under the subtle Usurpation and tyranny of Popery The answer given by the Proctors of the Romish Court to this Canon as that of Chalcedon Hunc Canonem Ecclesia Romana non recipit Coriolanus p. 285. Ad An. 381. l. 38. or any other that opposeth their Dominion is The most holy Church of Rome approveth or receiveth not that Council or Canon for all Councils saith their great Cardinal Baronius have more or less Authority as they are approved or not allowed by the Roman Church or Pope An Answer which scarcely deserves a reply and sheweth what esteem our Romanists have of even General Councils if they cross their ambitious designs I cannot omit that famous Synodical Epistle sent by the Bishops of Africa of whom St. Austin was one to the Bishop of Rome Pope Celestine which is an invincible Bulwark or Sea-wall against the inundation of Papal Supremacy It would be tedious to transcribe the whole Letter which is still extant and written directly against this new Article of Codic Canon Ecclesiae Africanae in fine not Catholick but Roman Faith. They first desire the Pope not easily to give Audience to such as appealed from them to him Ab aliis excommunicati ab aliis ad commumonem ne recipiantur sine synodo provinciali Concil Nicaen Can. 5. or to receive into his Communion such as they had as Apiarius a most scandalous Presbyter amongst others deservedly excommunicated Which was say they contrary to the Nicene Canons which respect Bishops as well as inferiour Clericks They tell him that the Canons of the Church had prudently provided that all Controversies should be determined in the places where they arose where the Grace of the Holy Ghost would not be wanting to direct unless any one can believe that God will inspire any one man the Pope with Justice i. e. just or right judgment and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council The African Bishops thought no Christian man could believe this but there are Roman Catholicks who have made it an unquestionable truth that though all Councils may err yet the Pope being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot The Afriâ—â—n Fathers go on How can a transmarine Sentence at Rome be firm and good V. Cyprian Epist 55. to which the necessary presence of Witnesses either in regard of Sex or infirmity of Age and many other impediments cannot be had That any should be sent from your side as Legates suppose à Latere we do not find in any Council of Fathers nor in the authentick Canons of the Nicene Do not send upon any ones request your Clericks as inforcers to wit of your Sentence upon Appeals lest we seem to bring the smoaky Pride of the World into the Church So these holy Bishops I had almost said Prophets without fear or flattery wrote of old to Christ's Universal Vicar at Rome As for the condemning Appeals to the Pope therein they trod in their steps and use almost the very words of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and his Colleagues to Cornelius Bishop of Rome â— Epist 55. vel â—ab 10. Epist 3. ad â—ornelium to whom he wrote in this manner Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis c. Whereas it is decreed by all of us in some National Council of Africa and is both just and fit that every cause Ecclesiastical should be there heard where the fault was committed and to all Pastors a part portio gregis of the flock of Christ not all the flock to one is entrusted which every one ought to rule as he that must give an account to God not the Bishop of Rome Cornelius it becometh not those whom we are over to run about to other Churches aiming particularly at the Roman and by their subtle and fallacious rashness to divide the Concord of Bishops and dissolve the Unity of the Church but there to plead their cause where Witnesses and Accusers may be produced against them Epist 68. The same St. Cyprian in another Epistle adviseth and encourageth the People of Spain not to receive Basilides again as their Bishop although he had been at Rome with Pope Stephen by whom he was he saith unjustly and as he supposed in a surreptitious manner restored for he had been deposed to his Bishoprick Can any one now believe that Saint Cyprian held the supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops and Churches to be his lawful right or which is more incredible an Article of the antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith as Pope Pius hath declared it Surely he must then be a Person of very Catholick i. e. Universal Faith to believe any thing Hen. 1. Hen. 2. apud Matth. Parisien And what did Henry VIII as other Kings of England before him worse than Saint Austin and the whole African Church in forbidding Appeals and forbidding his Legates in their own Kingdom Why might not England do this as well as Africa Well however our Adversaries will relish it Can. 22. the Council of Milevis another African Council forbad all Appeals to transmarine Churches aiming no doubt especially at Rome under pain of Excommunication out of all the Churches of Africa and another at Carthage Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. decreed that no Bishop whosoever no not the Roman should be called the Prince of Bishops but onely the Bishop of the first Seat or See. Gratian the Roman Canonist according to his excellent faculty of translating giveth us the meaning of the Canon thus That no Bishop is to be called the Prince of Bishops but the Bishop of the first Seat i. e. the Pope Glossa quae corrumpit textum I will onely add the Testimonies of two Bishops of Rome The former is Pelagius the 2d Gregor lib. 4. Epist 36. 38. who writing to his Rival for the Supremacy the Bishop of Constantinople saith Nullus Patriarcharum c. none of the Patriarchs and so neither the Roman may use or assume the Title of Universal Bishop for hereby the name of Patriarch is indeed taken from all the rest which saith he far be it from the thought of any faithful Christian This is upon Record in the Popes Canon Law. But his Successor Pope Gregory the Great Dist 99. Cap. Nullus Patriarcharum Lib. 4. Epist 34. speaketh out more plainly who writing to the Empress against John Bishop of Constantinople his Rival saith In this his Pride in affecting the Title of Universal Bishop appeareth the approach of Antichrist Wherefore I beseech you by the Almighty God give not any consent to this perverse Title In like manner Epist 32. to the Emperor Peter himself is not called the Universal Apostle Feed my sheep it seems proveth it not None of the Roman Bishops ever assumed though offer'd to them Lib. 4. Epist 38. ad Joann Constantin In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere Greg. M. ad Sabinian lib. 4. Indict
A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholick Faith Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed BY The Scriptures Antient Fathers and their own Modern Writers in Answer to a Letter desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages especially before Luther's time Imprimatur Octob. 26. 1688. Guil. Needham London Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1689. Pope Pius his CREED OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. V. Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei sub finem Concilii Tridentini THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all and its certain form may be known to all we have caused it to be published strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds to wit Nicene c. which the Roman Church useth namely I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible c. The Apostolick and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace I do also confess that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Extreme Vnction Orders Marriage c. And that they confer Grace All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive Also I confess that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and bloud of our Lord and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body and of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calleth Transubstantiation I confess also that under one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful And likewise that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed to and that their Reliques are to be worshipped And most firmly I avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given Also that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christs people That the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches I acknowledge and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils and especially the Holy Council of Trent And withal I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto and that I will be careful this true Catholick Faith out of the which no man can be saved which at this time I willingly profess be constantly with Gods help retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp and by those that are under me holden taught and preached to the uttermost of my power I the said N. promise vow and swear So God me help and his Holy Gospels A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholick Faith c. SIR I Received your Letter wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther In order thereunto I send you these Lines requesting you as you love and value the safety of your own Soul laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable to read them seriously and impartially You begin thus I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and invisible How Protestant Writers are to be understood when they argue against the perpetual Visibility of the Church To which I answer That the Church hath been for some time hidden i. e. obscured so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians much less Heathens is a truth so manifest that our Adversaries themselves grant it as I shall shew afterward That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth though sometime more secret and private was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men we affirm not Cardinal Bellarmine himself notes Multi ex nostris tempus terunt dum probant Ecclesiam non posse absolutè desicere nam Fleretici id concedunt De Eccles Militan lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church which as he confesses we never denied We only say that any particular Church even that of Rome may utterly fail But you add I find your Divines saying otherwise for Bishop Juel Apol. p. 7. writeth That Luther's preaching was the very first appearing of the Gospel And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was unknown and unheard of and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel Let Bishop Juel answer for himself Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since No Mr. Harding we confess it not and you your self well know we confess it not Our Doctrine is the Old and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches is older than yours by Five hundred years And he not only saith it but unanswerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches so great a respect have we for Primitive Antiquity and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church Pag. 355 356. saith Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church that there was no visible Company of People appearing to the World viz. in the Ages next before Luther free from it True he saith so but he explains his meaning in the same place for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece Aethiopia Armenia to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches yea that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God wherein our Ancestors possessed the true Faith as to the Fundamental Articles necessary
I grant also adds he that sometimes the Church is obscured as S. Austin saith with multitude of Scandals and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuite Greg. de Valentiâ When we say the Church is alway conspicuous this must not be taken as if we thought it might at all times be discerned alike easily For we know that sometimes it i.e. the Church the Mountain Isai 2.2 is so tossed with the waves of Errors Schisms and Persecutions that to such as are unskilful as the far greater part of Christians ever are and do not discreetly enough weigh circumstances of times and things it shall be very hard to be known which then especially fell out when the falshood of Arrians bare rule almost over all the World. Therefore we deny not but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some time than at other some yet this we avouch that it alway might be discerned by such as could wisely esteem things So he And is this all they would infer from Mat. 5.14 15. Ye are the light of the world A City that is set on an hill cannot be hid c. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernable by a few discreet quick-sighted persons Is this the Visibility they so much contend for Well it 's here granted us that the Church is not alway easily visible or discernable to all but only to a few discreet Persons If this will satisfie them we shall readily grant that the Protestant Church under the Persecution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernable yea was or is hardly visible to such as are unskilful and do not wisely enough weigh circumstances of times viz. of Oppression and Persecution Yet this we say that it might have been discern'd even in the next Ages before Luther not only in the Waldenses Wicklevists Albigenses and Bohemians how odious and contemptible soever they are render'd to the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church by such as can discreetly judg of things and times What great matter then can these men make of the Visibility of the Church they so much boast of But is all this Contention about nothing truly it is no easie thing to resolve what it is our Adversaries would have more than is already granted by us I will give the best account I can find out of their own Writings what it is they aim at Bellarmin stateth not the question Ecclesia est â—â—tus hominum â—â—a visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel regnum Galliae Bellarmin de Eccles Milit. lib 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia visibilis est i. e. sic in luce hominum conspectu posita ut quovis seculo evidenter internosci quasi digito monstrari queat congregatio illa quam esse veram Ecclesiam determinatè oredere possis ac debeas Haec autem Ecclesiae proprietas universos Haereticos pessimè habet Anal. Fidei lib. 6. pag. 30. but somewhere saith that The true Church is a Company of men as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France Spain or the State of Venice Gregory de Valentiâ above-mentioned affirms that the Church is Visible i.e. is so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age that Congregation or Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately or particularly believe to be the true Church This property of the Church saith he exceedingly troubleth all Hereticks But it would exceedingly trouble him were he alive or any man else to reconcile this with his former concession For if the true Church be so placed in the light and sight of men that in any Age it may be evidently discerned and pointed at by the finger how is it that as he is forced to grant in times of Persecution and over-spreading Error as under the Heathen Emperors and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresie it is very hard to many to see where the true Church is yea none do discern it but such as prudently weigh circumstances of times and things which the far greater part of men neither do nor can Who of our Adversaries if he had lived in the days of Hilary would not have taken the Arians for the true Church Did not all or the far greater part of Bellarmin's Notes of the true Church belong to them only as Multitude Succession temporal Prosperity external Glory efficacy of Doctrine converting Ad ann 358. or rather perverting almost as Baronius grants the whole World Would they have taken those few for the true Catholick Church who separated themselves from their heretical but supposed infallible Head and Guide of the universal Church Pope Liberius Ad ann 357. v. Bellarmin de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 9. Liberius post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus atque ita restitutus est Ecclesiae Epist ad Solit. vitam agentes Hieron in Catal. In Fortunatiano Subscripsit Haeresi Arianorum Et in Chronico ait Liberium taedio victum exilii in Haereticam pravitatem subscripsisse Liberius is declared to be a Heretick by the Sixth Seventh and Eighth General Council and Pope Agatho and Pope Leo the Second Patet ex lib. de Romanis Pontificibus multos Clericos Romae à Constantio necatos esse qui noluerunt cum Liberio communicare Baron ad ann 357. parag 49. Baronius the Cardinal acknowledges that he communicated with the Arians and in his own Letters still extant he professeth that in all things he agreed with them Yea farther S. Hilary Athanasius and S. Hierome write that he subscribed to the Heresie of the Arians and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers make it an essential qualification of a Catholick or Member of the true Church to hold Communion with the Bishop of Rome and to live under his Government who instead of being an infallible Guide to others may fall into damnable Heresie himself I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church whether they that joyned with Liberius or such as separated from him Here I cannot but observe which Cardinal Baronius takes notice of that when by the favour of the Emperour Constantius and the intercession of the Arian Bishops Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishoprick many Clergy-men chose rather to suffer death than to joyn in Communion with him whom they themselves account Martyrs or at least dare not condemn as damnable Hereticks and Schismaticks the appellations they bestow upon Protestants for their not communicating with the Roman Bishop But I have not yet done with Valentia Non usque adeò ipsi volumus Ecclesiam esse conspicuam ut censeamus aut oculis cerni aut evidenti
may in time want snuffing and so may the most Apostolical Church in after-Ages need Reformation The second place is Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church if he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican Now saith the Letter It were very hard to be condemn'd for a Heathen or a Publican for not hearing a Church that hath so closely lain hid that none could hear see feel or understand it for 900. years First I answer That these words prove not the Church visible or palpable to all men Heathens and Infidels enquiring after the true Church but at most to Christians only who live under the Church's government and submit to her Censures Secondly The words relate to a particular Christian Church of which a person is a member for it were absurd to imagine our Saviour should oblige any Christian if his Brother should offend him to tell the whole Catholick Church throughout the World his offence per literas Encyclicas Yea it 's plain and undeniable the place respects not the whole diffused number of Christians no not in any particular Church but the Governours only Now our Adversaries will not I hope say that any particular Church except their own much less its Rulers or Representatives shall be eminently visible and conspicuous to all Christians at all times Certainly our Saviour in this place does not promise any special privilege to the Church of Rome more than Antioch Ephesus or any other Apostolical Church to whom that Precept of telling the Church doth equally belong some of whom are long since utterly extinguished by the overflowing of Mahometanism How can they then from this place infer that any particular Church shall be perpetually visible and conspicuous to the World exercising Church-Government over its members Nay farther How could the Christians belonging to their Roman Church when under the persecution of Dioclesian or Constantius at which time the Shepherds being smitten the sheep were all scatter'd the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted tell the Church or make complaint to the Governours of it when they scarcely knew where they were to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint Our Saviour's Precept then supposes the free exercise of Church-government which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercis'd or supposed I might add Acosta de Temp. noviss lib. 2. cap. 15. Telesphorus de Magnit tribulat pag. 32. Aquipontanus de Antichrist pag. 23. That their own Writers Acosta Telesphorus the Hermite and others confess that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and publick service of God shall be buried the Church-doors destroy'd the Altars forsaken the Church empty c. Now I appeal to the conscience of any man whether at that time it would be possible in case of Scandal to tell the Church when the Church shall be forc'd to hide it self and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppress'd and dissolv'd by the violence of Persecution Lastly Whereas 't is objected that the Protestant Church hath so closely lain hid for 900. years that no man could see or understand it this is very falsly affirm'd as I shall shew afterward unless such as profess'd the Religion of the Scriptures Ancient Fathers and Councils protesting against some new Roman additional Articles impos'd of late by Pope Pius and the Tridentine Council were no true visible Church of God. The last place viz. 2 Cor. 4.5 If our Gospel be hid c. is least of all to the purpose for there Saint Paul plainly speaketh not of the Church but of the Gospel or Christian Faith Hieronym in Nahum c 2. Chrysost Hom. 49. in Matth. Nunc nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nimirum ex quo obtinuit haeresis Ecclesias nisi tantummodo per Scripturas Irenaeus cont Haeres lib. 2. Quae praeconiaverunt pestea per Dei voluntatem scripserunt c Costerus Enchirid. cap. 1. Alphonsus de Castro cont Haeres grant this which is clearly deliver'd by the Scripture to which as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge we ought especially in times of Heresie and Persecution to have recourse for our establishment in the truth and if the Gospel first preached and afterwards written by the Apostles for what they first preached they afterwards by the will of God as Irenaeus saith wrote be hid to any it 's hid to them that perish whose minds the Devil hath blinded Doth not this place expresly confute our Adversaries who affirm that the Gospel as reveal'd by the Scripture is dark obscure and invisible to the Laity that so they may hang their faith by a blind and implicite obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority of their Church or Popes who may be as some of them have been notorious and manifest Hereticks So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service The Fathers alledg'd for the Roman visibility consider'd I come now to the Fathers quoted in your Letter and first for Chrysostom's saying * Hom. 30. in Matth. It is easier for the Sun to be extinguish'd than the Church to be darkned I wonder any sober men should require us to believe that on Chrysostom's Authority which they do not believe themselves For the Romanists Valentia and others as we have seen confess that the Church even their Roman Church may be obscur'd or darkned as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperours in times of prevailing Heresie and Persecution So that Chrysostom must even by them be understood of a total not partial Eclipse or darkness for in that place he treateth of times of persecution wherein all grant the Church may be darkned and saith the Tyrants are gone and perish'd but the Church remaineth unconquer'd As to the places quoted out of Saint Austin Tract in Joan. de Unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 7. I answer That he speaketh of the state of the Christian Church as it was in his days in its external lustre and glory retaining the Primitive Faith without addition or detraction It was indeed strange blindness in the Donatists he writeth against not to see the true Church which as a Mountain or light on a Hill was then plainly visible before them all over Africa yea the whole World but to dare to restrain it to pars Donati the faction of Donatus as now the Jesuits restrain it to the Popish party was plain impudence Nevertheless St. Austin doth not say that the Church should always and in all after-Ages remain in that visible prosperous and illustrious state yea contrarily he confesseth that it is sometimes obscur'd thro the multitude of scandals Aliquando obscuratur Epist ad Vincentium 47. Ecclesia non apparâ—bit impiis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus Epist 80. ad Hesychium Vide de Baptist contra Donatistas lib. 6 cap. 4. Enarrat in Psalmum 10. that it is like the Moon that may be hid that it shall not appear by reason of the
omnes dicitur Aug. de agone Christi c. 30. 1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.28 Gal. 2. Chrysost at least in 18 places calls St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Casaubon Exercit. 16. Paulus Apostolorum maximus Origen Hom. 3. in Numer Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem Christus tribuat c. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae Paulus erat Petro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec opus habuit Petro Chrysost in Gal. c. 2. that our Lord gave the Keys first to Peter to be communicated by him â—o the rest of the Apostles No. The Scripture plainly saith Christ breathed on them all at once together and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. Here the Keys promis'd to Peter are given not onely to him or first to him to be given to the rest of the Apostles by him but to all of them together in one and the same breath without preferring one before another Neither doth that other place feed my Lambs feed my sheep prove in the least that Christ committed his whole Church to Peter onely as Universal Pastour and Head of it for to feed Christ's sheep is to teach them with the word of life and this is charg'd immediately and equally on all the Apostles who had their Mission and Commission not from Peter but from Christ himself saying All power is committed to me c. Go ye therefore teach all Nations c. Yea this duty of Feeding as also Ruling implied as some think in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Duty incumbent on all inferiour Pastors and Bishops as St. Peter himself acknowledgeth Feed the flock of God taking the care thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I might add that St. Paul had a greater part by far of Christs flock under his Pastoral care than St. Peter for he was the Apostle of the Uncircumcision or Gentiles preaching to them Peter of the Circumcision or Jewish Nation From all which it is evident that the Pope supposing him which is not at all granted to succeed Peter in his whole Apostolick Power in plenitudinem potestatis it no way follows that he is or can be Supreme Head of the Universal Church Other Apostles in their Apostolick Churches planted by them being as to Ecclesiastical Power not at all inferiour but equal to him and the Roman Church As for a priority of Place or Order in regard Rome was at first before Constantine's days the Seat of the Emperour we deny it not but this Preheminency as the General Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon declare was given by the Ancient Fathers and Bishops they say not by any appointment of Christ in regard it was the Imperial City of which more hereafter But to put an end to this Controversie we will appeal to an infallible Judge such as the Pope himself shall not refuse even Saint Peter himself whose words are these 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves c. whether to the King as supreme c. If St. Peter acknowledge not himself but the King to be Supream methinks it should ill become his Successours to deny Kings to be supream over them But possibly it will be said St. Peter meant this supremacy onely in matters Civil not Ecclesiastical Well we take what is granted Carerius de Potestate Pontificis lib. 2. cap. 23. Cajetan in Aquin. 2. qu. 99. art 3. See the R R. Bishop of Lincoln his observation on the Pope's Bull against Q Elizabeth How is it then consonant to Apostolical doctrine for St. Peter's Successors to exempt and that in civil matters all Clergy-men from the jurisdiction and commands of the King as if they were not his Subjects as well as others Yea farther to absolve the Laity also from all obedience to their natural Princes cursing all such as obey them stirring them up when they think fit to fight against depose and murther them Is this to acknowledge the King supream Peter did but draw his sword to rescue Christ the Son of God from the hands of Murtherers and he is commanded to put it up And may Popes as they often have done command Subjects to draw it against their lawful Sovereigns But the King here spoken of was an Heathen even Nero. True. However all Christians according to Apostolical doctrine must be subject to their King tho an Heathen and ought they not much rather then to be subject to him being a Christian St. Paul's Precept is general Let every soul be subject to the higher powers which Powers were at that time Heathens yet every soul i.e. a Synecdoche every Person tho an Apostle or Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in locum As also Theodoret. Theophylact. and Oecumenius in locum Add Bernard Epist 64. ad Senonensem Archiepisc Qui scipsum excipit seipsum decipit as St. Chrysostom comments on that Text much more the Pope ought to be subject Possibly some will reply That the Church and St. Peter the Head of it had no Auhority over Heathens which are without but that they had a supremacy over all Christians and consequently over Kings as Christians If this exception be of any weight it unavoidably follows that whilst Nero was an Heathen St. Peter was his Subject and he Sovereign but if he had become a Christian S. Peter was his Sovereign and had the supremacy over him Was not this an excellent reason to persuade Nero to become a Christian whereby he must deprive himself of the Sovereignty The truth is Christ came not tollere jura sed peccata mundi to take away the sins not the rights of the meanest Subjects much less of Kings or in the least to diminish their just Authority 1 Tim. 6.1 2 The Apostles expresly charge Children to be obedient to their Parents Servants to their Masters tho they were Heathens and themselves Christians Dominion is not founded in Grace neither is Christ's Kingdom as he himself professed of this World for then would my Servants fight He that gives Kings converted a Crown of Glory deprives not them of their Earthly one or any due right belonging to it Obedience therefore in all things either active or passive is necessarily to be yielded unto them as supream Governours Nor the Sacrifice in the Mass Eighthly Concerning a real and proper Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or Holy Eucharist it is expresly contradicted in the Scripture especially by St. Paul Heb. 7.27.9 25 26 27 28. 10.10 In which places the blessed Apostle distinguisheth Christ's Sacrifice from and prefers it before the Levitical ones in regard they were reiterated and often repeated not so this but by once offering of himself once offered up by himself Heb. 9.27 28. and once for all he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified As then men properly can die no more than once so Christ can be properly sacrific'd no more but once 'T is St. Paul's own argument In
in the body thinketh the more that the body so like its own body hath sense also The like we find in his 49th Epistle Who doubts that Idols want all sense yet when they are placed aloft in an honourable sublimity by the very likeness of living members although dead and without sense they affect our minds the veneration of a multitude being added thereunto which crazy and pestilent distempers the Scripture healeth saying They have eyes but see not Whether Images in Popish-Churches have not the very same influence and effect on ignorant and superstitious Women let impartial men and such as have travelled abroad amongst them determine The same Saint Austin quoteth and commendeth a saying of Varro De Civitat Dei Lib. 4. c. 9. 31. that they who brought in Images for the People both took away the Fear of a Deity render'd base and contemptible by representations of wood and stone and added Error i. e. false and unworthy apprehensions of God. To all this it will I suppose be answered First That the Fathers inveigh against making Images of God or false Gods not Saints I reply 1. Some of them expresly condemn all Images 2. Do not Roman Catholicks though some of their own Writers condemn it make Images or Pictures of God the Father in the likeness of an old Man and of the Holy Ghost of a Dove True say they but we do it not to represent the nature of God but certain properties and actions appertaining to God I do not wonder they say they do not what cannot be done to wit to represent by an Image the infinite invisible and incomprehensible nature of God But herein they say what even the Heathens said of their Idols For Hermes Trismegistus quoted by Cyril Xenophon by Minutius Foelix Olympius by Sozomen confessed Hist Lib. 7. c. 15. that it is impossible to signifie the incorporeal God by a Body and that the form of God cannot be seen that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelt in those corporeal Images but they were not the Powers themselves It 's granted Ne facias nisi tibi Deus jusserit Tertul. de Idololat c. God and the Holy Ghost did appear in such likenesses what 's that to us We have an express command not to make to our selves any likeness of any thing in Heaven c. Is not God the Father with the Holy Ghost in Heaven Secondly They answer V. Concil Constant 6. Can 82. apud Caranzam that they give religious worship to Images not for themselves propter se but for the sake of the Persons they represent The Heathens as we have seen above said the very same If Romish worship of Images be lawful it will be difficult to condemn or convince the Heathens of Idolatry The Jews did not worship the Calf for it self but as a Representative of God. Lastly They affirm that they yield to Images a mean low and inferiour worship not what belongs to God onely I answer that as we have shewn above they give to the Images of God and Crucifixes the same Divine worship they yield unto God and Christ themselves To say they give Images Latria and yet an inferiour kind of such religious worship is to contradict themselves for all Latria as such is summus cultus the highest worship a creature can give if they give them an inferiour religious honour it is not Latria Art. 6 Concerning the Popes Supremacy I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catholick Faith The Popes Supremacy over all Emperors Kings Bishops Councils Churches and Christians throughout the World. Concerning the Fathers before the Nicene Council called above 300 years after Christ we need not make any strict enquiry seeing Aeneas Sylvius who was Pope himself afterwards confesseth Epist 288. that before this Council aliquis sed non magnus some but no great respect was given to the Roman Bishops in Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Tatianus Athenagoras I find no mention of any Supremacy in the Bishop of Rome Come we then to the Antient Father Irenaeus He in his third Book Cap. 12. quoting the words of the Church of Jerusalem ☞ Acts 22 23 25. saith These are the words of that Church from which every Church had its beginning If every Church V. Epist Concilii Constant 1. c. 9. Epist ad Damasum then the Roman How can she then be Mater Magistra the Mother and Mistris of all Churches as is now pretended by our Romanists This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome for threatning or attempting at least to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia Lib. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 15. for not observing Easter on the same day he did as Eusebius relateth At the same time lived Polyerates the renowned Bishop of Ephesus with whom many Catholick Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatned Excommunication but resolutely persisted in the Tradition and Custom received from his Predecessors particularly John the Evangelist as we find in Eusebius lib. 5. Hist c. 23. Hence it is evident that Polycrates as also Irenaeus did not look upon the Bishop of Rome as Prince and Sovereign Head of the Church or more infallible than any other Bishop It 's true Irenaeus had a great reverence for the Roman Church and testifieth to her honour that in his days the Apostolick Doctrine or Tradition remained pure and incorrupt which he opposed to the Heretical Novelties of the Valentinians But this no way proveth that she had Supreme Jurisdiction over all Churches But in regard it would be long as he saith to reckon up all Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Ephesus c. Lib. 3. cap. 3. to whom he giveth the same testimony of purity of doctrine he instances in Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem in regard of its more powerful principality known to all But these words plainly enough relate not to the Roman Church immediately as a Christian Church but to the City of Rome which at that time was the Imperial City and Head of the World. Alas What powerful Principality could the poor persecuted Church of Rome enjoy then living under Heathen Emperours It is not therefore meant strictly and properly of an Ecclesiastical but Civil Power and Principality of the City of Rome V. Concil Chalcedon infra Epist ad Roman in which the Church of Rome sojourned as St. Ignatius writeth to them whereby through concourse of all Nations it was rendred more conspicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Sylvius before mentioned confirm the same In Clemens Alexandrinus I find nothing concerning this matter I will go on to Tertullian Run through saith he the Apostolical Churches If ye be near Achaia ye have Corinth if Macedonia Philippi and Thessalonica si Italiae adjaces habes Romam If ye live near Italy ye
have Rome Where first observe that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Authority to Corinth Philippi c. which he doth to Rome Secondly He speaketh not of Jurisdiction but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine Thirdly It 's conditional if you be near Italy you have Rome Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome either as to Doctrine or Government or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her Again Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine of Faith to the Nations In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles of which all are So all are first omnes primae and all Apostolical whilst all prove one Unity Now if all are first all Apostolical how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all even Apostolical Churches Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians All are Peter and the Rock The Keys were not onely given to Peter This now at Rome is no less than Heresie Epist 45.47.49 Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother Colleague and Fellow-Bishop not as his Prince and Sovereign or Universal Bishop especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him ' In which matter we force no man we give Law to no man seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church being to give account of his actions not to the Bishop of Rome but to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit c. 10. The High Priest the Bishop of Bishops meaning the Bishop of Rome saith I absolve Adulterers Ejus errorem denotabis qui Haereticorum causam defendit Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint Menolog Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen charging him with Errour and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Governour and infallible Head of all Churches But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Baronius ad ann 258. num 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly who saith he glorying de Episcopatûs sui loco of his Episcopal Seat or Sea and that he is Successour of Saint Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches He addeth also Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus abservare quae sunt ab origine tradita De Vnitate Eccles Paci consoretio praedicti honoris potestatis Although he said before of Peter tibi dabo c. super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Christian Churches Excommunicated himself I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian Idem caeteri quod Petrus c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power They are all Pastors but the Flock is but one which is to be fed by all not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep by unanimous consent not by deputation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome A little before he saith Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equal power breathing on them the Holy Ghost and saying whose sins ye remit c. Yet to manifest Unity he appointed one Chair He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give c. singularly Why not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority which he expresly denied before than the rest of the Apostles but saith Saint Cyprian to commend to us Unity that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World which is the intent of all that Discourse Now if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop whom he would not have the People to own though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation He addeth as a reason V. Epist 68. We are many Pastors but we feed one Flock and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep yea if any of our Society è collegio nostro i. e. any Bishop Si haeresin facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri Epist 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church the rest ought to help where he exempteth not any Bishop no not the Pope from possibility of erring even Heretically as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose I pass to Saint Hilary De Trinit l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foundation this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again On this Rock of Confession the Church is built This Faith is the foundation of the Church In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra Greg. M. in Psalm Poenitent 5. Augustin in Joann Epist 1. Tract 10. Matth. 16. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles Add Theophylact See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovinian c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia with others Basil the Great Epist 8◠ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius in the name of the Greeks their Head the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs to whom they did fly for advice Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Liberius was like a Rock unshaken in those days Saint Hierome saith the Church is built on the Apostles ex aequo In 1. Epist Joan. Tract 10. equally not on Peter principally or onely much
less on his Successours and that at Rome rather than Antioch Saint Austin agreeth Quid est super hanc petram c. What is it On this Rock will I build my Church super hanc fidem on this Faith Thou art Christ the Son of God. But sparing at present particular testimonies I shall shew that all the four first General Councils These P. Gregory the Great received as the four Gospels Lib. 1. Epist 24. all Popes are sworn to them Ad apicem observaturos Can. sicut Dist 16. Hist lib. 60. c 23. l. 1. c. 6. Roma Metropolis Romanae ditionis Athanas ad solitar vit agentes either expresly or by consequence and implicitly have refuted and overthrown the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome I begin with the first Nicene Council Can. 6. where we read Let the Antient Customs remain The Bishop of Alexandria shall have the Government of the Churches of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Quoniam Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custom i. e. to govern Rome and the suburbicarian Region as Ruffinus as Roman Presbyter understood it and the precedent words plainly enough intimate The Bishop of Alexandria is to govern his Diocess as the Bishop of Rome doth the Churches belonging to him of antient Custom Here is a manifest limitation or rather exclusion of the Bishop of Romes Universal Jurisdiction Baronius Bellarmin and Coriolanus answer that those words because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custome means no more but this because the Bishop of Rome consuevit perinittere hath used of old Custom to permit the Bishop of Alexandria to govern those Churches of Egypt c. A strange gloss and a mere begging of the Point in question As if the right of governing all Churches belonged to the Bishop of Rome when the Council as of antient Custome inviolable and equal to that of Rome parilis mos commit the government of those Churches to the Bishop of Alexandria as his antient Right might not we say as well that the Patriarch of Alexandria permitted the Pope to govern the Church of Rome It is evident enough from this Canon that the Nicene Fathers did not imagine that the Supreme Government of all Churches did belong to the Bishop of Rome or that the Patriarch of Alexandria needed to supplicate him for a Pall. The first Council of Constantinople Can. 2. forbids all Bishops to encroach on the Diocesses of others lest they confound the Churches And Can. 5. they decree that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the honour of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome in regard it was new Rome to wit made the Imperial City by Constantine who called it after his own name Constantinople Here we see the Bishop of Rome is forbid as well as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishop in other mens Dioceses and that the Council out of Reverence to antient custome grants him a priority of Place or Order not a superiority of Power and Jurisdiction The general Council of Chalcedon expounds and confirms this 5th Canon of Constantinople who Can. 27. decree in these words Following in all things the Decree of the 150 Fathers to wit in the Council of Constantinople before mentioned we decree the same concerning the Priviledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople which is new Rome Their Reason is for the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God the Father nor Christ his Son Matth. 16 16. but the Fathers the Bishops did of right give Priviledges to the Throne Ecclesiastical of old Rome because it was the Imperial City and upon the same consideration the 150 Bishops before mentioned have granted to the Throne of new Rome i.e. Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges rightly judging that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate and enjoyeth equal Priviledges i.e. Civil with old Rome the Imperial City should also in matters Ecclesiastical be equally with her magnified and extolled being the second in order after her Here we see plainly First That the Church of Constantinople is in all Ecclesiastical matters and Priviledges equally extolled and magnified with old Rome Gratians corruption of this Canon is abominable for he translates it thus We Decree that the Seat of Constantinople may have not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal but similia like Priviledges with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Semor old but Superiour superior Rome non tamen in Ecclesiastic is magnificatur ut illa but is not in Ecclesiastical matters magnified as she is whereas in the Greek it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical matters shall be equally extolled An ignorant or shameless man. Secondly Observe the reason why the Fathers in both Councils being near eight hundred Bishops granted Priviledges and Preeminences to the Bishop of old Rome was because it was the Imperial City and upon the very same ground the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedo judged it right and fit to grant the same and equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople in regard it being made the Seat or Head of the Empire by the Emperour Constantine it was new Rome or the Imperial City Here is no mention made of any Divine Right granted by Christ to Peter or his Successours at Rome This Canon is of more weight than all the Decrees of Popes and the Writings of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits put together It was confirmed in the sixth General Council in Trullo Can. 36. as also by the Emperours Marcian Justinian Novel 115. cap. 3 c. Our Adversaries alledg In Edicto de Confir Syn. Chalced. apud Binium Tom. 3. p. 471. Caranza p. 369. that this Canon was surreptitiously obtained by the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius when the Bishop of Romes Legates with others were gone out of the Council But Caranza a Popish Collector of the Councils informs us that upon this complaint made by the Legates the Canon was debated the second time and confirmed by the Bishops in Council so much doth Binius Concil Tom. 3. p. 404. 463. acknowledgeth also yea the Bishop of Rome is desired by the Council to consent to it as Baronius himself confesseth I hasten to the General Council of Ephesus where upon complaint of the Bishops of Cyprus that the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a Power to ordain their Bishops contrary to antient custome the Fathers decree that they should enjoy their antient right adding a Canon whereby they forbid any Bishop not excepting the Roman to invade the Diocâ—â—ses of others lest the Statutes of the Fathers be broken and under pretence of the sacred function the tumour of secular power should creep in and so unadvisedly by little and little we lose our liberty which Christ hath purchased by his own bloud Thus those Reverend Bishops decreed V. Bernard ad Eugenium de Consid lib. 3. as if by a Prophetical Spirit they had foreseen the future Captivity of the Church
to Salvation and were some of them saved So that he acknowledgeth in some sense the Visibility of the Church Ecclesia vera erat in Papatu sed Papatus non erat vera Ecclesia Alii cautiùs Papatum dixerunt fuisse in Ecclesiâ non Ecclesiam in Papatu Prideaux Lect. de Visibil Eccl. p. 136. even Roman which Protestants deny not who grant that the true Church was in or under the Papacy although the Papacy was not that Church Neither is there any contradiction in this for a Leper is a true Man and as truly Visible as one that is clean Leprosie is not a distinct Body but a Disease cleaving to it In like manner Popery is not of it self a distinct Church but a corrupt humour in latter Ages predominant in the true Visible Church of God. Nevertheless he denies first the Papacy i. e. the Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine and Worship introduc'd of late by the Popes and their adherents to be any part of the true antient Christian Catholick Faith by which our Ancestors were saved any more than Leprosie is any part of a Man. Secondly he denyeth that there is alwaies and at all times in this true Visible Church a visible Company or State of People actually and personally divided from the rest that profess the True Faith perform Religious Worship and exercise Church-Discipline in open and conspicuous manner wholly free from the Corruptions and Abuses of such as have defiled the Church For 't is one thing to be a True Visible Church another to be free from all such Errors and Corruptions as may being wilfully persisted in endanger Mens Salvation and therefore need Reformation The Church of the Jews was the true yea the only true Church of God yet in the time of Elijah and after in our Saviour's days they were generally ten Tribes of twelve over-run with Idolatry and Superstition The like we say of the Church of Rome in the Ages next before Luther when not only gross Ignorance but many palpable Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Government did visibly appear which many eminent Professors sufficient The Answer to D. White pag. 354. as a Jesuit confesseth to prove the Churches Visibility under Persecution who lived and died in the Communion of that Church openly opposed lamented and bewailed as S. Bernard See the Articles of Reformation proposed to the Council of Trent by Ferdinand the Emperour and Charles the Ninth Apud Goldast constitut Imp. tomo 2. p. 376. and tomo 3. p. 570. Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius Cameracensis Bishop Grosthead with innumerable more although they were over-born by the predominant Party then bearing rule who could not indure to hear of Reformation tho much desired by many true Catholicks and promised by Adrian the Sixth and other Popes before the calling of the Council of Trent But it is very disingenuous to quote out of any Writer a line or two and not to add with it his explained sense and meaning As for Mr. Perkins who in his Reformed Catholick which I have not now by me saith That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholick Church his Words if his admit of the same Answer But I dare appeal to any Christian whether he can possibly believe that any learned Protestant Writer yea any man in his wits Juels Defence pag. 45 46. should think that the Gospel preached by our Saviour and the Apostles asserted by the Antient Fathers and Martyrs should first appear in the World when Luther and Zuinglius began to preach For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel Faith and Church of which Luther Zuinglius or any mere mortal man tho pretending to be Infallible is the Author and Founder Did not I believe the Doctrine generally own'd by the Protestants to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Antient Fathers I could not satisfie my own Conscience as to the profession of it The true meaning then of some Protestant Writers could be only this That the Gospel or Christian Religion did in Luther's days begin first to appear more eminently freed or reformed from those after-grown Errors and Corruptions it was in some later Ages mis-figured with being reduced to the prime Rule of Faith Garenz de Sergio de Conciâ—â—â— 706. Aquin. 2. qu. 1. art 7. resp ad 4. the Scripture and its best interpreter Primitive Antiquity And is it not an unspeakable Blessing that we enjoy such a Reformation For I can scarcely think that any sober Romanist will deny that the first were the best and the last the worst Ages of the Church and that there was after the Apostles days and the first 5 or 600 years a manifest declension of the antient purity of Doctrin and simplicity of Devotion altho there still remained a true Church as to essentials The Question concerning the Visibility of the Church stated BUT that we may not beat the air I shall first of all enquire into the true state of the Question Protestants do not as Bellarmine grants affirm the Church to be wholly and absolutely Invisible or utterly hid from the eyes of all men in any Age but comparatively only not being alwaies equally Visible They acknowledg that God ever had and will have a Church in the World which shall make in some degree a Visible profession of Christian Religion even under Persecution Thus it was in the days of Athanasms and Hilary See their words below tho not so illustrious and conspicuous for they say that the Church may be reduced to a small number the Orthodox Pastors may be violently thrust out of their Churches and the best Christians forced to worship God privately in corners And will any man deny but this detracts much from the Visibility and conspicuousness of the Church They of the Church of Rome grant all this The Jesuit Mr. White answers doth not avow yea disowns it that the Church is visible Defence of the Way p. 354. i. e. that it is a Company of Christians so illustrious as it not only may be but actually is known to all men living at all times for saith he Ecclesia aliquando obscuratur tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum c. Epist ad Vincent 48. Firmiores partim exulabant partim latitabant Ibid. Diligenter animadverti debet non sic accipiendum esse quod dicimus Ecclesiam esse semper conspicuam quasi velimus eamomni tempore dignosci posse aequè facilé Novimus enim illam aliquando errorum schisinatum persecutionum fluctibus esse agitatam ut imperitis quidem nec satis prudenter rationes temporum rerumque circumstantias aestimantibus cognitu fuerit difficilis quod tum maximè accidit cùm Arianorum perfidia in orbâ— pâ—enè tâ—to dominabatur Analys Fid. l. 6. c. 4. I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies especially in time of Persecution such an outward worldly and prosperous estate
ratione intelligi posse ipsam etiam Ecclesiae quasi essentiam veritatem aut etiam proprietates ejus omnes Non enim arbitramur palam aspici aut evidenter cognosci posse quod ulla congregatio sit reverà coetus rectè colentium Deum c. Imò verò haec in illa ipsa congregatione hominum inesse quae vera est Ecclesia non nisi obscurâ fide credimus c. Anal. Fid. l. 6. p. 30. who in the same place farther granteth that the Essence and Truth of the Church i.e. true Faith Holiness and the like are not visible neither can be evidently known or believed to be really in that company of men it self who are indeed the true Church Is not this the Protestants Invisible Church Who sometimes say that it is one thing to see that which is the Church viz. the Persons publickly professing true Religion in it and another to see that it is a true Church which depends upon the sincerity of their Profession known only by God who searcheth the heart Nothing can be more evidently true than this For suppose I see and what can I see more a Company of men baptized into the Name of Christ meeting together in Churches to serve him to read pray receive the Sacraments as the Arians and other Hereticks did and many prohane Persons or Hypocrites daily do is this sufficient evidence to assure me that they and not others who perform the very same outward acts of divine Worship tho more privately are the only true Church to which I am bound under pain of Damnation to join my self How is it then true that he saith a little before that the Church is so visible that in any age that Company may be evidently distinguished and as it were pointed at with the finger which you may and ought determinately and particularly believe to be the true Church In short The Persons and outward profession of the Members of the true Church are visible Hieron in Comment in Psal 130. Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate ante 20 enim annos omnes Ecclesias has Haeretici possidebant Ecclesia autem vera illic erat ubi vera fides erat Apud Bellar. de Eccles Milit. lib. 3. cap. 2. cap. 9. but that which makes them a true Church is still invisible so that I am still to seek for the true Church especially seeing 't is granted by Bellarmine Turrecremata Canus Soto and others that wicked Men and Hypocrites are only nominal or equivocal Members of the Church that they are rather in or within than of the true Church as dead Members or ill humors are in humane bodies I will only add Costerus a noted Writer amongst them Christ saith he would have his Church not only Visible but very conspicuous that the grace of God which in this Congregation and not elsewhere is preserved and conferred may be known unto all men whence he hath made her like to a City placed on a hill and to a Candle set on a Candlestick Here we may plainly perceive that a mere Visibility of the Church will not content our Adversaries unless it be very conspicuous so as that all Persons may know it The truth is their Principles oblige them to no less For first they say that God would have all men to be sav'd and come to the knowledge of the truth and that therefore he affordeth all men sufficient means to come to the truth Secondly They deny that the Scripture in regard of its imperfection and obscurity is sufficient to this end but that the teaching of the visible Church is the Rule of Faith which all persons especially those that are ignorant and unlearn'd must by an implicite faith in all things adhere to Whence thirdly it unavoidably follows that if God afford all men sufficient means to come to the knowledge of the truth in order to salvation and the teaching of the true Church be the ordinary means appointed thereunto then the Church must be in all ages and places not only visible to some few discreet wise persons as Valentia saith but very conspicuous and clearly discernable to all even the most ignorant and weak-sighted like a City set on an Hill c. Lastly They affirm where lies the Mystery that their Roman Church is the only infallible teaching Church in and by its Head the Pope to whose determination as Pope Boniface solemnly determin'd and pronounc'd all are bound de necessitate salutis to submit Subesse Rom. Pont. omni humanae creaturae declaramus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis Extravagant de major obed Vnam sanctam Cum omnia planè dogmata ex testimonio Ecclesiae pendeant nisi certissimi simus certitudine scil infallibili ut ibidem ait quae sit vera Ecclesia incerta erunt prorsus omnia De Eccles milit lib. 3. cap. 10. The perpetual illustrious and glorious visibility of this their Church as for other Churches they are not at all sollicitous what becomes of them is that they so earnestly contend for Their great Champion Bellarmine well perceiv'd this when he said that in regard all points of faith depend upon the testimony of the Church i. e. their Roman Church unless we be most certain which is the true Church all things in Religion will be altogether uncertain Arguments against the Church's being always conspicuous or easily discernable But that this kind of glorious illustrious and conspicuous visibility necessarily and perpetually belongs to any particular or their Roman Church is visibly and palpably false as the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories evidence In Elijahs days there was a true Church of God in Israel yet it was so far invisible that the Seer or Prophet himself could not see it Whence he complains that he was left alone altho God assures him he had reserv'd to himself 7000. 1 King. 19.18 that never bowed the knee to Baal Let them not think to evade by saying that the Church of Israel was a particular Church for so is the Church of Rome which by all their infallibility can never be made the Catholick or Universal Church In the time of our Saviour the chief Priests with the consent of the generality of the people condemn'd and crucify'd him as a Blasphemer and a false Prophet whilst only some few persons obscure and contemptible in the eyes of the World as Simeon Nicodemus c. believed on him I desire to know amongst whom the true Church was then to be found Etsi non nisi duo fideles remanerent in mundo in iis salvaretur Ecclesia Forta litium fidei lib. 5. quoted by B. Ives p. 83. and that in a conspicuous and illustrious state Do not some of your own Writers affirm that there was no true faith to be found on Earth I mean at the time of his crucifixion but in the heart of the Virgin Mary To descend lower
Durand Rationale lib. 6. c. 72. Turrecremata de Consecrat Distinct 2. num 4. Ad annum Christi 304. Nomine Christianorum deleto qui rempub evertebant in the days of Dioclesian the worst and last persecutor of Christians such havock and prodigious destruction was made of the Christian Church that several Trophies and Monuments as Baronius grants were set up in Spain in memory of the total extirpation of Christianity superstitione Christi ubique deletâ Where was then the conspicuous as Costerus phraseth it and illustrious state of the Catholick or particular Roman Church Surely had not the Church of Rome her self as well as other Christian Churches been in a great degree invisible as to the knowledge of the Roman Emperour and his Inquisitors in all humane probability the name of Christians as they boasted had been wholly rooted out I might add the state of the Christian Church even Roman Ingemuit totus orbis se factum esse Arianum admiratus est Dialog contra Luciferianos under the prevalency of Arianism and its heretical Head Pope Liberius when as St. Hierom writes the whole World sighed and wonder'd how it became Arian When the Catholick Bishops were banish'd from their Sees and the Orthodox Christians forsaking the Churches worshipped God in cryptis in private houses and corners Concerning which deplorable times St. Hilary writeth in this manner to such as communicated with the Arians Malè voâ—â—â—s parietum amor cepit malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedisiciisque veneramini Montes mihi lacus carceres sunt tutiores Addit Rarumesse apud Orientem invenire aut Episcopum aut populum Catholicum Lib. contr Auxentium Quae nunc Ecclesia Christum liberè adorat Siquidâ—m si pia est periculo subjacet Nam si alicubi sunt pii sunt atem ubique tales permulti illi itidem absconduntur c. Epist ad solitariam vitam agent Vid. Apolog. ejus ad Constant de fuga You are ill taken with the love of walls you ill seek or reverence the Church of God in Houses and Structures Mountains and Prisons and Dungeons are safer He adds that 't was hard to find in the East a Catholick Bishop or people Athanasius saith as much or more What Church saith he now adores Christ freely Seeing if it be pious it is in danger For if there be some pious and studious of Christ as there are every where many such they also as the great Prophet ELIAS are hid thrust themselves into holes and caverns of the Earth or wander in solitude These things being undeniably evident I desire to know whether in those days the true Church was not only visible but very conspicuous to the sight of all men so that it might be evidently distinguish'd and as it were pointed at with the finger as Costerus and Valentia affirm But what need is there of many words in this case Pauiò ante mundi finem externus status Ecclesiae Romanae cessabit publicum fidelium cum eâdem commercium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim obtinebit tamen tunc pii corde Papâ Ecclesiâ Romana communicabunt Rhemenses in Annotat. in animo cum 2 Thess 2. Revel 12. when our Adversaries themselves grant that a little before the end of the World when Antichrist shall come the external state of the Roman Church shall cease and that the publick worship of God shall by persecution be suppressed and that the truly pious shall communicate with the Pope only in heart and soul The difference then betwixt them and us cometh only to this that what we say hath been they say shall be hereafter whilst it is agreed on both sides that an illustrious conspicuous visibility is no essential property or inseparable note of the true Church Texts alledged for Visibility as meant by the Papists answered I now come to examine the places of Scripture mention'd in your Letter to evince the contrary The first and principal urg'd by Valentia and many other is Matth 15.14 15. Ye are the light of the World. A City that is set on an Hill cannot be hid Neither do men light a Candle to put it under a Bushel c. To which may be added Isa 2.2.60.20.61.9 Dan. 7.14 quoted in your Paper To all which the same Answer may be applied My reply is that those words do not prove a perpetual conspicuous and illustrious visibility of the Church in all Ages to all persons which our Adversaries contend for First Because the words are not spoken at least directly of the Church general or successive in all Ages but of and to the Apostles personally Ye are the light of the World. And seeing they were commanded by our Saviour to teach all Nations we may reasonably suppose that they were under a special protection of divine Providence until they had fulfill'd the work committed unto them But the case of ordinary Pastors and Teachers of the Church is not the same with that of Apostles Secondly Suppose we understand the words of the Church general or successive which we grant to be a light to the ignorant World and like a City set on a Hill yet it cannot be deny'd yea our Adversaries grant it that this light of Apostolick doctrine in the Church may be obscur'd or eclipsed by error Aug. Epist ad Vincentium supra scandal and persecumay be obscur'd or eclipsed by error scandal and persecution as the Sun and Moon sometimes are tho they be glorious and most visible lights In like manner a City set on an Hill may be so clouded by foggy mists and vapors that it may become for some time invisible at least not so visible or conspicuous as that any man may point at it with his finger The other Similitude of Mens lighting a Candle and setting it on a Candlestick that so it may give light to all in the House signifies the clearness universality and diffusiveness of the doctrine taught by the Apostles But that any one particular Church Greek or Roman should be such a Candlestick as can never fail or be remov'd as well as that of Ephesus and many other Apostolical Churches wholly rooted out by Mahometanism Revel 2. or which should be as our Adversaries too grosly affirm more visible and discernable to all men than the light it self viz. of the Gospel contain'd in the Scripture plac'd in the Candlestick i. e. the Church this I suppose no prudent man will take to be our Saviour's meaning in those words That they make their Church the Candlestick and its Authority more visible to us than the truth or light of the holy Scripture is so notorious I will not stand to prove it * Quae sit vera scriptura quis ejus verus sensus non possumus scire nisi ex Testimonio verae Ecclesiae Bellarmin de Notis Eccl. lib 4. c. 2. In a word A Candle tho burning clearly on a Candlestick
unmeasurable rage of ungodly persecutors yea so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith their Faith was commended throughout the World Rom. 1. ver 8. so was their Obedience also Rom. 16.19 But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any degree from it Tim. 4.1 He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus writeth to the Roman Church Rom. 8.18 19 20 21 22. Boast not against the branches thou bearest not the root but the root thee Because of unbelief they i. e. the Jewish Church were broken off and thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but fear for if God spar'd not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee And as to Christian Obedience De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Genebrard Chronol lib. 4. seculo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num 8. in ann 985. num 1. it 's granted by Bellarmin Genebrard and others that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation As for the second Question wherein satisfaction is desir'd to answer Roman Catholicks when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation it being to them strange that if Protestancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since To this I reply first That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation That there are seven Sacraments properly so call'd Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints and Angels Worshiping Images and Reliques Indulgences the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass Communion in one kind c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings or contradicted and condemn'd by them Secondly I answer That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least I might say more after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith but either say nothing of them or testifie against them or at least speak doubtfully of them whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant not Popish Religion This I shall shew from their Writings Yea thirdly That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ particularly in the points of seven Sacraments Purgatory Indulgences Communion in one kind and some others Lastly That there is scarcely any point especially of them before rehears'd condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion who complain of them or protest against them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther To perform my promise I shall now prove 1. Assertion First That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius and added by him to the Nicene Creed are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings or refuted and condemn'd by them Seven Sacraments not taught by the Apostles First For their seven Sacraments The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments or that Matrimony Orders Extream Unction Confirmation Confession are such and as Bellarmin affirms Nec plura nec pauciora De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost Ambros Austin c. only such Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own flowing as the antient Fathers speak out of Christ's side whence came forth Water and Bloud which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover as we read 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. More we find not It 's true St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 5.32 a great Mystery The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum a great Sacrament Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter In locum for as Cardinal Cajetan observes he immediately addeth But I speak of Christ and the Church St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil James 5.14 but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place 6.13 It had no spiritual effect on the Soul as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have as is granted The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God not Oil ver 15. Nor Transubst Secondly The Apostles did not teach Transubstantiation Durand Biel Scotus Cameracensis Cajetan grant it canbe not evidently proved from the Scripture See below Matth. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 17. Card. Contarenus de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Canus loc Theol. l. 3. c 3. Fisher cont Luther c. 10. say the same 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1 Did Christ eat his own Body when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him So Chrysostom Hom 40 in Jean 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood Yea St. Paul expresly declares the contrary for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration The Bread that we break but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it is it not the communion of the Body of Christ The Cup of Blessing we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ So that Bread and the Cup i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy as all must grant the Wine in the Cup remain in the Communion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and
Blood. In the next Chapter in 3 Verses together he calleth it Bread. May not we call it so or was it not what St. Paul call'd it But he calleth it the Lord's Body True. Yet not in a literal but Sacramental sense even as the Cup which to be sure is not transubstantiated is term'd his Blood or the New Testament and Covenant in his Blood as the Lamb was call'd the Passover Circumcision the Covenant Baptism the Laver of Regeneration in which nevertheless Romanists do not believe any Transubstantiation This Bread we doubt not is in deed Christ Body as that Rock in the Wilderness was Christ as Christ was the true Vine or true living Bread which no sober man will interpret in a literal proper and substantial but in a Sacramental symbolical or typical sense Nor Purgatory Thirdly According to the doctrine of the holy Scripture there neither is nor can be Purgatory Polydore Virgil de Invent l. 1. c. 1. Biel in Can. Missae lect 57. Alphonsus de Castro lib. 8. tit Indulgent Valentia de Indulg grant that Purgatory is not to be found in Scripture nor Indulgences 1 Thess 4.14 This I prove from Rev. 14.13 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord for they rest from their labours How do men who die in a state of grace and so in Christ the Lord rest from their labours if as soon as they die they are tormented or as the Roman phrase is labour none know how long in the fire of Purgatory It 's confess'd by our Adversaries that all impenitent and wicked men who being void of grace die not in the Lord go to Hell not Purgatory How do righteous and good men enter into peace and rest according to Isa 57.20 if after death they enter into fiery torments St. Paul saith it generally of all Believers in Christ not Martyrs only as some would evade that they sleep in Jesus and would not have us to sorrow excessively for them How do they as it were sleep in Christ's bosom Why should we not mourn exceedingly for them if they probably lie in flames of fiâ—e under unspeakable torments not much inferiour to them of Hell as is granted excepting only the duration or continuance Add John 52.4 He that believeth shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life But he that cometh unto Purgatory cometh into condemnation Possibly it will be objected that Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3.12 Patres aliqui per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorii sed Divini Judicii quomodo loquitur Paulus 1 Cor. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg cap. 1. Augustin de fide operibus c. 15. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. Bellarmin de Purgator lib. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Chrysostom expounds it Tom. 5. Hom. 28. p. 467. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. plainly delivereth the doctrine of Purgatory The fire shall try every mans work he shall be saved yet so as by fire But how can it be a plain place for Purgatory when Origen and Augustine yea Bellarmine himself confess it 's a most obscure one and therefore very unfit to ground an Article of Faith upon St. Paul's whole discourse in that Chapter is Metaphorical and allusive as those words especially evidence v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by fire or as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty like one who runs through the fire to save his life That the place proveth not the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is manifest by this argument urg'd by * Saint Augustine The fire St. Paul mentioneth shall try every man's work The fire of Purgatory as they themselves grant tryeth not every mans work Ignis probationis non purgationis Aug. de fide operibus c. 15. Non est plenè remissa culpa quamdiu peccator est reus solvendae poenae Ceanus loc Theolog. lib. 12. pag. 435. Exemplo reatu eximitur poena Tert. de Baptismo cap 5. So Theodoret Theophylact and Anselm approved by Bellarmin lib. 1. de Purgator c. 5. pag. 586. Malachi 3. c. v. 3. for it tryeth only such mens works as die under the guilt of venial sins or such mortal ones as are forgiven but are not fully satisfied for and therefore which is a contradiction are still to be punish'd Therefore St. Paul's fire cannot be the fire of Purgatory into which the best and worst sort of men come not at all Again It 's one thing to try mens works whether they be good or bad and another to punish and by punishing to purge away the guilt of such as are bad In all probability St. Paul by the fire in that Text figuratively expressed the severe judgment of Christ at the last day The day shall declare it Then indeed our Saviour like a Goldsmith or Refiner shall exactly try every mans work c. then such as retain the foundation i. e. true faith in Christ and build upon it wood hay stubble i. e. erroneous opinions and fond imaginations of which this Purgatory doctrine is one instance shall be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger undergoing a strict scrutiny Nor Prayers to Saints or Angels Psalm 50. De Sanct. Beat. l 1. c. 19. Becanus in Euchirid c. 7. Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disput 2. art 7. Vide Sixtum Senens Biblioth lib. 6. Annotat 345. Enchiridion in 1 Tim. 2. disput 7. art 22. qu. 1. art 10. Col. 2.18 Rom. 10.14 Fourthly The Scripture no where commands adviseth or encourageth us to pray to Saints or Angels but to God only Call upon me in the time of trouble c. When ye pray say Our Father c. In the Old Testament Bellarmine grants there is no mention of Invocation of Saints because the Patriarchs Prophets and Saints were in Limbo not admitted to see God of which opinion as to Christians were many of the ancient Fathers altho the Papists now reject it as an Error In the New at least if we except that most abstruse Book the Revelation Eccius Salmeron Bannes and others confess that it hath no footsteps Yea Saint Paul expresly condemns worshiping Angels out of a voluntary humility after the vain Philosophy of the Platonists who yet did not worship them as Gods any more than Papists but only as Messengers or Mediators betwixt God and men Elsewhere he asketh the Roman Church which she should remember How shall they call on him i. e. lawfully on whom they have not believed But we believe in God only not in any Saint or Angel. How shall we then call on them I might add that the Church of Rome hath no certainty even of humane Faith that the Saints in Heaven know our wants or hear our Prayers for they know not on what ground to settle this belief Some flying to extraordinary Revelations some to the brittle and voluntary Glass of the Trinity some to the reports of Angels intruding into the things they have not seen nor
the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrific'd Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon If Christ should be offer'd by himself or others often more than once ver 26. then must he have often suffered But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead which our Adversaries affirm Yea if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over for sacrificing any living thing and such is Christ to God Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut plane destruatur ipsa etiam substantia consumatur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed as the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass if they deny it then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd if they should attempt it the thing is impossible for Christ being now impassible and in a glorify'd State can die no more as we read Rom. 6.9 When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè without bloudshed they yield the cause for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction as Bellarmine grants De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed for without shedding of bloud there is no remission If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or a commemoration of his death termed 1 Cor. 11.26 a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sacramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup we should not oppose them but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud really corporally and carnally as it was on the Cross is quite another As for Bellarmin's Reply that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass it signifies nothing For I ask Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice or Christ himself his Body and Bloud Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Priests manducation or eating and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only de missa l. 1. c. â—â—â— But a true Sacrifice requireth a consumption of its substance as is above by him granted Ergo. who is a living Person yea liveth for ever If Bread onely 't is blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin If Christ himself who is a living Person be truly and properly sacrific'd he must be truly and properly slain As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion I answer That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Communion of the Bloud of Christ And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order thereunto So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary Nor Communion in one kind only As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution example and command of Christ himself as also the Apostolical tradition of St. Paul that 't is a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me so our Lord at the first institution of it Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians commending it to the observation of the whole Church Laity as well as Clergy joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon Let a man examine himself c. What man An Apostle only or a consecrating Priest No. But any ordinary Christian capable of this Sacrament Well What is then to be done Let him eat of that bread as it is his necessary and indispensable duty to do but is that all No. For he addeth And let him whether Layman or Clerick whether Consecrator or not also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye Christians in general eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew forth as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not the Lords death till he come Doth it not look like Antichristianism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter Panis vinum ad essentiam sacramenti pertinent Bellarmin de Euchar lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil Trident. Panis vinum non tam essentiales quam integrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur Bellarmin de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur mutilate or in any substantial part as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknowledg'd to be to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian Clerick or Laick as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one they may both for both are equally commanded both are as necessary as either The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church from which as we see they have manifestly departed In a word If the Pope and his Councils have power to alter and dispense with yea countermand Christ's express Laws and Institutions Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum but it is made as a learned Traveller observes a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men which directly tends to promote Atheism for which crime Italians are notorious Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith without which no
Church condemns them as Hereticks and rejecters of Purgatory Secondly It 's undeniable that he did not hold the Purgation of sins after death no not by the fire of Grief much less material fire to be an undoubted truth or Article of Christian Faith De Purgat lib. 10. cap. ult as Bellarmin in that place affirmeth it to be But in regard the words of Saint Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian are much urged by some as clearly confirming the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory where he writeth Aliud est statim fidei virtutis mercedem accipere aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emendari purgari diu igne It's one thing presently to receive the reward of Faith and Vertue another for one being long tormented with grief for his sins to be cleansed and purged a great while in fire To answer this place we are first of all to observe the occasion of these words Saint Cyprian a little before takes notice of an Objection of the Novatian Hereticks against the receiving the Lapsi such as for fear in time of Persecution like Peter denied Christ They alledged that if such might be admitted to Absolution and the Communion of the Church none would be Martyrs or lay down their lives for the faith of Christ Saint Cyprian answers not so for altho a time of Penance and then Peace is granted to Adulterers yet Virginity and Continency did not languish or decay in the Church Then follow the words above mentioned Aliud est c. It 's evident enough then that the Fire here mentioned is not to be understood of any proper and material Purgatorian fire which Papists plead for but Metaphorical or of the fire of Grief as St. Austin expounds the Fire 1 Cor. 3. which place most probably Saint Cyprian here alludes unto in regard such as fell away in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church until they had undergone the grief and shame of a publick As Bellarmin grants de Purgat lib. 1. cap. 5. long and severe Penance termed Exomologesis So much Saint Cyprian's own words intimate It 's one thing presently to receive as Martyrs did the reward of their Faith and Vertue a great encouragement to Martyrdom another to be cleansed longo dolore with long grief and which are Paraphrastical of his former words to be long purged with fire To this I shall add that it was the Opinion of many of the Ancient Fathers as Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Lactantius Biblioth l. 6. annotat 345. Ambrose with others quoted by Sixtus Senensis that none except Martyrs were immediately upon their death admitted admitted to the presence of God ad oscula Domini to receive the Crown of Eternal Glory but were kept in loco invisibili as Irenaeus or in abditis receptaculis in some secret invisible places until the day of Judgment sollicitously expecting then to receive their final Sentence this is pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini as Saint Cyprian there phraseth it Thus I hope I have given let the Learned Reader judge a true and fair interpretation of Saint Cyprian's words which do not import any proper fire to purifie Souls before the day of Judgment so that upon the view of what is abovesaid we may conclude that the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is no part of the Antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith but in the Fifth Century in Saint Austin's days began to be a doubtful and uncertain Opinion only So much at present for Purgatory I should now make some enquiry in the Writings of the Antient Fathers after Indulgences the fuel that feeds this Purgatorian Fire Lib. 80. Tit. Indulgentiae De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinem quia nec Scriptura expressè de iis loquitur Durand l. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Ambr. Hilar Aug. Hieronym minimè de iis loquuntur Idem ibid. Roffensis assert Luther confut art 18. But I am much discouraged in regard Alphonsus de Castro a learned and earnest Papist who lived near Luther's time and knew what was the first occasion of his opposing the Church of Rome to wit the abominable abuse of these Indulgences by the Pardon-mongers He I say in that very Book which he wrote against Heresies and Luther by name hath informed me Inter omnes est c. that amongst all the Points in dispute betwixt Protestants and Papists there is not one which the Scripture hath less clearly delivered and of which Antient Writers have spoken less than concerning Indulgences The Popes Martyr Roffensis confesseth the use of them was sero receptus in Ecclesia of late received by the Church Of Purgatory he saith there is especially amongst the Greek Writers ferè nulla mentio almost no mention of it Now Indulgences as is granted are grounded on Purgatory they must stand and fall together So long saith he as there was no care or fear of Purgatory no Man sought for Pardons for on it depends all the credit of Pardons Take away Purgatory and what use of Pardons When therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Church who now can marvel at Pardons that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of them Pardon 's therefore began after that they had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory Thus he Antoninus Sylvester Pierius Ostiensis the Lovain Divines Polydore Virgil Cajetan and others of whom more hereafter say as much so that it will be labour in vain to search for them in the Writings of the antient Authors Here I cannot but wonder our Adversaries do not blush to boast of their present Roman Faith and Church as if they were the same only the same with the antient Primitive and Catholick one and to accuse us Protestants of Novelty Heresie and setting up a new Faith and Church under the Banner of M. Luther whereas they not we are guilty of those Crimes by introducing new Articles of Faith Purgatory and Indulgences amongst the rest which we only protest against Art. 4 Concerning Invocation of Saints I now come to Invocation of Saints and Angels a grand Article of the Roman Faith according to Pope Pius his new Creed Eximium adorationts genus Bellarm. de Beat. Sanct. concerning which I shall in general take the boldness to say that for above three hundred years after Christ there cannot be produced out of the genuine Writings of one antient Father one clear and pertinent testimony for Invocation of Saints or Angels Besides my own little observation I have good Vouchers for this Assertion to wit the most Reverend and learned Primate Usher who read over all the Fathers and Mr. Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints V. Molinaeum de Novit Papis p. 388. apud Chemnit in Exam. p. 6. 13. Apol. 2. yea Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth this to be truth who as also Cassander never used in private Devotions to pray to
hasten to my fourth and last Assertion which was this That there is scarcely any point in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists especially of them before-mentioned made by Pope Pius and the late Tridentine Council Articles of Faith but we are able to produce many eminent Writers and some of their own Church who condemn them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned were not the generally received and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman much less Catholick Church but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it The Numbâ—r of Sacraments I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments The Canonists as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist 5. de Poenitentia V. Rhe … num 〈◊〉 in Tertul. de Poenitent Loc. Commun lib. â— c. 4. 5. In qu. Gent. Diâ—t 26. qu. 3. say That Penance was not ordained as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are a Sacrament by Christ but is an Institution of the Church onely Canus affirmeth it 's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds 4. Dist 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called conferring Grace Hugo de S. Victore denieth that extreme Unction is a Sacrament Holcot quoted by Cassander Consult art 13. saith Confirmation is no Sacrament De Sacrum Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Alexander Halensis is of opinion that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel See Dr. Field of the Church In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper as Protestants do Transubstantiation Secondly As for their new Article of Transubstantiation Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth Dist 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5 De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest 3. Lib. 4. Dist 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration which was Luther's Opinion is possible neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture Nay saith he it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth that the substance doth leave the accidents and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches i. e. his Roman Churches determination Scotus quoted by Bellarmine saith that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure P. Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen believed it not For he saith if it be demanded what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud is made by Consecration whether formal or substantial De Verit. Corp. Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Maries days declares that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantiation it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence which we grant and no more Yea he used to say That if he had been at Pope Innocent's Elbow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith he could he thought have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it In Can. Missae Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent and the Infallibility of the Church you must suppose Roman which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us To which Durand agreeth 4 Dist 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness saith he to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament unless the bread be converted into it He adds that the Opinion of Transubstantiation held by Lutherans is liable to fewer difficulties but it must not be holden since the Church of Rome hath determined the contrary which is presumed not to err in such matters Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibility V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantiation not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture which he saith cannot be found In like manner Cameracensis professeth he saw not how Transubstantiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church making it a matter of Opinion not Faith and inclining rather as Alliaco to Consubstantiation Aquinas himself acknowledgeth that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally but sacramentally only which overthroweth Transubstantiation Ferus is very moderate in this point Seeing saith he it 's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or not Tom. 3. Disp 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself quoted by Suarez confesseth that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point This is my Body Supra in Part. 3. summ qu. 75. art 14. secluding the Authority of the Church are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation Of the same Opinion was Scotus The same Cajetan noteth that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth So if I be not much mistaken doth Cardinal Bellarmine who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body maintains onely a Translocation adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it which as easie to discern is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body properly so called Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation proving out of the Scriptures and antient Fathers that the Bread and Wine are not properly but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud This Book is still extant and no wonder condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies wherein he affirms that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter corporally but spiritually spiritualiter With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury appointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion still extant in Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Oxford and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity Panis ille est corpus Christi figurate
c. Fulber Epist ad Adeodatum Epist ad Heribaldum To these may be added Bertram de corpore sanguine Domini to Charles the Great who about seven hundred years ago in a just Treatise impugneth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to whom you may add Fulbertus Carnoton Berengarius Hincmarus in vita Remigii Rabanus Maurus Purgatory As for Purgatory and its Appendix Indulgences whose most gross abuse defended by the Pope first opened Luther's mouth against him much need not be said in regard as we have seen above Roffensis the Popes Martyr and Alphonsus de Castro to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil confess they are late Novelties of which in the antient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention The modern Greek Church as appeareth peareth from their Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire Lumbard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences The later Schoolmen Albertus Al. Halensis Durand Cajetan quoted by Bishop Usher and Dr. Field in his Appendix say that Finalis Gratia c. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in Gods Children Answer to the Challenge p. 179. Part. prima summae Tit. 10. c. 3. Opusc 15. c. 1. De Indulg lib. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Primus in Purgatorium extendit Indulgentias V. Chemnit Exam. de Indulg 742. 100 Gravamina what need then of any Purgatorian fire Antoninus acknowledgeth that concerning Indulgences nihil habemus expressè c. We have nothing expresly or clearly delivered either in Scripture or the antient Fathers This same is affirmed by Cajetan and Durand Agrippa de Vanitate Scient cap. 61. saith that Pope Boniface VIII first extended Indulgences to Purgatory they were opposed before Luther by the University of Paris Wesselus Wickliffe Hus Jerome of Prague Savanorola yea the States of Germany complain to the Pope of them as intolerable burdens cheats and incentives to all manner of wickedness Add Platina in Boniface 9. Urspergensis Chron. p. 322. Art. 4 Image-worship Worshipping of Image was V. Polyd. Virgil. de Invent rerum lib. 6. V. Cassand infra See Vspergensis Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. Westminst ad Ann. 794. Cassand Consult art de Imagin The work of Mens Hands may not be adored no not in honour of their Prototypes p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagin as is notorious first Decreed though not with Latria in the second Nicene Council about the year 794 but was opposed and condemned by the General Councils of Constantinople and Frankfort in which last were three hundred Bishops called by the Emperour and Pope whose Legates were there present as the Bishop of Rhemes reports apud Alanum Copum Dial. 4. and Suarez grants it in 3. Part. Thomae qu. 25. disp 54. This worship of Images was confuted also by Albinus or Alcuinus out of the Scriptures as Hoveden relates in continuat Bedae ad ann 794. Moreover by the Book of Charles the Great if it be not the same with the former which is still extant in the Vatican and acknowledged to be genuine by some learned Papists Agobardus Bishop of Lyons wrote against worshipping Pictures or Images So did also Jonas Bishop of Orleans in his Book de Cultu Imaginum cap. 5. allowing them onely for Ornament in Churches but detests the giving them any part of divine Honour as accursed wickedness Peresius saith as much Gerson de defect viror Eccles Holcot de Sapientia Lect. 158. Miraudula Apol. qu. 3. condemn bowing before them Durand de ritib. Eccl. Catharinus de cult Imagin grant that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry See our Churches Homily on the Peril of Idolatry Polydore Virgil saith De Invent. rerum lib. 6. c. 13. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. all the Fathers condemn'd worshipping Images Bellarmine himself granteth that the worship of Images as defended and practised by the Roman Church i.e. with Latria or the same worship we give to the Prototypes cannot be maintained without such nice distinctions of absolutely and relatively or accidentally univocally or analogically properly or improperly as scarce themselves much less the weak common people can understand or if they do can hardly avoid Error in practising them Peresius more plainly They are a scandal to the weak who cannot understand them but by erring Hence the Cardinal accounteth it not safe to teach their Votaries publickly to give Divine Honour or Latria to the Image of Christ for his sake De Trad. p. 226. V. Biel. in Canon Missae Sect. 49. Part 3. qu. 28. Art. 3. Instit Mor. Tom. 1. l. 9. Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Sect. 4. Vasq in qu. 25. disp 110. c. 2. See Orig. in Cels l. 6. 8. Arnob. lib. 6. Apud Bellar. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. V. Aug. de fide symb cap. 7. Biblioth Patrtom Tom. 5. pag. 609. Concil Trident. Compare Origen Lib. 7. in Celsum Nevertheless it 's undeniable that this is the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome declared by their Oracle Aquinas and constans opinio as Azorius speaks the constant Opinion of their Divines defended by Valentia Suarez and that as the sense of the Council of Trent Vasquez the Jesuit to defend this Adoration blushed not to write that it is lawful to worship the Sun yea God bless us the Devil himself so the worship be directed ultimately to God and his Honour whereas it 's notorious that the Heathens might and did in this very manner defend their gross Idolatry The very making of the Images of the Trinity is condemn'd by Abulensis Durand Peresius and others yet defended and practised by the Roman Church Walafridus Strabo called it Superstition and blockishness hebitudinem to worship Images I will end that I be not too tedious with the words of Jonas Bishop of Orleans as an Answer to our Adversaries Reply That they place no Divinity in their Images but worship them onely in honour of God and of him whose Image it is seeing they know there is no Divinity in Images they are the more to be condemned for giving to an infirm and beggerly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus it being so consonant with Jonas as making one sentence De Pict Imag. p. 237. They which answer as our Roman Catholicks now do they think no Divinity to be in the Image they worship but that they worship it in honour of him whose image it is are easily answered because if the Image they worship be not God neither is it to be worshipped in honour of the Saints who use not to arrogate to themselves Divine Honour He adds That the Images of Christ and the Apostles were expressed by the Antients after the custom of the Gentiles V. Euseb supra rather for love and memory than for any religious honour or
Church or Religion different in essence from the old one Had it not been a ridiculous impertinency for one that knew Naaman before whilst he stood by to ask where is Naaman and being answered this is he for the Enquirer to reply it cannot be he for Naaman was a Leper this man is clean Was not Naaman formerly a Leper and now cleansed the same person A Field of Wheat in part weeded is the same it was as to ground and seed not another In like manner the true visible Christian Church cleansed and unclean reformed and unreformed is the same Church altered not as to Essence or substance but quality or condition That the true Visible Church of God may be generally over-run with corruptions in Worship Errours yea Heresies we see not onely in the Jewish but Christian Churches of Corinth Thyatira c. and all the Eastern Churches yea almost the whole World in Athanasius his days is so undeniable a truth Ad ann 358. Totus mundus abiit post Pelagium Bradwardin de causa Dei in praefat that Baronius and others of our Adversaries are forced as we have seen above to grant it Why should it then seem to them impossible or incredible that the Church of God in the blind and unlearned Ages before Luther should in like manner be over-run with many pernicious Errours in Doctrine and corruptions in Worship If so as Nicolas Clemangis Alvarus Pelagius and others of their own Church confess and bewail V. Caranzam de Conciliis p. 786 789. why might not the King of England as well as Hezekiah or Josiah redress these Abuses and suppress these Errours in his own Dominions Why might not other States and Princes do the same especially when Reformation of them by a free General Council not enslaved to the Popes will and pleasure though promised could not be obtained V. Concil Pisanum Sess 16. 20. Was it necessary for fear of making a new Church or Religion that the Church of God must for ever lie under those defilements and corruptions If not may not our Reformers justly say What Evil have we done Not to be too tedious This Question Where was the Protestant Church in the Ages before Luther ariseth from several mistakes First From want of distinguishing betwixt a true visible Church and a sound one The Roman Church from which Luther and others received their Baptism and Ordination We grant to be a part or member of the Catholick Church but it was unsound and subject to many Diseases i. e. corruptions in Doctrine Worship and Discipline which like ill humours endangered its very life The Reformation wherein Luther with many more were instrumental was not Poison to destroy its Vitals but purgative Physick to remove its distempers and to preserve them Secondly It 's a mistake that they will not distinguish betwixt the avowed and universally owned Doctrines of a Church and the Opinions or practices of some few or many in it In the Churches of Pergamus or Thyatira there were some and possibly not a few who held the Doctrine of Balaam and were seduced by that wicked Jezabel pretending to be a Prophetess and infallible yet these Doctrines were not properly the Doctrines of those Churches but of a party in them The like we say of the Errours in the Church of Rome that they were never universally owned and allowed no not by many eminent Professours and Writers of her own Communion as we have made evident Thirdly It 's a great mistake when they demand that we shew the Protestant Religion and Church distinct and separate from the Catholick in all Ages when we affirm and prove that not onely in the Apostles days but for near five hundred years after the true Apostolick Faith was at least as to substance kept pure and uncorrupt Would they have us to shew Protestants protesting against the antient and Primitive Faith As for their New Tridentine Articles of Faith they were to be sure not some of them then in being to be protested against Fourthly It 's a gross mistake to think that all who live in a true but corrupted Christian Church are either bound to approve of those corruptions or at all times necessary to separate actually and personally from the Church for their sake See Bull against Can. This Protestants condemn in Donatists and Brownists or Separatists The Errors and corruptions of the Roman Church were a long time growing in or upon her The Tares were not seen as soon as they were sown but after they were grown up God forbid we should condemn to Hell all our Forefathers that lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church In the Prophet Elijah's Isaiah's Jeremiah's days the true Visible Church of God was corrupted both Princes Priests and People severely reproved yet the Prophets advised none to separate therefore from the Temple and Worship of God although no doubt their mind was that all as far as was possible should keep themselves free and undefiled from those prevalent corruptions Likewise our Blessed Saviour forsook not the Temple and although he warned them to take heed of the leaven i. e. false Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees yet in regard they sate in Moses his Chair he commands the people to do as they said i. e. according to the Law and consequently to go and hear what they said Much very much as Austin and other Fathers tell us is to be born rather than to make a Schism in the Church of God. On this ground no doubt many of our Forefathers before the Reformation continued till death in the Communion of the Roman Church that so they might enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments although they mourned for and groaned under the overflowing predominancy of many Errors and superstitious Observations in their days heartily desiring yea openly requiring a removal of them but could not obtain it The Jesuit whom Dr. White answered acknowledgeth that the Church is not actually seen at all times Pag. 379. yet it may be discerned with prudent and diligent enquiry in regard even in times of its greatest obscurity or persecution there were always some Eminent and known Members of it He ands although it have not always an outward and illustrious Estate and cannot where persecution rageth practise publickly the Rites of Divine Worship yet the Church never did or shall want an inward Estate or subordination to Pastors c. If this be as he grants sufficient to make good the perpetual visibility of the Church we can easily evince the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion under Papal persecutions from the Writings of those times as the Reader may in part discern from what we have collected But in regard they so vehemently urge us to shew some Professours of the Protestant Religion divided and separated from the Roman Church we though it be no way necessary as we have seen above mention the Wicklevists Lollards Bohemians Waldenses
See Bishop Vsher de success Eccl. and Albigenses who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own resisting Popery even unto bloud Onely I must mind our Adversaries these persons were rather fugati violently driven out of the Roman Church by Excommunications armed with Fire and Sword than fugitivi fugitives or voluntary Separatists As for their condemning them as Hereticks it signifies little or nothing for that 's the matter in question and seeing the Pope and Court of Rome as Saint Bernard Pope Adrian Bernard de Concil Adri. in legatione ad Principes Germaniae Polycrat lib. 6. cap. 24. Sarisberiensis and others acknowledge were in those days charged as the source and original cause of all disorders and abuses in the Church it 's most unreasonable their known Enemies should be admitted as their Judges in their own cause The truth is some of the Popish Writers of those days have accused Wickcliffe the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting horrid and self-contradicting Opinions Vsher de Success Eccl. that no ingenuous and impartial man can possibly believe any thing they say of them I verily think their great fault or Heresie was that they were victus populus Dei as they said conquered quelled and subdued by force of Arms not Arguments So were the Catholicks under the Heathen and Arian persecuting Emperours Certainly no prudent Christian will take Prosperity Victory outward Pomp and Power to be certain notes or perpetual properties of the true Church and right Believers nay Adversity and persecution rather as our Saviour intimates when he assures his Apostles they should be hated of all men for his Names sake and that the time would soon come when whosoever killed them should think as the Crusadoes and their Military Saint Dominic no doubt thought they did God service It 's sufficient to our present purpose that we shew some who held with us against the present Doctrine of the Papacy But here I expect their usual Objection That many of the Writers and Persons we alledg did not in all things agree with the Protestants though in some particulars they consented True no more did they in all things agree with the present Roman Church If some who believed not the Popes Supremacy the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass Merits Purgatory c. were yet Members as of the Catholick so Roman Church and were saved which I suppose no Papist will deny Why are we Protestants condemn'd as Hereticks to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes and Canonized Saints have done I challenge any Papist to shew me one National or Provincial Church I might go farther in the whole World that for at least twelve hundred years after Christ did in all points believe as the Trent Council have decreed or professed that Catholick Religion which Pope Pius hath summ'd up in his Creed We may ask them Where was your Tridentine Faith and Church before Luther Was Pope Leo the Great for receiving the Communion in one kind Was Pope Gregory the Great for worshipping of Images or for that proud profane Antichristian and foolish name as he calls it of Universal Bishop Were Cyprian Saint Austin the Council of Chalcedon the Affrican Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome and subjecting all Churches to the Popes Universal jurisdiction Were these Tridentine Papists Was P. Gelasius for Transubstantiation Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholicks Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it or so soft a head as to believe it I shall onely add That it is no wonder if many good Men and learned did not at once see and discover in an Age wherein Ignorance and Superstition abounded all these Errours Abuses and corruptions which infected the Church of God but did in some things not altogether so gross and palpably wicked as others errare errorem seculi follow the current of the times To end I hope Sir by what hath been said you plainly perceive that those Doctrines and Practices Protestants have rejected were never any part of the true Primitive and Catholick Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Councils Yea that in the later and as is confessed worst Ages of the Church were never received and visibly professed by all true Catholicks whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion See Brerewoods Enquiries The most and best that can be said is that at first some of them were the private Sentiments and doubtful Opinions of some Worthy Men as Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. in the fourth or fifth Century Which after many Ages by the Policy and Power of the Pope and his Party were obtruded by the Councils of Lateran Constance Florence Trent c. as Articles of Faith on this Western part of the World but not without visible opposition and open contradiction I have shewn how multitudes of learned and pious Men did complain of them and write against them and others as the Waldenses and Albigenses forced by violence and persecution separated themselves as the Orthodox Christians did under the prevalence of the Arians actually and personally from them besides others who cordially yet for fear of persecution more privately and secretly i. e. in some sense or degree invisibly renounced and detested them I shall here add that indeed this is more than we are in reason bound to shew for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholick Church and to denominate the Roman a true though corrupt part or member of it V. Augustin de Baptismo contra Donatist l. 1. c. 8. 10. B. Vsher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith. that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian Creeds although she superadded as Hay and Stubble thereunto many additional or traditional Points and erroneous practices whereby consequentially the foundation of Faith was much shaken and undermined yet so as some amongst them not erring wilfully upon a general repentance might be saved yet so as by fire i. e. with much danger and difficulty However undeniable it is that many Eminent Writers and Professors in the Ages before Luther never owned them as Theological truths much less Articles of Faith but visibly openly and couragiously resisted them even unto bloud These and not the Popish domineering Party termed by some the Court rather than the Church of Rome were August Epist ad Vincent as the persecuted Catholicks under Liberius and the Arian Emperours in the strict and most proper sense the true visible Catholick Church which remained discernible though more obscurely in firmissimis suis membris as Saint Austin speaketh in these her most firm and invincible members Others who maintained promoted and tyranically imposed these Errours as points of Faith were in respect of these introduced corruptions like an impostumated Wen growing by little and little on the body of the Church or like a
Gangrene or Leprosie spreading it self by degrees over it the cutting of this Wen the curing this Gangrene the cleansing and removing this Leprosie our Adversaries most unreasonably and absurdly condemn as destroying the antient Catholick Faith and setting up a new Church under the Banner of Luther which we detest and abhor Contrarily we not they contend earnestly for the antient true Catholick Faith once and once for all delivered to the Saints in opposition to their late subintroduced Novelties of Transubstantiation Image-worship Purgatory c. which as we see by Pope Pius his new Creed they will needs add as Articles of the Antient Primitive and Catholick Faith to the Nicene Creed necessarily to be believed and professed by all Christians under peril of Heresie and Damnation If the Pope and Church of Rome may make as many Articles of Faith as they please surely in time we may have a Creed as large as Aquinas his Sum. I shall only add my earnest Prayer that God would enlighten you with his Holy Spirit that you may see the truth and renouncing all secular ends and private interests cordially embrace it Theodoret de curand Graecor affect Serm. 1. in regard as an Antient Father long since said It becometh not wise Men rashly to give up themselves to their Fathers Customs but to endeavour to find out the Truth Amen Your faithful Friend FINIS Books lately printed for James Adamson I. A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered In Quarto II. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith writ by Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester before the Reformation about the Year 1450. III. Doubts concerning the Roman Infallibility 1. Whether the Church of Rome believe it 2. Whether Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever Recommended it 3. Whether the Primitive Church Knew or Used that way of Deciding Controversies IV. The Salvation of Protestants asserted and defended in Opposition to the Rash and Uncharitable Sentence of their Eternal Damnation pronounced against them by the Romish Church by J. H. Dalhusius Inspector of the Churches In the County of Weeden upon the Rhine c. V. The present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome or an account of the Books written on both sides in a Letter to a Friend In Quarto VI. Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead In Quarto VII Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthios Interpretibus Patricio Junio Gothofredo Vendelino Joh. Bapt. Cotelerio Recensuit notarum spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colomesius bibliothecae Lambethanae curator accedit Tho. Brunonis Windsoriensis dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis His subnexae sunt Epistolae aliquot singulares vel nunc primum editae vel non ita facile obviae In Quarto VIII Pauli Colomesii Observationes sacrae Editio secunda auctior emendatior accedunt ejusdem Paralipomena de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis passio sancti Victoris Massiliensis ab eodem emendata editio quarta ultima longe auctior emendatior Octavo IX The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in three Parts viz. 1. Into Turky 2. Persia 3. The East-Indies In Folio A brief Historical Account of the Behaviour of the Jesuits and their Faction for the first twenty five Years of Queen Elizabeths Reign with an Epistle of W. Watson a Secular Priest shewing how they were thought of by other Romanists of that time Quarto The Argument of Mr. Peter de la Marteliere Advocate in the Court and Parliament of Paris made in Parliament in the Chambers thereof being assembled An. Dom. 1611. for the Rector and University of Paris Defendants and Opponents against the Jesuits Demandants and requiring the Approbation of the Lectors Patent which they had obtained giving them power to read and to teach publickly in the aforesaid University translated out of the French Copy set forth by publick Authority and printed at London 1612. Quarto