a number of Fathers that their doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alleged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then matter of faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerors but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure WE do easily acknowledge that to dispute these questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we sind any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same faith we hope to be sav'd 〈◊〉 as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new BUT because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and choose this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity THE first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard of in the first ages of the Christian Church FOR the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos vero dementes vesanosque judicantes 〈◊〉 dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the summ of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils AND what faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the 〈◊〉 basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adaequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this faith entirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the People as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this faith from the fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical writings OF this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on Mens consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower
by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the ways and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the Ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us NOW that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the Tenth against Martin Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine law and whatever law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion does consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubious disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the Fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are used in the Creed of Athanasius that this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved NOW since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so inviduous and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more a-doe it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new Faith and that they can therefore in no sense be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory Indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more dis-reputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them FOR first the King of Spain gave a commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have Printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In St. Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first homily upon that of St. John Ye 〈◊〉 my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to S. Ambrose and to St. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was Printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some commentary we feign some convenient sense when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no sacrifice but the memory of a sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will not contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of St. Austin's Works
by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches Declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable question in the ninth and tenth ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of faith till the Later an Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third MCC years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says it was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the VII nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English sesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it Only I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of bread and wine be substantially converted into the body and blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the body or blood of Christ which before was not the body and to day something is Christ ' s body which yesterday was not and every day Christ ' s body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which we have remark'd not only for the arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable opinion to an Article of Faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christs body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his reason was overcome by authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone 〈◊〉 was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the opinion was not determined in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the antient writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christs body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church and that it was a mere stranger to Antiquity will not be denyed by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsetled almost 1300 years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this question which we find in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by P. Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater
question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of the slesh or after the manner of spiritual grace and sacramental consequence We with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers affirm the latter The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the explication of Christ and the doctrine of the primitive Church affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Ancient since although the Roman errour hath been too long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an innovation in Christianity and brought in by ignorance power and superstition very many Ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the doctrine of giving us his flesh for meat and his bloud for drink that he tells us The flesh profiteth nothing but the words which be speaks are spirit and they are life 4. THAT if those ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are receiv'd and that Christ's body and bloud are only present to faith and to the spirit that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements as the Church of Rome does tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an errour in the understanding for it carries them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry To conclude THIS matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine Mystery As if a Priest going by a Baker's shop and saying with intention Hoc est corpus meum whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ Whether a Church mouse does eat her Maker Whether a man by eating the consecrated symbols does break his fast For if it be not bread and wine he does not and if it be Christ's body and bloud naturally and properly it is not bread and wine Whether it may be said the Priest is in some sense the Creator of God himself Whether his power be greater than the power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he say his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and the Creator of his body But against this blasphemy a book was written by John Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels but give only a general warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the tree is such must be the fruit But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christ's body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and bloud it is certain that on the Altar Christ's body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christ's whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christ's body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christ's body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article SECT VI. Half Communion tho' confessed to be otherwise in Christs institution and primitive practice required upon pain of Excommunication The Question now is not so much whether it be a new as a better practice than what Christ instituted Council of Constance Cassander Aquinas c. acknowledge the Novelty Pope Gelasius calls it sacrilege Greek Church communicates the people in the Chalice OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the Chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his 〈◊〉 law in this particular and recede from the practice of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practice of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and cur so all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the word some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not only in bread but in wine also ---- Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding ---- And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgment both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practice of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premisses is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The
a Synod of German and French Bishops at Francford who discussed the Acts pass'd at Nice and condemn'd them And the Acts of this Synod although they were diligently suppressed by the Popes arts yet Eginardus Hincmarus Aventinus Blondus Adon Aymonius and Regino famous Historians tell us That the Bishops of Francford condemn'd the Synod of Nice and commanded it should not be called a General Council and published a Book under the name of the Emperor confuting that unchristian Assembly and not long since this Book and the Acts of Francford were published by Bishop Tillius by which not only the infinite fraud of the Roman Doctors is discover'd but the worship of Images is declar'd against and condemned A while after this Ludovicus the son of Charlemain sent Claudius a famous Preacher to Taurinum in Italy where he preach'd against the worshipping of Images and wrote an excellent book to that purpose Against this book Jonas Bishop of Orleans after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius did write In which he yet durst not assert the worship of them but confuted it out of Origen whose words he thus cites Images are neither to be esteemed by inward affection nor worshipped with outward shew and out of Lactantius these Nothing is to be worshipped that is seen with mortal eyes Let us adore let us worship nothing but the name alone of our only Parent who is to be sought for in the Regions above not here below And to the same purpose he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and S. Hierom and though he would have Images retain'd and therefore was angry at 〈◊〉 who caus'd them to be taken down yet he himself expresly affirms that they ought not to be worshipped and withall adds that though they kept the Images in their Churches for history and ornament yet that in France the worshipping of them was had in great detestation And though it is not to be denied but that in the sequel of Jonas his book he does something prevaricate in this question yet it is evident that in France this Doctrine was not accounted Catholick for almost nine hundred years after Christ and in Germany it was condemned for almost 1200 years as we find in 〈◊〉 WE are not unskill'd in the devices of the Roman Writers and with how much 〈◊〉 they would excuse this whole matter and palliate the crime imputed to them and elude the Scriptures expresly condemning this Superstition But we know also that the arts of Sophistry are not the ways of Salvation And therefore we exhort our people to follow the plain words of Scripture and the express Law of God in the second Commandment and add also the exhortation of S. John Little children keep your selves from Idols To conclude it is impossible but that it must be confessed that the worship of Images was a thing unknown to the primitive Church in the purest times of which they would not allow the making of them as amongst divers others appears in the Writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen SECT IX Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity a scandalous practice in the Roman Church It is against the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church and of the wiser Heathens who had no Images or Pictures of their gods AS an Appendage to this we greatly reprove the custom of the Church of Rome in picturing God the Father and the most holy and undivided Trinity which besides that it ministers infinite scandal to all sober-minded men and gives the new Arrians in Polonia and Anti-Trinitarians great and ridiculous entertainment exposing that sacred Mystery to derision and scandalous contempt It is also which at present we have undertaken particularly to remark against the doctrine and practice of the primitive Catholick Church S. Clemens of Alexandria says that in the Discipline of Moses God was not to be represented in the shape of a Man or of any other thing and that Christians understood themselves to be bound by the same Law we find it expresly taught by Origen Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom S. Austin Theodoret Damascen and the Synod of Constantinople as it is reported in the 6. Action of the second Nicene Council And certainly if there were not a strange spirit of contradiction or superstition or deflexion from the Christian Rule greatly 〈◊〉 in the Church of Rome it were impossible that this practice should be so countenanc'd by them and defended so to no purpose with so much scandal and against the natural reason of mankind and the very Law of Nature it self For the Heathens were sufficiently by the light of Nature taught to abominate all Pictures or Images of God Sed nulla effigies simulacraque nulla Deorum Majestate locum sacro implevere timore They in their earliest ages had no Pictures no Images of their Gods Their Temples were filled with majesty and a sacred fear and the reason is given by Macrobius Antiquity made no Image viz. of God because the supreme God and the mind that is born of him that is his Son the eternal Word as it is beyond the Soul so it is above Nature and therefore it is not lawful that Figments should come thither 〈◊〉 Callistus relating the heresie of the Armenians and Jacobites says they made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost quod perquam ab sur dum est Nothing is more absurd than to make Pictures or Images of the Persons of the holy and adorable Trinity And yet they do this in the Church of Rome For in the windows of their Churches even 〈◊〉 Countrey-villages where the danger cannot be denied to be great and the scandal insupportable nay in their books of Devotion in their very Mass-books and breviaries in their Portuises and Manuals they picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot to the great dishonour of God and scandal of Christianity it self We add no more for the case is too evidently bad but reprove the error with the words of their own Polydore Virgil Since the world began never was any thing more foolish than to picture God who is present every where SECT X. Setting up the Pope as universal Bishop an Innovation Among the Apostles the first Church-Governours no Prerogative of one over the rest a remarkable testimony of S. Cyprian to prove it Bishops succeeded the Apostles without Superiority of one over another by Christs Law The Pope has invaded their rights and diminished their power many ways Primitivs Fathers make every Bishop to have a share of power not from another Bishop but from Christ and are against one Bishops judging and forcing another Bishop to obedience Popes opposed when they interposed their authority in the affairs of other Churches THE last Instance of Innovations introduc'd in Doctrine and Practice by the Church of Rome that we shall represent is
Antichrist if he ever get into that Seat or be in already and made it necessary for all of the Roman Communion to believe and obey him in all things SECT XI Other instances of new Doctrines and practices in the Roman Church It is easier to shew where our Religion was before Luther than where theirs was before the Council of Trent Great and Excellent persons have complained heavily of the corrupt State of that Church but without redress The Reformation preferred a New cure before an Old sore THERE are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath greatly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scripture and the practice of the Catholick Apostolick and primitive Church SUCH are these The Invocation of Saints the Insufficiency of Scriptures without Traditions of Faith unto Salvation their absolving sinners before they have by Canonical penances and the fruits of a good life testified their repentance their giving leave to simple Presbyters by Papal dispensation to give Confirmation or chrism selling Masses for Nine-pences Circumgestation of the Eucharist to be ador'd The dangerous Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention in collating Sacraments by which device they have put it into the power of the Priest to damn whom he pleases of his own Parish their affirming that the Mass is a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead private Masses or the Lord's Supper without Communion which is against the doctrine and practice of the Antient Church of Rome it self and contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles if we may believe Pope Calixtus and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication Peractâ consecratione omnes communicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia When the Consecration is finished let all Communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church for so the Apostles appointed and so the holy Church of Rome does hold The same also was 〈◊〉 by Pope Soter and Pope Martin in a Council of Bishops and most severely enjoyn'd by the Canons of the Apostles as they are cited in the Canon Law THERE are divers others but we suppose that those Innovations which we have already noted may be 〈◊〉 to verifie this charge of Novelty But we have done this the rather because the Roman Emissaries endeavour to prevail amongst the ignorant and prejudicate by boasting of Antiquity and calling their Religion the Old Religion and the Catholick so insnaring others by ignorant words in which is no truth their Religion as it distinguishes from the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland being neither the Old nor the Catholick Religion but New and superinduc'd by arts known to all who with sincerity and diligence have look'd into their pretences BUT they have taught every Priest that can scarce understand his Breviary of which in Ireland there are but too many and very many of the people to ask where our Religion was before Luther Whereas it appears by the premises that it is much more easie for us to shew our Religion before Luther than for them to shew theirs before Trent And although they can shew too much practice of their Religion in the degenerate ages of the Church yet we can and do clearly shew ours in the purest and first ages and can and do draw lines pointing to the times and places where the several rooms and stories of their Babel was builded and where polished and where furnished BUT when the Keepers of the 〈◊〉 slept and the 〈◊〉 had sown tares and they had choak'd the wheat and almost destroyed it when the world complain'd of the 〈◊〉 errors in the Church and being oppressed by a violent power durst not complain so much as they had cause and when they who had cause to complain were yet themselves very much abused and did not complain in all they might when divers excellent persons S. Bernard Clemangis Grosthead Marsilius Ocham Alvarus Abbat Joachim Petrarch Savanarola Valla Erasmus Mantuan Gerson Ferus Cassander Andreas Fricius Modrevius Hermannus Coloniensis Wasseburgius Archdeacon of Verdun Paulus Langius Staphilus Telesphorus de Cusentiâ Doctor Talheymius Francis Zabarel the Cardinal and Pope Adrian himself with many others not to reckon Wiclef Hus Jerom of Prague the Bohemians and the poor men of Lions whom they call'd 〈◊〉 and confuted with fire and sword when almost all Christian Princes did complain heavily of the corrupt state of the Church and of Religion and no remedy could be had but the very intended remedy made things much worse then it was that divers Christian Kingdoms and particularly the Church of England Tum primùm senio docilis tua saecula Roma Erubuit pudet exacti 〈◊〉 temporis odit Praeteritos foedis cum religionibus annos Being asham'd of the errors superstitions heresies and impieties which had deturpated the face of the Church look'd into the glass of Scripture and pure Antiquity and wash'd away those stains with which time and inadvertency and tyranny had besmear'd her and being thus cleans'd and wash'd is accus'd by the Roman parties of Novelty and condemn'd because she refuses to run into the same excess of riot and de-ordination But we cannot deserve blame who return to our antient and first health by preferring a New cure before an Old sore CHAP. II. The Church of Rome as it is at this day disordered teaches Doctrines and uses Practices which are in themselves or in their true and immediate Consequences direct Impieties and give warranty to a wicked Life SECT 1. Repentance according to the Romish Doctors not of obligation as soon as we sin by Gods Law but only before we die The Church requiring it once a Year at Easter is satisfied with a ritual repentance The Objection answered that this is not the Doctrine of the Church but the Opinion of some private Doctors Contrition with them not available without confession to a Priest but Attrition with it is And one act of Contrition will make all sure OUR First instance is in their Doctrines of Repentance For the Roman Doctors teach that unless it be by accident or in respect of some other obligation a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it Some time or other he must do it and if he take care so to order his affairs that it be not wholly omitted but so that it be done one time or other he is not by the precept or grace of Repentance bound to do more Scotus and his Scholars say that a sinner is bound viz. by the precept of the Church to repent on Holy days especially the great ones But this is thought too severe by Soto and Medina who teach that a sinner is bound to repent but once a year that is against Easter These Doctors indeed do differ concerning the Churches sense which according to the best of them is bad enough
most certainly that your Church cannot shew her confessions 〈◊〉 after Christ and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther it were not half so much for since you receded from Christ's Doctrine we might well recede from yours and it matters not who or how many or how long they prosessed your doctrine if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it so that if these Articles constitute your Church your Church was 〈◊〉 at the first and if ours was invisible afterwards it matters not For yours was invisible in the days of light and ours was invisible in the days of darkness For our Church was always visible in the 〈◊〉 of Scripture and he that had his eyes of Faith and reason might easily have seen these truths all the way which constitute our Church But I add yet farther that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was in the same place and in the same persons for divers of the errors which have been amongst us reformed were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms and Indulgences were indeed a practice but no Article of Faith before your men made it so and that very lately and so were many other things besides So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative even as much as between old Errors and new Articles For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the ore yet the Councils of Constance and Basil and Trent especially were the forges and the mint Lastly if your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters the question would quickly have been answered or our Articles would have been so confessed so owned and so publick that the question could never have been asked but in despite of all opposition there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis and in Bishop Morton's appeal BUT with your next objection you are better pleased and your men make most noise with it For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church but your men deny it to us and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe and there is no question concerning you but of us there is great question for none but our selves say that we can be saved I answer 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church is it ever the truer because we say it If it be not it can add no considence to you for the proposition gets no strength by your affirmative But if it be then our authority is good or else our reason and if either be then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason because we have greater concernments and therefore greater considerations 2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so 〈◊〉 that we dare 〈◊〉 venture our selves on your side The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a river in his journey to Daventry bad his man try the ford telling him he hoped he should not be drowned for though he was afraid the River was too deep yet he thought his horse would carry him out or at least the boats would fetch him off Such a considence we may have of you but you will find that but little warranty if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture 3. IT would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own Faith but the greatness of our charity yet we that charitably hope well of you have a fulness of assurance of the truth and certainty of our own way and however you can please your selves with Images of things as having no firm footing for your trisling confidence yet you can never with your tricks outface us of just and firm adherencies and if you were not empty of supports and greedy of bulrushes snatching at any thing to support your sinking cause you would with fear and trembling consider the direct dangers which we demonstrate to you to be in your Religion rather than slatter your selves with collateral weak and deceitful hopes of accidental possibilities that some of you may escape 4. IF we be more charitable to you than you are to us acknowledge in us the beauty and essential form of Christian Religion be sure you love as well as make use of our charity but if you make our charity an argument against us remember that you render us evil in exchange for good and let it be no brag to you that you have not that charity to us for therefore the Donatists were condemned for Hereticks and Schismaticks because they damn'd all the world and afforded no charity to any that was not of their Communion 5. BUT that our charity may be such indeed that is that it may do you a real benefit and not turn into Wormwood and Colliquintida I pray take notice in what sense it is that we allow Salvation may possibly be had in your Church We warrant it not to any we only hope it for some we allow it to them as to the Sadduces in the Law and to the Corinthians in the Gospel who denyed the resurrection that is till they were sufficiently instructed and competently convinced and had time and powers to out wear their prejudices and the impresses of their education and long perswasion But to them amongst you who can and do consider and yet determine for error and interest we have a greater charity even so much as to labour and pray for their conversion but not so much fondness as 〈◊〉 slatter them into boldness and 〈◊〉 adherencies to matters of so great danger 6. BUT in all this affair though your men are very bold with God and leap into his judgment-seat before him and give wild sentences concerning the salvation of your own party and the damnation of all that disagree yet that which is our charity to you is indeed the fear of God and the reverence of his judgments we do not say that all Papists are certainly damn'd we wish and desire vehemently that none of you may perish but then this charity of judgment relates not to you nor is derived from any probability which we see in your doctrines that differ from ours but because we know
are part of the Depositum of Christianity of the Analogy of faith and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly and therefore Controversies may become necessary but because they are not often so but oftentimes useless and always troublesom and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding and makes it crafty to deceive others it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference which minister to pride and contention and teach men to be pertinacious troublesome and uncharitable therefore I love them not But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmuring as well as without disputings I consider'd it over again and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter and the grand consequent of the present Questions For in the present affair the case is not so as in the others here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach as far as eternity and damn all that are not of their opinions and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists such who are not excus'd by ignorance that their condition is very sad and deplorable and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions which if the Antient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their super addition of Articles and Propositions derived only from a pretended tradition and not contain'd in Scripture Now the doing of this is a great sin and a great danger Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus detrahentibus destinatum said Tertullian I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenus fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract or add to it S. Basil says Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written in the Scriptures our blessed Saviour having said My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear and to detract from Scriptures or add any thing to the Faith that is not there is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle saying If it be but a mans testament nemo superordinat no man adds to it And says also This was the Will of the Testator And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures and therefore S. Athanasius affirms that the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vaecordia an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty and a necessary work of charity and the proper office of our Ministery to persuade our Charges from the immodesty of an evil heart from having a Devilish spirit from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle from infidelity and pride and lastly from that eternal Wo which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures and say Dominus dixit The Lord hath said it and he hath not said it If we had put these 〈◊〉 censures upon the Popish doctrine of Tradition we should have been thought uncharitable but because the holy Fathers do so we ought to be charitable and snatch our Charges from the ambient slame And thus it is in the question of Images Dubium non est quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est said Lactantius Without all peradventure where ever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties said Origen It is against the Law of Nature it being expresly forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus 〈◊〉 Tertullian Cyprian and S. Augustine and therefore is it not great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should contend sor that Faith which 〈◊〉 all worship of 〈◊〉 and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their 〈◊〉 to give them veneration to prevaricate the Moral Law and the very Law of Nature and do that which whosoever does has no Religion We know Idolatry is a damnable sin and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use never can justifie her self or acquit the common practices from Idolatry and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry it were enough to awaken us for God is a jealous God and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie I instance but once more The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds and S. Ambrose says that he who receives the Mystery other ways than Christ appointed that is but in one kind when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord and he cannot have Devotion Now this thing we ought not to suffer that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord and for ever be indevout or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion or fall by following evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trisling and when we see these errors frequently taught 〈◊〉 own'd as the only true Religion and 〈◊〉 are such evils which the Fathers say are the way of damnation we have reason to hope that all wise and good men lovers of souls will confess that we are within the circles of our duty when we teach our people to decline the crooked ways and to walk in the ways of Scripture and Christianity But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity so great credulity to believe every superstitious story such confidence in vanity such groundless pertinacy such vicious lives so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God so much care to obey the Priests and so little to obey God such intolerable ignorance such fond Oaths and manners of swearing thinking themselves more oblig'd by swearing on the Mass-book than the four Gospels and S. Patrick's Mass-book more than any new one swearing by their Fathers soul by their Godsips hand by other things which are the product of those many Tales are told them their not knowing upon what account they refuse to come to Church but only that now they are old and never did or their Country-men do not or their Fathers or Grand-fathers never did or that their Ancestors were Priests and they will not alter from their Religion and after all can give no account of their Religion what it is only they believe as
the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the Primitive Church when the Bishops impos'd severe penances and that they were almost quite perform'd and a great cause of pity intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Bishop did sometimes indulge the Penitent and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance and according to the example of S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing nothing of it but the abused name remains For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christs merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants and for fear Christ should not have enough the Saints have a surplusage of merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor Souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paid to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their 〈◊〉 sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of hell excepting only that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope 〈◊〉 VI. in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This constitution was published Fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the Tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it BUT as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so merely devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hilary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that S. Gregory DC years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about 200. years since says he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the writings of S. Gregory nor in any history of that age or any other that is Authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reserv'd by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the antient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of Authority and credit not the more antient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or S. Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about MCC years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian VI. that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an indulgence is nothing 〈◊〉 but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adays pretended TRUE it is that the Canonical 〈◊〉 were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness an absolution without amends It became a trumpet and a levy for the Holy War in Pope Urban the Second's time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Saracens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new propositions as well as they can to make sense of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this world or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a 〈◊〉 of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive of the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a 〈◊〉 that does not glorisie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keys given to the Church besides that
against the invasion of the rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius and the question being in the exercise of Jurisdiction and about the institution of Bishops does fully declare that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the laws of Christ over any Bishop in the Catholick Church and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese AND therefore all the Church of God whenever they reckoned the several orders and degrees of Ministery in the Catholick Church reckon the Bishop as the last and supreme beyond whom there is no spiritual power but in Christ. For as the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own Bishop Beyond the Bishop there is no step till you rest in the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls Under him every Bishop is supreme in spirituals and in all power which to any Bishop is given by Christ. S. Ignatius therefore exhorts that all should obey their Bishop and the Bishop obey Christ as Christ obeyed his Father There are no other intermedial degrees of Divine institution But as Origen teaches The Apostles and they who after them are ordain'd by God that is the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church and the Prophets have the second place The same also is taught by P. Gelasius by S. Hierom and Fulgentius and indeed by all the Fathers who spake any thing in this matter Insomuch that when Bellarmine is in this question press'd out of the book of Nilus by the Authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers Papam Patres non habere in Ecclesiâ sed Filios omnes The Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his Sons NOW although we suppose this to be greatly sufficient to declare the Doctrine of the primitive Catholick Church concerning the equality of power in all Bishops by Divine right yet the Fathers have also expresly declared themselves that one Bishop is not superiour to another and ought not to judge another or force another to obedience They are the words of S. Cyprian to a Council of Bishops None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyramical power drives his collegues to a necessity of obedience since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own choice and cannot be judged by another nor yet himself judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who only and alone hath the power of setting us in the Government of his Church and judging of what we do This was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen who did then begin dominari in clero to lord it over God's heritage and to excommunicate his brethren as Demetrius did in the time of the Apostles themselves but they both found their reprovers Demetrius was chastised by Saint John for this usurpation and Stephen by S. Cyprian and this also was approv'd by S. Austin We conclude this particular with the words of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome who because the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said It was a proud title prophane sacrilegious and Antichristian and therefore he little thought that his successors in the same See should so fiercely challenge that Antichristian title much less did the then Bishop of Rome in those Ages challenge it as their own peculiar for they had no mind to be or to be esteemed Antichristian Romano pontisici oblatum est sed nullus unquam eorum hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit His predecessors it seems had been tempted with an offer of that title but none of them ever assumed that name of singularity as being against the law of the Gospel and the Canons of the Church NOW this being a matter of which Christ spake not one word to S. Peter if it be a matter of Faith and Salvation as it is now pretended it is not imaginable he would have been so perfectly silent But though he was silent of any intention to do this yet S. Paul was not silent that Christ did otherwise for he hath set in his Church primùm Apostolos first of all Apostles not first S. Peter and secondarily Apostles but all the Apostles were first It is also evident that S. Peter did not carry himself so as to give the least overture or umbrage to make any one suspect he had any such preheminence but he was as S. Chrysostom truly says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did all things with the common consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing by special authority or principality and if he had any such it is more than probable that the Apostles who survived him had succeeded him in it rather than the Bishop of Rome and it being certain as the Bishop of Canaries confesses That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter in it and we being there told that S. Pet. was at Antioch but never that he was at Rome it being confessed by some of their own parties by Cardinal Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius that this succession was not addicted to any particular Church nor that Christs institution of this does any other way appear that it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church it being also certain that there was no such thing known in the Primitive Church but that the holy Fathers both of Africa and the East did oppose Pope Victor and Pope Stephen when they began to interpose with a presumptive Authority in the affairs of other Churches and that the Bishops of the Church did treat with the Roman Bishop as with a brother not as their superiour and that the General Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and preeminence with the Bishops of Rome and that the Greek Churches are at this day and have been a long time great opponents of this pretension of the Bishops of Rome and after all this since it is certain that Christ who foreknows all things did also know that there would be great disputes and challenges of this preeminence did indeed suppress it in his Apostles and said not it should be otherwise in succession and did not give any command to his Church to obey the Bishops of Rome as his Vicars more than what he commanded concerning all Bishops it must be certain that it cannot be necessary to salvation to do so but that it is more than probable that he never intended any such thing and that the Bishops of Rome have to the great prejudice of Christendom made a great schism and usurped a title which is not their due and challenged an Authority to which they have no right and have set themselves above others who are their equals and impose an Article of Faith of their own contriving and have made great preparation for