from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
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
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
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
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
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
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
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal