalcedon which asserted the double Nature of Christ against Eutyches So venerable is the Authority of these Four Councils that we do not quarrel with that high Expression of that good Emperour Justinian if rightly understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We receive the Doctrines of these Four holy Councils even as not in equality but similitude the Holy Scriptures and observe their Canons as so many Laws Accordingly Evagrius tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Emperour commanded that the Decrees of these Four Councils should be read
publickly in the Churches But although these Councils deserved this great Respect as keeping close to the Word of God yet other Councils which the Roman Church makes much of did not so That Councils may possibly erre and recede from Scripture-Rules St. Hierom declared his Judgment in that Expression of his cited by Chemnitius Spiritûs Sancti Doctrina est quae Canonicis literis prodita est contra quam siquid statuant Concilia nefas duco That is the sure Doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Writings against which if Councils determine this or that I count it wicked And did not their famous Council of Constance when three Popes were upon the stage at once John set up by the Italians Gregory by the French and Benedict by the Spaniards define contrary to the Word of God not to mention the case of John Husse and Jerom of Prague when they forbad all Priests under the Penalty of Excommunication to administer the Eucharist in both Kinds to the Laiety And was not this Canon so contrary to the general Custom of Antiquity that we must either grant the Primitive Church to have been mistaken in their old universal Practices or else this Council to have been erroneous in this new Constitution Indeed the Roman Church doth very well approve the Council of Constance in their Sacrilegious Decree which robs the People of half the Sacrament but I remember the Roman Church doth also condemn the self-same Council for that Definition of theirs whereby they robbed the Pope of more then half his Authority For when the Council of Constance had passed their Judgment and declared that the Authority of Councils is superiour to that of Popes and when the Council of Basil had ratified and solemnly confirmed the same Assertion in opposition to these two Councils the last not then dissolved Engenius the Fourth calleth a Council at Florence which by a contrary Vote sets the Pope above the Council So then here is Council against Council Canon against Canon directly contradicting one another in the self same matter and since 't is so we have all reason to conclude either that some of these Councils were in an Errour or else that all Logicians are certainly so who tell us that two contrary Propositions though possibly both may be false yet both can never be true together But the truth is 't is observed that there was such Ambition such Animosities and Factions discovered in several Councils that were convened in several Centuries that Gregory Nazianzene had he lived in later Ages might have had far more just occasion for those Complaints of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I never saw an happy Issue of any one Synod whatsoever which did not rather augment then remedy Evils Upon which score he thus resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I may but write the Truth my purpose is to decline all Conventions of Bishops whatsoever But what is his Reason 'T is clear enough that this excellent Person did highly esteem the Council of Nice for he doth not onely call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Holy Council but he also tells us that those three hundred and eighteen Bishops were such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Holy Ghost had brought together and as for the Council of Constantinople the Argument of his Epistle to Procopius tells us that he himself was magna Concilii pars a very great man in it and if so what occasion had he to write such unkind things of Councils Himself informs us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was so much Dissension and such Ambition in them as was beyond expression And certainly if such an eminent Person as Gregory Nazianzene who was deservedly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Great Theologue or Divine of that Age found cause enough to blame some early Councils of those Times had he lived to see the Decrees and Canons established by the several Factions of later Conventions he would never have thought them as the Romanists contend to be Infallible True it is St. Austine tells us Concilia posteriora prioribus apud Posteros praeponuntur Men that live in later times are apt to prefer later Councils before those that are more ancient but what reason is there for it That of Justellus is certainly true concerning these later Councils Non sunt ejusdem fidei dignitatis cum prioribus illis Quatuor Oecumenicis c. They are not of the same Credit Faith and Honour with the Four first General Councils And if so since there are some just grounds of Suspicions and Jealousies concerning their Determinations who shall perswade us that they are Infallible But 2. What if it appear that Councils are not onely fallible but that they have been most miserably corrupted and forged too What sure warrant have we for such and such Practices not recommended in Sacred Writ from the Authority of Councils when such and such Constitutions Decrees and Canons have been ascribed to such and such Councils which indeed were never theirs We reade that Zosimus Bishop of Rome sent his Legats to the sixth Council of Carthage with Instructions to maintain the Primacy of the Roman Bishop as the onely Judge in cases of Controversies and Appeals and for that Prerogative of his they pretended a Canon of the first Nicene Council which was indeed a very fair Plea had it been true because the Acts of that Council were not onely confirmed by the Emperour but received by the universal Church What particular Canon of the Nicene Council was pleaded for the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Bellarmine tells us Habemus Nicaenum Concilium illum ipsum sextum Canonem c. We have on our side the Nicene Council and that very sixth Canon c. The Canon is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Design of this Canon was onely this that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and all other Metropolitans should still govern the Churches within their respective Provinces as the Bishop of Rome was wont to govern those within his These being the express words and this being the undoubted Sense of the Canon the Council of Carthage answered Faustinus Philippus and Asellus who were the Pope's Legates that although they had strictly searched all Registers and examined the most authentick Copies of the Acts of the Nicene Council which they had received from Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople yet they could find nothing done by that Council to establish or countenance the Primacy of the Roman Bishop nor that the Bishops of Africa were obliged by any Canon of the Nicene Council to appeal and be subject to the See of Rome But the Primacy of the Pope being a Point of great Concern to the Roman Church and there being nothing more likely to establish it then the Authority of the Nicene Council which is received by the universal Church what greater Service could any man doe for the Bishop of