A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 35
CHAP. XXXV.
Detect. 26. ANother of their Deceits is, by calling us to tell them when every one 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 your ſelves of abundance of changes which you know not who did firſt introduce. Who firſt adminiſtred the Lords Supper in one kind only? dare you ſay that this was from the beginning? Who firſt laid by the ſtanding on the Lords day, and uſed kneeling? (forbidden Can. 20. Concil. Nicen. 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 then 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 novell contagion ſhall endeavour 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 withall he addeth that This Direction is but for [new hereſies at their firſt riſing, before they falſifie the rules of ancient faith (that is, before they corrupt antient Writers, or can pretend to Antiquity) and before by the large spreading of the venome, they endeavour 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 antient hereſies and ſchiſms by no means but by the only Authority of the Scripture, if there be need, or avoid them—] Lirinenſ. cap. 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 Legall 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 dayes 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 humane 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 catcht.)]
How think you now in the Judgement 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 any thing be new?
It ſeems that Bernard thought that humane 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 enquire, 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. cap. 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 Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. [Ne que poteſt, &c. It cannot be anſwered that thoſe Councils erred becauſe they were not lawfull (that is the Arrian and other Heretical General Councils, at that at Sirmium, Millanie, Ariminum, Epheſus, ſeveral at Conſtantinople diſſallowed 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 ſuppletivè.]
And what ſhould hinder, when there is but one mans 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 meer name and mockery. The packing of them ſhews it: the Paucity and nonUniverſality of them ſhews it. The Management of their affairs ſhews 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 Uergerius 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. pag. 42. ſeeing Bellarmine ſpeaks it out, De Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. ſaying, [We muſt know that the Pope is wont to ſend Legates inſtructed concerning the judgement of the Apoſtolick ſeat, with this Condition, that if the Council do conſent to the Judgement of the Apoſtolick 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 Concil. lib. 2. cap. 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 it ſelf, ſubjecting to themſelves, or to the community of the Church, (which they falſly 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 Judgement of the Orthodox Church it ſelf.]
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. cap. 1. fol. 230. where he ſaith that [Concilia univerſalia non habent Divinam, & c. General Councils have not a Divine or Supernatural Original, but meerly an humane Original, and are the Invention of Conſtantine a Prince, profitable indeed ſometimes to find out in Controverſie, which is the Orthodox and Catholick truth, though to this they are not neceſſary; ſeeing its a readyer way to adviſe with the Apoſtolick ſeat] How now Sirs? Is your Repreſentative Church the foundation of your faith, a Novelty of Conſtantines 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 Hierom] 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 your ſelves; 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, Coloſs, Theſſalonica, Epheſus, Laodicaea, 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 Brittains 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 doubtfull opinion, would eaſily grow to be eſteemed a point of Faith. The Presbyters and whole Clergy of Neocaeſarea were offended with Baſil for his Innovations, viz. for bringing in a new Pſalmodie, or way of ſinging to God; and for his new order of Monaſticks: and they told him that none of this was ſo in Gregories dayes; and what anſwereth Baſil? He denyeth not the Novelty of his Pſalmodie, but retorts again on them, that their Letany 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 dayes 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 then 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 ſhewing themſelves Maſters of modeſty and gravity to us, did by wiſe Council permit women to ſing in the Churches. But as all Gods 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 then 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 Apoſtolick Order. So that for Novelty by good men to creep into Gods 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 hindred 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 Hereſie 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 ſhewed you out of many of your own writers the riſe of divers of your vanities. And Uſher hath told the Jeſuite 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 Myſterie 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, ſhewing 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 your ſelves, 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 Lords 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 denyed 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 mens 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 Laodicaea, and all the reſt of the concent of Antiquity, which Dr. Reignolds, Dr. Coſin and others have produced? Who was it that firſt taught and practiſed 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 wilfulneſs 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 ſatisfie your ſelves.
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 equall, and that it is ſubjectional conſent that gives the Pope and Biſhops their Majority, and that the diſtinction of Dioceſſes, 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. cap. 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 tels you, that it is unknown when that Cuſtom firſt begun, or got head, but that it was General in the Latine 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 Latine tongue was the Vulgar tongue, when the Liturgy and Scripture was firſt written in it (at Rome and far and neer it was underſtood by all.) The ſervice was not changed, as to the language: but the language it ſelf changed; and ſo Scripture and Liturgy came to be in an unknown tongue; And when did the Latine 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. §. 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 Dropſie, 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 dayes, and ſome ſaid ſince the Apoſtles; but no other beginning do you know.
6. But to conclude, what need we any more, then to find you owning the very doctrine and practiſe 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 Luthers opinions, reckoneth and oppoſeth this as Hereticall [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 primitivâ Eccleſiâ hujuſmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus ſub utra que specie, i. e. Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received by Believers under both kinds.]
The Council of Trent ſay, Seſſ. 21. cap. 1, 2. that [this power was alway 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 then the power of the Church and Pope in bringing in Precepts.]
Theſe I cited in another Treatiſe againſt Popery, page 365. Where alſo I added that of Pope Innocent [Secundum plenitudinem poteſtatis, &c. By the fulneſs 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 Goſpell 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. cap. 3. pag. 674. againſt King James, of the Authority of the Church to alter matters conteined in the Srripture: and his inſtance [of the form of Sacraments being alterable; and the Lords 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. Concil. Trid. lib. 2. pag. 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 corporall and spiritual.] And then no doubt may change without blame.
Abbas Panormitan, in cap. 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.]
Turrecremat. ſum. de Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 203. ſaith that [the Pope is the Meaſure, and Rule, and Science of things to be believed.] And Auguſt. de Ancona ſhews us that the Judgement of God is not higher then 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 denyed 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. & 6. & 16. Whites Def. p. 555. King James ſpeech to the Parliament. Whitaker in his Anſwer to Dr. Sanders. Fulk. cap. 21. Theſ. 7. Reynolds in his fifth Concluſion.
This Church could not ceaſe to be ſuch, but ſhe muſt fall either by Apoſtacy, Hereſie, or Schiſm.
Apoſtacy 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.
Hereſie 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 ſatisfie 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 her ſelf from any body of faithfull Chriſtians, or broke Communion, or went forth from the Society of any Elder Church, I pray you ſatisfie 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 Chriſts 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 Gods worſhip. 2. Or divers ſuch Aſſociations or Churches Aſſociated for Communion by their officers or delegates, for unity ſake. 3. Or elſe it may ſignifie ſome one Miſtris Church that is the Ruler of all the reſt in the world. 4. Or elſe it may ſignifie the Univerſal (Catholick) Church it ſelf, which containeth all the particular Churches in the world.
The Papiſt ſhould not have plaid either the blind man or the Jugler 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, Hieruſalem, Philippi, Coloſſe and many more.
2. As to the ſecond ſence it is humane, 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 any more 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 Scipture times Rome was either a Mother to all Churches, or the Ruler and Miſtris of all, or yet the Univerſal Church it ſelf. 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, Pergamus, 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 Univerſall Church, nor the Ruler of the world, or of all other Churches, in Pauls dayes. Would you durſt lay your cauſe on this, and put it to the tryal? Why elſe did never Paul make one word of mention of this Power and honour, 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, any more then whether Jeruſalem, Epheſus, Philippi, or any other Church be ſo faln? If you are not faln 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 faln 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 to your own definition of Hereſie, 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 buryed 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 your ſelves? 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 Abaſſines, 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 Hereſie? 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 mans 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, kils the Man: Your Uſurping Head is an Eſſential part of your New-formed 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 Bellarmines parallel of them de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 11. Do I need to tell you what the Council of Conſtance did? Or for what John 22. alias 23. and John 13. 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 divers of your own ſay againſt Liberius, Honorius, Anaſtaſius, Celeſtine; and tell us that many Popes have been Hereticks? At leaſt give us leave to believe Pope Adrian the ſixth himſelf. Read Dom. Bannes in 2m 2a q. 1. art. 10. Where he proves at large againſt Pighius, that a Pope may be an Heretick, and laughs at Pighius that now after two hundred years would prove them falſe witneſſes, which write that Pope Honorius was condemned for an Heretick by three Popes, viz. Agatho, Leo the ſecond, and Adrian the ſecond.
3. But perhaps you'l 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 Laterane 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 expreſly affirm the former to be Hereſie. 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 ſixt 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. cap. 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 Apoſtolick ſeat, being ſeduced by Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage.] Again note, that Auſtin was one of them.
But you'l 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 then 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'le 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 Priviledges 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 Priviledges 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 cryed [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 wilfully 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 [An humbling, and depreſſing, and wronging of the Papacy, and therefore entred their diſſent: ſee Bellarmines Confeſſion lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 17. Binnius notes on this Council. Baronius an. 451.
8. Note alſo that the ſhifts of Bellarm. Binnius, 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 Priviledges be jure divino or humano? And though it be but the Priviledges, and not the now claimed Vicarſhip that was in Queſtion, yet the Concluſion is the ſtronger againſt them, becauſe the leſſer was denyed.
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 Heretick 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 expreſly 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. pag. 33.
I did alſo before inſtance the ſixt 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 perſwade 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 Auſtins Obſervator, your Lodovicus Vives freely ſpeaketh (in ſchol. in Auguſt. lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, cap. 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 then 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, Levit. 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 neighbours 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 aforecited 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 Schiſmaticks, is to queſtion whether Ethiopians be black. Do you not at this day divide from all the Chriſtian world, ſave your ſelves? 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? Senſleſs 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 Pauls Church. The Catholick 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 Antipdes 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 implicitely baptized into the Pope.
2. And as you have deviſed a New Catholick 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 Hereſie and Schiſm.
3. And hereby you fix your ſelves 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 Hereticks or Schiſmaticks? 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 Catholick Church was that they withdrew from? even all true Chriſtians diſperſed over the earth: Or that Church which begun at Hieruſalem, and thence diffuſed it ſelf 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 Chriſts 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 your ſelf.
But your laſt Caution in a parentheſis, doth condemn your ſelves. What I Muſt that Church that's true be viſible from Chriſts time? then as Conſtantinople, nor moſt other were never true Churches (which is falſe) ſo Rome it ſelf was never a true Church (which is falſe alſo) Did you think that there was a Church at Rome in Chriſts time? Sure you are not ſo ignorant. By this Rule there ſhould be no true Church, but that at Jeruſalem, and thoſe in Judaea.
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 Chriſts time: but not alway 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 Abaſſines 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 any thing 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 dependance on. It was a ſhrewd anſwer of an old woman, that the Emperor of Habaſſia's Mother gave to Gonzalus Rodericus the Jeſuite, 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 coucht 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 the Eunuch and St. Mathew.) 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 Governour 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 Jeſuite to the old woman! Why he told her [Non potuiſſe Romanum Pontificem, qui totius Chriſti Eccleſiae paſtor eſt, praeteritis retro annis, Doctores in Abaſſiam mittere, eò 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. cap. 18. pag. 324. A fair anſwer. As if Chriſt had ſet either the Pope, or the Abaſſines an impoſſible task: and appointed a Governour 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 Canus Loc. Theol. ſaith of the Jeſuites; 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 hereticks 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 dyed in your profeſſion, have been no members of the Church, becauſe that your Church is guilty of Hereſie, 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 uneffectual Opinions: And every one is not a Heretick that holdeth a point that is judged Heretical, and which is Hereſie 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 Hereticks and Schiſmaticks are no members of the Church. And Melch. Canus (Loc. Theol. lib. 4. cap. 2. fol. 117.) ſaith that [that Hereticks 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 Catholicks.] If this be true, it is an Article of faith: And then Alphonſus à Caſt. and all of his mind are Hereticks and loſt men. And I pray you note what a caſe you are in. Two Approved General Councils have determined that a Heretick 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 Heretick: 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 Canus ibid. and others fly to) is, that He muſt be a judged Heretick before he is diſmembred. 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 offendor is ipſo jure cut off. 3. Then it is in the Popes Power to let whole millions of Hereticks 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 forbare 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 ſatisfie you not, yet I told you before, that two or three Councils and three Popes did all judge Pope Honorius guilty of Hereſie (and conſequently both Popes and General Councils have judged that a Pope may be an Heretick) therefore you have been judged Heretical in your Head, which is an eſſential part of your Church.
And thus I have ſhewed 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 Catholick 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 Domeſtick 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 Catholick 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 it ſelf, 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 ſtrom ſucceeds a calm, (or madneſs or diſtraction) ſucceedeth prudence] Thus Nazianz. pag. 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.