CHAP. XXXV. Their demanding of us to tell them when every one of their Corruptions did begin
CHAP. XXXV. Their demanding of us to tell them when every one of their Corruptions did begin.
D etect. 26. Another of their Deceits is, by calling us to tell them when everyone of their Errors did first begin, and what Pope did bring them in; or else they will not believe but they are from the Apostles.
To this Bishop Usher and abundance of our writers have answered them at large. I shall therefore speak but these few, but satisfactory words.
1. It belongs to you to prove the continuance of your Opinions or Practices, more then to us to prove the Beginning. 2. It sufficeth that we prove that there was a time when your errors were not in the Church, and that we can do from the Scriptures and the Fathers, and oft have done. 3.
You know yourselves of abundance of changes which you know not who did first introduce. Who first administered the Lord's Supper in one kind only? Dare you say that this was from the beginning? Who first laid by the standing on the Lord's Day, and used kneeling? (forbidden Can. 20.
Council. Nicene. 1, and in other General Councils.) Alvarus Pelagius de planct. Eccles. li. 2, art. 2 fol. 104, saith [The Church bewaileth the sins of the people, but specially of the Clergy as greater than the sin of Sodom: For
we see that faith and Justice have forsaken the earth. The Holy Scripture and sacred Canons are accounted as fables—He's now a man of no knowledge that inventeth not Novelties.] You see that then Novelties were brought in. The same Vincentius Lirinensis complaineth of: And not only complaineth of, but giveth Direction what to do in case that [Novella aliqua contagio, non jam portiunculam tantum, sed totam Pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conetur? If any novel contagion shall endeavor to stain not only a part of the Church, but the whole Church alike?] And then his advise is to appeal from Novelty to Antiquity, and not to the Pope or the present
Church. And withal he addeth that This Direction is but for [new heresies at their first rising, before they falsify the rules of ancient faith (that is, before they corrupt ancient Writers, or can pretend to Antiquity) and before by the large spreading of the venom, they endeavor to corrupt the volumes of our ancestors. But dilated and inveterate Heresies are not to be set upon this way, because by the long tract of time, they have had a long occasion of stealing Truth: and therefore we must convince such ancient heresies and schisms by no means but by the only Authority of the Scripture, if there be need, or avoid them—] Lirinens. c. 4 &c.
Were there not abundance of Novelties introduced, when Augustine ad Januarium said that [They load our Religion with servile burdens, which God in mercy would have to be free, with a very few and most manifest
Sacraments of Celebration, so that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable, that were subject to Legal Sacraments, and not to the presumptions of men] These words of Austin your own Joh. Gerson reciting
(de vita spirit. animae. lect. 2, par. 3.) addeth of his own [Si tuo tempore, &c. If in thy days thou didst thus mourn. Oh wise Augustine, what wouldst thou have said in our time: where according to the variety, and motion of
heads, there is incredible variety and dissonant multiplicity of such servile burdens, and as thou callest them, of human presumptions. Among which, as so many snares of souls, and entangling nets, there's scarce any man that walks secure, and is not taken (or catched.)]
How think you now in the Judgment of Augustine and Gerson; whether there have any Novelties been brought into the Church; and whether all your Presumptions and burdens, and (as Gerson calls them) halters for souls, have come from the Apostles, or are your own? When all is thus overcome with Novelty, do you make any question whether anything be new?
It seems that Bernard thought that human Traditions were too much befriended, when he thus describeth the Assemblies that he approveth,
Epist. 91. [Such a Council (do I delight in) in which the Traditions of men are not obstinately defended, or superstitiously observed; but they do diligently and humbly inquire, what is the good, and well pleasing, and perfect will of God.] And it seems to me that General Councils by error introduced Novelties, when Later Councils were fain to undo what the former had done: For so doth blessed Augustine profess they did, saying, De Baptis. cont. Donat. lib.
2, c. 6. [And Councils themselves that are gathered through several Regions or Provinces, do without any scruple yield to the authority of more plenary
Councils that are gathered out of the whole Christian world; and those same plenary Councils do often yield (or give place) the former to the later, when by some experiment of matters, that which was shut is opened, and that which lay hid is known] Sure here are alterations made even by General
Councils that correct one another.
And what should hinder the Introduction of Novelty when General Councils do so often err? Nay if such Councils be Morally and Interpretatively the whole Church, as the Papists say, then the whole Church doth err in the reception of some Novelty, before they declare it by their decrees. If you say, that General Councils cannot err, nor introduce such
Novelties, your Champion Bellarmine and many of your own, will give you the Lie: saith he De Council. lib. 2, c. 11. [Neque potest, &c. It cannot be answered that those Councils erred because they were not lawful (that is the Arian and other Heretical General Councils, at that at Sirmium, Millanie,
Ariminum, Ephesus, several at Constantinople disallowed by the Papists) For to most of them there was nothing wanting but the Popes assent. Yea the second at Ephesus was altogether like that at Basil: For both were called by the Pope; in both of them the Popes Legate was present at the beginning: from both of them the Popes Legate shortly after went away: in both of them the Pope was excommunicated; and yet that the Council of Ephesus erred, the adversaries will not deny.] Hence he concludeth that [the chief
Power Ecclesiastical is not in the Church, nor in the Council, the Pope being removed formaliter vel suppletive.]
And what should hinder, when there is but one man's vote against it, even the Popes, but that Novelty and error may enter at any time; and when that one man is oft so wicked and Heretical as he is. For General Councils are but a mere name and mockery. The packing of them shows it: the Paucity and non-Universality of them shows it. The Management of their affairs shows it. They do nothing since the Papal reign, but what the Pope will
(excepting the condemned Councils) They have no Being till he Will; nor make any Decrees but what he Will: Nor are their Decrees of any further power, then he is pleased to give them. So that his Will is the sense of the
General Council or universal Church. I need not turn you for this to Sleidan, or Vergerius Bishop of Trent, that tell us the Holy Ghost came to that Council in a Cloak-bag from Rome: nor to Espensaeus in Tit. 1, p. 42, seeing Bellarmine speaks it out, De Council. lib. 2, c. 11, saying, [We must know that the Pope is wont to send Legates instructed concerning the judgment of the Apostolic seat, with this Condition, that if the Council do consent to the Judgment of the Apostolic seat, it shall be formed into a Decree; If not, the forming of the decree shall be deferred till the Pope of Rome, being advised with, shall return his answer] And saith Bellarmine de
Council. lib. 2, c. 11. [In the Council of Basil, Ses. 2, it was decreed by common consent, together with the Popes Legate, that a Council is above the Pope; which certainly is now judged erroneous] And the Council of Lateran and Florence decreed the contrary. And Pighius saith, Hierarch.
Eccles. l. 6, that [the Councils of Constance and Basil went about by a new trick, and pernicious example to destroy the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and instead of it to bring in the Domination of a promiscuous confused popular multitude, that is to raise again Babylon itself, subjecting to themselves, or to the community of the Church, (which they falsely pretended that they
Represent) the very Head and Prince of the whole Church; and him that is the Vicar of Christ himself in this his Kingdom, and this against Order and Nature, against the clearest light of Gospel verity, against all Authority of Antiquity, and against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the Orthodox
Church itself.] Mark Papists: General Councils with the Popes Nuncio may bring in Novelties in faith, against the clearest light of the Gospel, and the full
Consent of Antiquity; and yet these Councils affirmed their opinions to be de fide, and the contrary to be Heretical and Damnable, and contrary to all
Antiquity. You see then that Novelties are among you in matters of faith.
And the French to this day are guilty of those Novelties, and also charge their Adversaries with Innovation.
Nay what will you say, if General Councils themselves are but Novelties, though they are the foundation of the faith of one half of the Papists (as the Pope is of the other) I say not so, but judge whether your Champion Pighius say so, Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 6, c. 1, fol. 230, where he saith that [Concilia universalia non habent Divinam, & c. General Councils have not a Divine or Supernatural Original, but merely an human Original, and are the Invention of Constantine a Prince, profitable indeed sometimes to find out in Controversy, which is the Orthodox and Catholic truth, though to this they are not necessary; seeing its a readier way to advise with the Apostolic seat] How now Sirs? Is your Representative Church the foundation of your faith, a Novelty of Constantine's invention; and yet are you in the old way, and must we be put to prove you to be Novelists?
Do you think those Popes did go the Old way, of whom Alvarus Pelagius speaks (de planctu Eccles. art. 15, lib. 2.) that [they succeeded in authority, but not in Sanctity, intruding themselves, procuring, bargaining, &c. building Towers and Palaces in Babylon, that is, in Rome according to Jerome] Some foul innovation sure they were guilty of that so re-edified
Babylon. So that this is my first proof that you are Novelists; from the General Accusations of others, and Confessions of your own.
2. Another proof that changes may be, and yet the time and Authors be unknown, is from the instance of other Churches that have been corrupted or subverted by Innovations, and yet the time and authors are unknown. You accuse the Churches in Habassia of many errors yourselves; and you are not able to tell us when they came in, or who introduced them. The same may
be said of the Georgians, Armenians, Egyptians, yea and of the Greeks and Russians. Can you tell us when, and by whom each error was introduced that corrupted the Churches mentioned in the Scripture? As Corinth,
Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Laodicea, and the rest: you know you can give us no better an account of this, then we can of the Authors of your Corruptions, nor so good.
You know that among the Primitive Fathers, whose writings are come to our hands, many errors had the Major vote, as that of the Corporeity of Angels, (which your second General Council at Nice owned) and their
Copulation with women before the flood, the Millenary conceit, and many more which you confess to be errors. Tell us when any of these came in, if you can (unless you will believe that Papias received the last from John, and then its no error.) Who did first bring the Asian Churches to celebrate
Easter at a season differing from yours? Who first brought the Britons to it?
Nay we know not certainly who first Converted many Nations on earth, nor when they first received their Christianity: and how then should we know when they first received each error?
And we find that good men did bring in Novelties; and what was by them introduced as indifferent, would easily by custom grow to seem Necessary: and what they received as a doubtful opinion, would easily grow to be esteemed a point of Faith. The Presbyters and whole Clergy of Neo
Caesarea were offended with Basil for his Innovations, viz. for bringing in a new Psalmody, or way of singing to God; and for his new order of Monastics: and they told him that none of this was so in Gregory's days; and what answereth Basil? He denieth not the Novelty of his Psalmody, but retorts again on them, that their Litany also was new, and not known in the time of Gregory (Thaumaturgus) yea, saith he, How know you that these
things were not in the days of Gregory? For you have kept nothing unchanged to this day of all that he was used to] you see what chopping and changing was then in the Church among all sorts, when such an alteration was made in less than forty years. Yet Basil would not have unity to be laid on any of these things, but addeth, [But we pardon all these things, though
God will examine all things: only let the principal things be safe] Basil Epist. 63. Isidore Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 90, saith, that [the Apostles of the Lord studying to restrain and suppress unmeet loquacity, and showing themselves Masters of modesty and gravity to us, did by wise Council permit women to sing in the Churches. But as all God's documents are turned into the contrary, so this is turned to dissoluteness, and the occasion of sin. For they are not affected with deep compunction in singing Divine
Hymns; but abusing the sweetness of the singing, to the irritating and provoking of lust, they take it for no better than stage-play songs:] therefore he adviseth that they be suffered to sing no more.
Here you see 1. That changes had happened about many Divine things. 2.
That he adviseth himself the introducing of this novelty, that women be forbidden singing in the Church, because of the abuse, though he confess it a wise Apostolic Order. So that for Novelty by good men to creep into God's worship, is not strange.
3. Moreover the Nature of the thing may tell all the world, that neither you nor we can be accountable of the beginning of every error that creepeth into the Church: For 1. The distance of time is great. 2. Historians are not so exact: and what they tell us not, neither you, nor we can know. 3. Much
History is perished. 4. Much is corrupted by your wicked forgeries, as hath been oft proved to you. 5. Mixtures of Fables have hindered the credit of much of it. 6. Nations are not individual persons, but consist of millions of
individuals: And as it is not a whole Nation that is converted to the faith at once, so neither is it whole Nations that are perverted to Heresy at once, but one receiveth it first, and then more and more, till it over-spread the whole.
Paul saith that such doctrine eateth like a Gangrene; and that is by degrees, beginning on one part, and proceeding to the rest. 7. As I said before, that which is at first received but as an Opinion and an Indifferent thing, must have time to grow into a Custom; and that Custom maketh it a Law, and makes Opinions grow up to be Articles of Faith, and Ceremonies grow to be
Necessary things. You know that this is the common way of propagating opinions in the world.
4. I have in another Book shown you out of many of your own writers the rise of diverse of your vanities. And Usher hath told the Jesuit more: and so he hath told you of your thriving to your present height, in his Book de success. & statu Eccles. And so hath Mornay in his Mystery of Iniquity, and Rivet in the Defense of him against Cofferellus; and Pet. Molinaeus hath purposely written a Book de Novitate Papismi, & Antiquitate veri
Christianismi, showing the Newness of Popery in the several parts of it. To these therefore I remit you for Answer to this Objection.
5. Can you tell us yourselves, when many of your doctrines or practices sprung up? When took you up your Sabbaths fast, for which you have been condemned by a Council? You know that when the twentieth Canon of the Nicene Council was made, and when the Canons at Trull. were made, it was the Practice of the Church through the known world, to pray and perform other worship standing, and to avoid kneeling on the Lord's Day. Tell us when this Canon and Tradition was first violated by you, and by whom? It was once the custom of your Church to give Infants the Eucharist; who first broke it off? It was once your practice to Communicate in both kinds: who
first denied the Cup to the Laity? At first it was only a doubtful Opinion, that Saints are to be Prayed to, and the dead prayed for, which came into men's minds about the third or fourth Century? But who first made them
Articles of faith? Augustine began to doubt, whether there were not some kind of Purgatory: But who first made this also a point of faith? Who was it that first added the Books of the Maccabees and many others to the Canon of Scripture, contrary to the Council of Laodicea, and all the rest of the consent of Antiquity, which Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Cosin and others have produced? Who was it that first taught and practiced the putting an Oath to all the Clergy of the Christian Church within your power to be true to the Pope, and to obey him as the Vicar of Christ? Who first taught men to swear, that they would not interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers? Who was the first that brought in the doctrine or name of Transubstantiation? And who first made it an Article of faith? Who first made it a point of faith to believe that there are just seven
Sacraments, neither fewer nor more? Did any before the Council of Trent swear men, to receive and profess without doubting, all things delivered by the Canons and Oecumenical Councils, when at the same time they cast off themselves the Canons of many General Councils, and so are generally and knowingly perjured? (as e.g. the twentieth Canon of Nice forementioned)
These and abundance more you know to be Novelties with you, if willfulness or gross ignorance bear not rule with you; and without great impudence you cannot deny it. Tell us now when these first came up, and satisfy yourselves.
One that was afterward your Pope (Aeneas Sylvins, Epist. 288, saith, that before the Council of Nice, there was little respect had to the Church of
Rome: You see here the time mentioned, when your foundation was not laid.
Your Learned Cardinal Nicol. Cusanus, lib. de Concord. Cathol. c. 13.
&c. tells you how much your Pope hath gotten of late: and plainly tells you, that the Papacy is but of Positive right, and that Priests are equal, and that it is subjectional consent that gives the Pope and Bishops their Majority, and that the distinction of Dioceses, and that a Bishop be over Presbyters, are of Positive right, and that Christ gave no more to Peter than the rest; and that if the Congregate Church should choose the Bishop of Trent for their
President and Head, he should be more properly Peters Successor then the Bishop of Rome] Tell us now when the contrary doctrine first arose?
Gregory de valentia, de leg. usu Euchar. c. 10, tells you that the Receiving the Sacrament in one kind, began not by the decree of any Bishop, but by the very use of the Churches, and the consent of believers: and tells you, that it is unknown when that Custom first begun, or got head, but that it was
General in the Latin Church, not long before the late Council of Constance.
And may you not see in this, how other points came in?
If Pope Zosimus had but had his will, and the Fathers of the Carthage Council had not diligently discovered, shamed, and resisted his forgery, the world had received a new Nicene Canon, and we should never have known the Original of it.
Its a considerable Instance that Usher brings, of using the Church service in a known tongue. The Latin tongue was the Vulgar tongue, when the Liturgy and Scripture was first written in it (at Rome and far and near it was understood by all.) The service was not changed, as to the language: but the language itself changed; and so Scripture and Liturgy came to be in an unknown tongue; And when did the Latin tongue cease to be understood by
all? Tell us what year, or by whom the change was made? Saith Erasmus (Decl. ad censur. Paris. tit. 12. s. 41.) [The Vulgar tongue was not taken from the people, but the people departed from it.
5. We are certain that your errors were not in the times of the Apostles, nor long after, and therefore we are sure that they are Innovations. And if I find a man in a Dropsy, or a Consumption, I would not tell him that he is well, and ought not to seek remedy, unless he can tell when he began to be ill, and what caused it.
You take us to be Heretical: and yet you cannot tell us when our errors did first arise. Will you tell us of Luther? You know the Albigenses whom you murdered by hundreds and thousands, were long before him? Do you know when they begun? Your Reinerius saith that some said, they were from Silvesters days, and some said since the Apostles; but no other beginning do you know.
6. But to conclude, what need we anymore, then to find you owning the very doctrine and practice of Innovation? When you maintain that you can make us new Articles of faith, and new worship, and new discipline, and that the Pope can dispense with the Scriptures, and such like, what reason have we to believe that your Church abhorreth Novelty? If you deny any of this, I prove it.
Pope Leo the tenth among other of Luther's opinions, reckoneth and opposeth this as Heretical [It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope, to make Articles of faith] (in Bulla cont. Luth.)
The Council of Constance that took the supremacy justly from the Pope, did unjustly take the Cup from the Laity in the Eucharist, [Licet in primitiva
Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque
specie, i.e. Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received by Believers under both kinds.] The Council of Trent say, Sess. 21, c. 1,2, that [this power was always in the Church: that in dispensing the Sacraments, saving the substance of them, it might ordain or change things, as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver.] Vasquez To. 2. Disp. 216. N. 60, saith [Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles, nevertheless the Church and Pope might on just causes abrogate it: For the Power of the Apostles was no greater than the power of the Church and Pope in bringing in Precepts.]
These I cited in another Treatise against Popery, p. 365. Where also I added that of Pope Innocent [Secundum plenitudinem potestatis, &c. By the fullness of our power, we can dispense with the Law above Law] And the Gloss that oft saith [The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle; against the Old Testament. The Pope dispenseth with the Gospel interpreting it] And Gregor. de valent. saying (Tom. 4, disp. 6, q. 8.) [Certainly some things in later times are more rightly constituted in the Church then they were in the beginning] And of Cardinal Peron's saying, lib. 2. Obs. 3, c. 3, p. 674, against King James, of the Authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scripture: and his instance [of the form of Sacraments being alterable; and the Lord's command [Drink ye all of it] mutable and dispensable. And Tolets [Its certain that all things instituted by the Apostles were not of Divine right.] Andradius (Defens. Council. Trid. lib. 2, p. 236.
[Hence it is plain that they do not err that say the Popes of Rome may sometime dispense with Laws made by Paul and the four first Councils—]
And Bzovius [The Roman Church using Apostolical power, doth according
to the Condition of times, change all things for the better] And yet will you not give us leave to take you for changers and Novelists?
But let us add to these witnesses, some more of your worthies, August.
Triumph. de Ancon. q. 5, art. 1, saith [To make a new Creed, belongs only to the Pope, because he is the Head of the Christian faith, by whose authority all things belonging to faith are confirmed and strengthened—] Et
Art. 2. [As he may make a new Creed, so he may multiply new Articles upon Articles] And (in Praefat. sum. ad Johan. 22.) he saith that [the Popes power is Infinite, because the Lord is great, and his strength great, and of his greatness there is no end] And q. 36, ad. 6, he saith that [the Pope giveth the Motion of Direction, and the sense of Knowledge into all the members of the Church; For in him we live and move and have our being—And the Will of God, and consequently the Popes Will, who is his Vicar, is the first and chief cause of all motions corporal and spiritual.] And then no doubt may change without blame.
Abbas Panormitan, in c. C. Christus de haeret. n. 2, saith, [The Pope can bring in a new Article of faith] And Petr. de Anchoran. in idic. [The Pope can make new Articles of faith, that is, such as now ought to be believed, when before they ought not to be believed.]
Turrecre Matth. sum. de Eccl. lib. 2, c. 203, saith that [the Pope is the Measure, and Rule, and Science of things to be believed.] And August. de
Ancona shows us that the Judgment of God is not higher than the Popes, but the same, and that therefore no man may appeal from the Pope to God] (qu.
6, art. 1.) And therefore be not offended, if we suppose you to have changes.
A Confutation of a Popish Manuscript on this point.
Just as I was writing this, I received another Popish M. S. sent from Wolverhampton to Sturbridge, to which I shall return an answer before I go to the next point.
Pap. M.S. An Argument for the Church.
It will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing and Mother Church; and her faith renowned in the whole world, Rom. 1:8, and 6, and 16. Whites Def. p. 555. King James speech to the Parliament. Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders. Fulk. c.
21. Thesi. 7. Reynolds in his fifth Conclusion.
This Church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism.
Apostasy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ; but of the name and Title of Christianity. No man will say that the Church of Rome had such a fall, or fell so.
Heresy is an adhesion or fast cleaving to some private or singular Opinion, or error in faith, contrary to the generally approved doctrine of the Church.
If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any singular or new opinion, disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christian world, I pray you satisfy me in these particulars.
1. By what General Council was she ever condemned?
2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her?
3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved?
For it seems to be a thing very incongruous, that so great a Church should be condemned by every private person, who hath a mind to condemn her.
Schism is a departure or division from the unity of the Church, whereby the bond and Communion held with some former Church is broken and
dissolved.
If ever the Church of Rome divided herself from anybody of faithful Christians, or broke Communion, or went forth from the Society of any
Elder Church, I pray you satisfy me in these particulars.
1. Whose company did she leave?
2. From what body went she forth?
3. Where was the true Church she forsook?
For it appears not a little strange, that a Church should be accounted Schismatical, when there cannot be assigned any other Church different from her (which from age to age since Christ's time hath continued visible) from whence she departed.] Thus far the Papists Manuscript.
An Answer to the foregoing Argument.
IF the Author of this Argument thinks as he speaks, its a case to be lamented with tears of blood, that the Church of Christ should be abused, and the souls of men deluded by men of so great ignorance. But if he know that he doth but juggle and deceive, its as lamentable that any matter of Salvation should fall into such hands.
1. This Argument I have before answered, Detect. 13. The word Church here is ambiguous, and either signifieth, 1. A particular Church, which is an Association of Christians for personal Communion in God's worship. 2. Or diverse such Associations or Churches Associated for Communion by their officers or delegates, for unity sake. 3. Or else it may signify someone
Mistress Church that is the Ruler of all the rest in the world. 4. Or else it may signify the Universal (Catholic) Church itself, which containeth all the particular Churches in the world.
The Papist should not have plaid either the blind man or the Juggler by confounding these, and never telling us which he means. 1. For the first, we grant him that Rome was once an excellent flourishing Church: And so was
Ephesus, Jerusalem, Philippi, Colossae and many more.
2. As to the second sense it is human, or from Church custom, so to take the word Church, for Scripture, that I find doth not so use it: But for the thing, we are indifferent: Though it cannot be proved that in Scripture times
Rome had anymore then a particular Church; yet its all one as to our cause.
3. As to the third and fourth senses, we deny, as confidently as we do that the Sun is darkness, that ever in Scripture times Rome was either a Mother to all Churches, or the Ruler and Mistress of all, or yet the Universal
Church itself. Prove this, and I will turn Papist.
But there's not a word for it in the Texts cited, but an intimation of much against it. Paul calleth Rome a Church, and commendeth its faith. True, but doth he not so by the Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians,
&c. and John by the Philadelphians, Pergamos, Thyatira and others, as well? And will not this prove that Rome was but such a particular Church as one of them?
The citation of Protestants are done it seems by one that never read them, nor would have others read them; which makes him turn us to whole books to search for them, if we have nothing else to do, and to miscited places.
But we know that all our Divines confess that Rome was once a true and famous particular Church, but never the Universal Church, nor the Ruler of the world, or of all other Churches, in Paul's days. Would you durst lay your cause on this, and put it to the trial? Why else did never Paul make one word of mention of this Power and honor, nor send other Churches to her to be Governed?
And now I pray consider to what purpose is the rest of your reasoning?
What is it to me, whether Rome be turned either Apostate, Heretical, or Schismatical, anymore then whether Jerusalem, Ephesus, Philippi, or any other Church be so fallen? If you are not fallen I am glad of it; if you are I am sorry for it; and so I have done with you (unless I knew how to recover you.) Would you not laugh even at the Church of Jerusalem that was truly the Mother Church of the world, if they should thus reason [We are not fallen away: therefore we must Rule over all the world, and no man is a Christian that doth not obey us?] This is the sport you make in the cheating of souls.
Well; but let us follow you, though our cause be not concerned in it. 1. I answer, that we accuse you not of renouncing the name of Christ. 2. We must needs fear, that according to your own definition of Heresy, you are guilty of many Heresies.
And to your Questions, I answer. 1. I pray you tell us what General Councils did ever condemn one half of the Heresies mentioned by Epiphanius, Augustine or Philastrius? Was there ever a greater rabble of Heresies then before ever a General Council was known? And were they dead and buried before the first General Council was born? 2. Did you not smile when you wrote these delusory Questions? How can a General
Council condemn you, or any great part of the Church: for instance the Greeks, &c. If you be not there its not a General Council? And will you be there to condemn yourselves? You have more wit and less grace then so.
And I pray, what General Council did ever condemn the Greeks, for those many errors charged on them? If the Greeks themselves were not there, it was not a General Council; so considerable a part are they of the Church.
And what General Council hath condemned the Abyssinians, Egyptians, &c.
3. Do you think General Councils are so stark mad or horridly impious, as to condemn so many Kingdoms with one condemnation, for Heresy? Why, they know that men must be heard, before they be condemned, and a Kingdom consisteth of many millions of souls. And it is not enough to know every man's faith, if we know the faith of the King, or Pope, or Archbishop, or Bishops: And how long shall they be examining each person in many Kingdoms?
4. But yet I can say more of your Church then of others. He that kills the Head, kills the Man: Your Usurping Head is an Essential part of your Newformed Church: But your Head hath been condemned by Councils; therefore your Church in its essential part hath been condemned by Councils. Do you not know that all the world (as well as the feigned
Council Sinuessan.) condemned your Pope Marcellinus for Offering to Idols? Know you not that two or three General Councils condemned Pope
Honorius as a Monothelite? Yes: no doubt you know it. Know you not that the second General Council of Ephesus condemned and excommunicated your Pope? And that the Council of Basil called by him did the like? If you do not, see Bellarmine's parallel of them de Conciliis lib. 2, c. 11. Do I need to tell you what the Council of Constance did? Or for what John 22nd, alias
23rd, and John 13th, and other Popes were deposed by Councils?
2. And for Fathers, do I need to tell you how many condemned Marcellinus, Liberius, Honorius and others? How oft Hilary Pictav. (in fragmentis in recit. Epist. Liberii) doth cry out Anathema tibi Liberi, prevaricator: presuming to curse and excommunicate your Pope. Need I tell you what Tertullian saith against Zephernius: Yea what Alphonsus à Castro
and diverse of your own say against Liberius, Honorius, Anastasius, Celestine; and tell us that many Popes have been Heretics? At least give us leave to believe Pope Adrian the sixth himself. Read Dom. Banns in 2. m. 2. a. q. 1, art. 10. Where he proves at large against Pighius, that a Pope may be a Heretic, and laughs at Pighius that now after two hundred years would prove them false witnesses, which write that Pope Honorius was condemned for a Heretic by three Popes, viz. Agatho, Leo the second, and Adrian the second.
3. But perhaps you will say, that though your Popes have been condemned by Councils, yet so have not your maintained doctrines. Answ. Yes, that they have too. Did not the Councils at Constantinople condemn the Doctrine of the second Nicene Council for Image-worship, and the Council at Frankford do the like? And those two at Constantinople were as much
General as your Council of Trent was, and much more.
And yet that same Council at Nice did condemn the doctrine of St. Thom.
Aquinas, and your Doctors commonly of worshipping the Image of Christ, and Cross, and sign of the Cross with Latria, divine worship.
And did not your General Councils at Lateran and Florence declare that the Pope is above a Council, and that they cannot depose him? &c. And yet your General Councils at Constance and Basil determine the contrary as an Article of Faith, and expressly affirm the former to be Heresy. See then your own doctrine, even in a fundamental point condemned by General
Councils of your own (which side soever you take, the Popes, or the Councils.) And did not the sixth Council of Carthage, of which St. Augustine was a principal member, not only detect Pope Zosimus forged Canon of Nice, but also openly and prevalently resist and reject your Usurpation, and refuse
your Legates and Appeals to you? If you would cloak this, believe your own Pope Boniface, Epist. ad Eulalium, saying [Aurelius sometime Bishop of Carthage, with his Colleagues, did begin, by the Devils instigation to wax proud against the Church of Rome in the times of our Predecessors,
Boniface and Celestine.] And if you have learnt to except against this Epistle, see your Bishop
Lindanus justifying it, Panopl. l. c. 89. Or at least believe your Champion Harding against Jewels Challenge, art. 4, sect. 19. [After the whole African
Church had persevered in schism the space of twenty years, and had removed themselves from the obedience of the Apostolic seat, being seduced by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage.] Again note, that Austin was one of them.
But you will say, that this was not a General Council: Answ. True; for when part riseth against part, it cannot be the whole that is on either side.
Moreover do you not know that the Greeks have condemned you oft? And truly their Councils have been much more General than yours at Trent was, where about forty Bishops altered the Canon of Scripture, and made
Tradition equal with it. I think verily this one County would have afforded a far better Council of a greater number.
But I will once more name one General Council that hath condemned your very foundation; and that is the fourth General Council at Calcedon before mentioned, Act. 15. Can. 28, & Act. 16, where you may find, 1. That the ancient Privileges of the Roman Throne were given them by the Fathers
(in Council) 2. That the Reason was, because Rome was the Imperial City.
3. They give Equal Privileges to the seat of Constantinople, because it was now become New Rome. 4. That the Roman Legates would not be present at this act. 5. But the next day when they did appear, and pretended that this
act was forced, the Bishops all cried [No man was compelled: Its a just decree; we all say thus; we all approve it: Let that stand that is decreed; its all right.] 6. Here specially note that this General Council thought they needed not the Popes Approbation for the validity of their Decrees, when they pass them, and take them for valid, even contrary to the will of the Pope. Speak you that bear the least reverence to a General Council. Did this Council think that their Decrees were invalid, if the Pope approve them not? You see, if you be not willfully blind, they did not. And who is now to be believed? Bellarmine and his party, and the present prevalent party of the Papists, that say, Councils not approved by the Pope are invalid or without authority; or the Council of Calcedon that thought otherwise?
7. Note that the Popes Legates called this [A humbling, and depressing, and wronging of the Papacy, and therefore entered their dissent: see
Bellarmine's Confession lib. 2, de Pontif. c. 17. Binius notes on this Council. Baronius an. 451.
8. Note also that the shifts of Bellarm. Binius, Baronius, Becanus, Gretser, &c. are apparently false, that say this Canon was surreptitiously brought into the Council: for Aetius, Act. 16, openly professed the contrary, and all the Bishops professed their consent to the last.
9. Note also that this is one of the four Great Councils which the Papists themselves compare to the four Gospels; and in it were six hundred and thirty Fathers.
10. Note also that this great Council is against them, and on the Protestant side in the very foundation of all our differences, Whether the Roman
Privileges be jure divino or humano? And though it be but the Privileges,
and not the now claimed Vicarship that was in Question, yet the Conclusion is the stronger against them, because the lesser was denied.
But their last shift is, that this Clause or Canon was not approved, and so is Null. 1. Mark then you that wrote this Manuscript, that we have General
Councils against you; but we want the Popes Approbation. And in good sadness was that the meaning of your Question [What Council, that is, what
Pope condemned our Church?] Can it be expected that this one man should condemn himself? Or can you be no Heretic till then?
2. But let it be so this once. Did not your Pope approve of this Council, when Gregory the first did liken it with the other three to the four Gospels?
And said of this [Tota devotione Complector: integerrima approbatione custodio] I embrace it with my whole devotion; I keep it with most entire approbation] Greg. 1. Regist. l. 1. Epist. 24, cited in the Decrees, Dist. 15, c.
2. I think this is expressly a full Approbation, not without excepting any part only, but excluding all such exceptions. And the like Approbation of Gelasius in the Roman Council is cited there also in the Decrees, ibid. p. 33.
I did also before instance the sixth General Council against you, approved by Pope Adrian in his Epistle to Tharasius in the second Nicene Council.
And indeed it is no hard matter to prove you condemned by your own Popes also. If you could but understand the plainest words in a matter that is against your opinions and wills, there needed no talk to persuade you that Pope Gregory the first condemned the Title of Universal Bishop or Patriarch, professing earnestly that he was the forerunner of Antichrist that would usurp it. But the plain truth is, as sad experience teacheth us, no words of Fathers, Popes or Councils, much less of Scripture, are intelligible to you, when your wills are against the matter. But we may truly say of you, that lay all on the will of the Pope, as Austin's Observator, your Lodovicus
Vives freely speaketh (in schol. in August. lib. 20, de Civit. Dei, c. 26.) [Those are taken by them for Edicts and Councils, which make for them (or are on their side;) the rest they no more regard than a meeting of women in a workhouse or a washing place.] Do you understand this language of one of your own (but too honest to have much company.)
Well; but you have a third Question [By what Authority was she otherwise reproved?] Answ. By the Authority of that Precept, Lev. 19:17, and many the like. By the same Authority that Paul reproved Peter, Gal. 2, and withstood him to the face: by such Authority as any man may seek to quench a fire in his neighbors house, or pull a man out of the water that is drowning: or as any one Pastor may reprove another when he sinneth. By the same Authority as Irenaeus rebuked Victor, and the Asian Bishops withstood him, and as Cyprian and the Council of Carthage reproved
Stephen; and the rest afore cited did what they did. By as good Authority as the Church of Rome condemneth the Greek Church, doth the Greek Church and many another condemn the Church of Rome.
3. The next case is about the Roman schism. To your Questions, I answer, 1. To Question whether Papists be Schismatics, is to question whether
Ethiopians be black. Do you not at this day divide from all the Christian world, save yourselves? Do you not unchurch most of the Christians on earth (O dreadful presumption! When Christ is so tender of his interest and his servants, and is bound as it were, by so many promises to save them and not forsake them.) You ask, what Church you left? And when was it? And whose company? Senseless Questions. By a Church if you mean the Universal Church, there is but One in all: and therefore One Universal
Church cannot forsake another: but when part of it forsaketh the other part, and arrogateth the title of the whole to themselves, do you doubt whether
this be Schism? If you mean a particular Church: How can Spain, Italy, France, and many more Kingdoms go out of a particular Church, that contain so many hundred particular Churches in them? No more then
London can go out of Paul's Church. The Catholic is but One containing all true Christians on earth: and you have been guilty of a most horrid Schism, as ever the Church knew. For 1. You have set up a Church in the Church:
An Universal Church in the Universal Church: A new form destructive to the old. Your Pope as Christ-representative is now an Essential part of it, and no man is a member of it, that is not a member of the Popes body, and subject to him. So that even the Antipodes and the poor Abassians that know not whether the Pope be fish or flesh, or never heard of such a name or thing, must all be unchristened, unchurched and damned, if you be
Judges. Yea and Bellarmine tells us (which indeed your Church Constitution doth infer) that all that are duly baptized, are interpretatively or implicitly baptized into the Pope.
2. And as you have devised a New Catholic Church: so you hereby cast off and disown all the Christians of the world that be not of your party: determining it as de fide, that none of them can be saved; who yet had rather venture on your Curse and Censure, then into your Heresy and Schism.
3. And hereby you fix yourselves in this Schism, and put us (that unfeignedly long for peace) out of all Hope of ever having Peace with you: because you will hearken to it on no terms, but that all men become subjects to your usurping Representative-Christ, which we dare as soon leap into the fire as do. Do you know now where the Church or Body was that you forsook? It was all over the world where ever there were any Christians.
Were it not a great Schism, think you, if a few Anabaptists should say, We are the whole Church, and all others are Heretics or Schismatics? Or was it not a great Schism of the Donatists to arrogate that title to themselves, and unchurch so many others? And what Church did they forsake? Augustine tells them over and over what the Catholic Church was that they withdrew from? Even all true Christians dispersed over the earth: Or that Church which begun at Jerusalem, and thence diffused itself through the world. But he never blames them for separating from the Universal Roman Head or Vicar: but from the Church of Rome, as a conspicuous combination of particular Churches. Optatus and he do blame them for withdrawing, as also from other Churches.
What if John of Constantinople in prosecution of his title of Universal Patriarch, had concluded as you, that none in the world are Christ's members but his members, nor of the Church, but his subjects, had not this been a notorious schism? Tell us then what Church he had forsaken, and answer yourself.
But your last Caution in a parenthesis, doth condemn yourselves. What I Must that Church that's true be visible from Christ's time? Then as Constantinople, nor most other were never true Churches (which is false) so Rome itself was never a true Church (which is false also) Did you think that there was a Church at Rome in Christ's time? Sure you are not so ignorant.
By this Rule there should be no true Church, but that at Jerusalem, and those in Judea.
But suppose you had said [since the Apostles time] This also had excluded most Churches on earth. But if you mean the Universal Church, we grant you easily, that it hath been visible ever since Christ's time: but not always in one place or Country. Is not the greater part of Christians in the world,
whom you schismatically unchurch, a visible company? Doubtless you know they are. Yea the Abyssinians and many Churches that being out of the Roman Empire, did never so much as submit to your Primacy of Order, nor had you ever anything to do with them (more then to own them as Christians) yet now are condemned by your Arrogancy, because they will not begin in the end of the world, to enter into a new Church, which they nor their Fore-fathers had ever any dependence on. It was a shrewd answer of an old woman, that the Emperor of Habassia's Mother gave to Gonzalus
Rodericus the Jesuit, pressing her to be subject to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, or else she could not be subject to Christ [Neque ego, inquit illa, neque mei sancto Petro obedientiam negamus: in eadem nunc sumus fide, in quae fuimus ab initio: ea si recta non erat, cur per tot aetates ac secula nemo repertus est, qui nos errrantes commonerent] i.e. We are in the same
Belief as we were from the beginning: If it were not right, why did no man in so many ages warn us of our error till now?] Mark here a double
Argument couched against the Pope, One from Tradition, even Apostolical Tradition, (for Godignus himself saith, that no man doubts but Ethiopia received the faith from the beginning, even from the Eunuch and St.
Matthew.) The other is, that sure that Pope that cannot in so many ages look after his flock, no not so much as to send one man to tell them that they erred till about one thousand five hundred years after Christ, was never intended by Christ to be the Universal Governor of the world. What! Will
Christ set any on an Impossible work? Or make it so necessary to people to obey one that they never so much as hear from? But what said the Jesuit to the old woman! Why he told her [Non potuisse Romanum Pontificem, qui totius Christi Ecclesiae pastor est, praeteritis retro annis, Doctors in Abassiam mittere, eo quod Mahumetani omnia circumdarent, nec ullum ad
ipsos additum relinquerant. Nunc vero aperta jam Maritima ad Aethiopiam via, id praestare quod nequivit prius] that is, [The Pope of Rome who is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ, was not able in the years past to send
Doctors into Habassia, because the Mahomitans compassed all, and left not any passage to them. But now the seas are open, he can do that which he could not before] Liter. Gonzal. Roder. in Godign. de Reb. Abass. lib. 2, c.
18, p. 324. A fair answer. As if Christ had set either the Pope, or the Abyssinians an impossible task: and appointed a Governor that for so many hundred years could not govern: or the people must be so many hundred years no Christians, though they believed in Christ, till the Pope could send to them? And how should these and all such Countries send Bishops to a General Council?
As your own Cano Loc. Theol. saith of the Jesuits; so say I of your New Church [Vocati estis ad secietatem Jesu Christi, quae sine dubio societas cum Christi Ecclesia sit, qui titulum sibi illum arrogant, hi videant, an Haereticorum more penes se Ecclesiam existere mentiantur. i.e. You are called to the society of Jesus Christ, which society being undoubtedly the Church of Christ, let them see to it, that arrogate this title to themselves, whether they do not imitate heretics by a Lying affirmation that the Church is only with them. lib. 4, c. 2, fol. (mihi) 116.
But we do not hence conclude that all that have lived and died in your profession, have been no members of the Church, because that your Church is guilty of Heresy, and notoriously of Schism. For we know that millions that live among you consent not to your usurpations; Nay do not so much as understand your errors thereabout. And some hold them but Notionally as ineffectual Opinions: And everyone is not a Heretic that holdeth a point that is judged Heretical, and which is Heresy in another that holdeth it in
another sort. And there are errors called Heresies by most, which are not destructive to the Essentials of Christianity, but only to some Integral part.
And there is a schism that doth not unchurch men, as well as a schism that doth (of which this is no place to treat.) But ad hominem, me thinks your own writers put you hard to it, who conclude (as Bellarmine and many more do, though Alphonsus à Castro and others be against it) that Heretics and Schismatics are no members of the Church. And Melch. Cano (Loc.
Theol. lib. 4, c. 2, fol. 117.) saith that [that Heretics are no parts of the Church, is the common conclusion of all Divines, not only of those that have written of late, but of them also that by their Antiquity are esteemed the most Noble; This is attested by Cyprian, Augustine, Gregory, the two
Councils of Lateran and Florence: Rightly therefore did Pope Nicolas define that the Church is a collection of Catholics.] If this be true, it is an Article of faith: And then Alphonsus à Cast. and all of his mind are Heretics and lost men. And I pray you note what a case you are in. Two Approved
General Councils have determined that a Heretic is no member of the Church: But multitudes of your own writers, and Pope Adrian, and many more of your Popes have judged that a Pope may be a Heretic: and consequently no member of the Church. And consequently judge whats become of your Church, when an Essential part of it is no part of the Church.
Your common shift (which Cano ibid. and others fly to) is, that He must be a judged Heretic before he is dismembered. But 1. Sure that is but for manifestation to men; for before God he is the same, if men never judge him. 2. Where the case is notorious, the offender is ipso jure cut off. 3. Then it is in the Popes Power to let whole millions of Heretics to be still parts of the Church. And so the world shall be Christians or no Christians as he
please: and why may he not let Turks and Infidels on the same grounds be parts of the Church? For he may forebare to judge them, if that will serve.
4. Then all the Christians in the world that the Pope hath not yet judged and cast out, are members of the Church: And then millions and millions are of the Church that never were subjects of the Pope. If you say, It is enough that there is a General condemnation of all that are guilty as they are: I answer, then it is enough to cut off a Pope, that there was a General condemnation against such as he.
5. But if all this satisfy you not, yet I told you before, that two or three Councils and three Popes did all judge Pope Honorius guilty of Heresy (and consequently both Popes and General Councils have judged that a Pope may be a Heretic) therefore you have been judged Heretical in your Head, which is an essential part of your Church.
And thus I have shown you what is the schism of the Church of Rome, which being but a part, hath attempted to cut off all the rest, and so hath made a new pretended Catholic Church: As a part of the Old Church which consisteth of all Christians united in Christ, we confess all those of you, still to be a part, that destroy not this Christianity: But as you are new gathered to a Christ-Representative, or Vicar General, we deny you to be any Church of Christ. If you be Church members or saved, it must be as Christians; but never as Papists. For a Papist may be a Christian, but not as a Papist.
And if yet you cannot see the Church that you separate from, open your eyes and look into much of Europe, and all over Asia almost where are any
Christians: look into Armenia, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, and many other Countries, and you shall find that you are but a smaller part of the Church.
If you will not believe what I have before proved of this, hear what your own say. Anton. Marinarins in the Council of Trent complaineth [that the
Church is shut up in the Corners of Europe, and yet Domestic enemies arise, that waste this portion shut up in a corner.]
Sonnius Bishop of Antwerp (in Demonstrat. Relig. Christian. lib. 2. Tract.
5, c. 3.) saith [I pray you what room hath the Catholic Church now in the habitable world? Scarce three elnes long in comparison of that vastness which the Satanical Church doth possess.]
If yet you boast that you have the same seat that formerly you had; I answer, so have the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and others whom you condemn: And we say as Gregory Nazianz. Orat. de land.
Athanasii [It is a succession of Godliness that is properly to be esteemed a succession: For he that professeth the same doctrine of faith, is also partaker of the same throne; But he that embraceth the contrary belief, ought to be judged an adversary, though he be in the throne. This indeed hath the name of succession; but the other hath the Thing itself, and the Truth] And he next addeth such words as utterly break your succession in pieces: saying [For he that breaketh in by force (as abundance of Popes did) is not to be esteemed a successor; but rather he that suffereth force: nor he that breaketh the Laws: but he that is chosen in manner agreeable to the Laws: nor he that holdeth contrary tenets; but he that is endued with the same faith: Unless any man will call him a Successor, as we say a sickness succeedeth health; or darkness succeedeth light, and a storm succeeds a calm, (or madness or distraction) succeedeth prudence] Thus Nazianz. p. 377.
We conclude therefore with one of your own (Lyra Glos. in Math. 16.) [Because many Princes and chief Priests (or Popes) and other inferiors, have been found to Apostatize, the Church consisteth in those persons in whom is the true knowledge and confession of Faith and Verity] And so much to this empty Manuscript.