body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
do is neither to men nor their fancies but unto God himself CHAP. X. Of the Protestant Church AFter an unconceivable distinction betwixt Protestants and Spiritists is Lutherans Zuinglians Calvinists in the first words of this Chapter you tell us That this Chapter pretends to lay open the many shapes Protestants put their Church into to make her passe for true Answ 1. The shapes you lay open are not many 'T is true you mention five but there are two distinct ones only to which al the rest may be reduced viz. lawfull Pastors and true Doctrine 2ly The shapes as you call them of Protestants or the notes of the truth of their Church as themselves propound them are not many but very few 3ly You lay not open what Protestants they are that form these several shapes that so your Reader might examine them himself and see what they say for themselves and whether you deal candidly with them in reporting their opinions Your dishonest dealing with Gods Word makes us suspect you deal no better with men Before I come particularly to the shapes I shall premise for the Readers information that there are ordinarily two only notes whereby Protestants prove their Church true viz. the pure preaching of Gods Word and the right administration of the Sacraments to which some few add as a third the use of right Eclesiastical Discipline But this man as if he had known nothing of Protestants judgment or had no mind to encounter with them in their way wholly omits the plea of right administration of the Sacraments and brings the other but in the last place spending the most of his Chapter about personal succession of Bishops thinking himself probably best able to encounter with us in this point both because of their bead-roll of Popes and Papists general conceit that there were no Protestant Pastors in the World before Luther's days which is also this mans misconceit so far as I know But I shall do him the favour to reduce his five shapes to the former of our notes supposing him to say as Stapleton Stap. princ doc l. 1. c. 22. That the preaching of the Gospel is a very clear note of the Catholique Church so it be done by lawful Ministers The question then is concerning the lawfulness of our Ministry which is asserted and confirmed according to the divers times in which it hath been questioned and contradicted particularly in the days of Luther and Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory together with the times preceding them Notwithstanding I will follow you in your method viewing the shapes and your answers to them in that order wherein you propound them SHAPE I. PRotestants are a company of Christians under the government of Bishops and Pastors that have power and authoritie from Christ and his Apostles to administer the Sacrament and preach the Word of God but such a companie is the true Church therefore Protestants are the true Church To which you answer Neither Christ nor the Apostles confer'd any power or authoritie on Protestant Bishops and Pastors they were dead and gone long before these had any being to give power and authoritie requires presence of the giver c. Rep. 1. The foundation of it is sandy it s not universally true that to give power and authority requires the presence of the giver for it may be otherwise especially in two cases 1. If the giver shall deliver some rules or directions for persons receiving power c. a person after his death by his will or testament gives power to another to be his executor A King by his Patten though himself be personally absent gives power and authority to his Commissioners who therefore acts by the Kings authority Your Popes derive not their power and authority from any but from Peter every Pope professeth he hath the keys from Peter that is by Peter's will or testament or some directions and rules of his for he is not I know always present when the Pope is ordained 2. If the prime-giver do invest some person present with him with power to give the same unto others his successors A King doth invest a Town or Justices of peace to ordain a Constable or some other officer in their circuit It s the Kings power that invests him in his office and by oath he promiseth fidelity to him yet the King is not present but as represented by his ministers Should I upon this ground infer that neither your present Pope Cardinals Priests Jesuits no nor present Church hath any of its power from Jesus Christ or his Apostles what could you say to it If you grant it you prejudice your Church for whatsoever spiritual power is not from Jesus Christ or his Apostles is usurped tyrannical if you deny it you cause an earthquake in your argument shaking yea overthrowing its very foundation that to give power and authority requires presence of the giver For Christ is not now present with your Pope c. as God was present with Moses Exod. 3. Or Christ with the Apostles Math. 28. To say they have a mediate presence will not serve your turn for you require personal presence like that Exod. 3. and Math. 28. where God and Christ did confer power immediately by themselves and not by others To apply this to our purpose by way of reply to your answer I say Protestant Bishops and Pastors have their power and authority from Christ both those ways I mentioned viz. 1. By deed and testament Thus Christ by himself and Apostles in Scripture authorize those who are qualified with gifts and abilities for the Ministry to exercise their gifts which they may do upon some occasions and in some times even without a solemn installment by Bishops and Presbiters as when God doth cast them amongst a people where the Gospel hath not before come or where Presbyterial ordination cannot be had in regard of the corruption and wickedness of such as have power to ordain or where Pastors are few and unable for the service of Christ in his Church Upon these and such like occasions that respect each one should have to the promoting of Christs Kingdom puts him so far as God qualifies him for it upon the exercise of this duty provided there be not a contempt or wilfull neglect of that tryal of these gifts which Christ hath committed to the Ministers of his Church whom he hath also intrusted with the power ordination of those who are gifted Thus it may be supposed to have been with Apollo's Acts 18.24 25 27. and you read of divers persons preaching whose ordination is not expresly mentioned thus though we should grant you that our first reformers had no ordinary exernal calling yet had they their authority from Christ being by him furnished with inward abilities which ordination is but a solemn reflection upon and an acknowledgment of You confess that Luther was a man of learning and parts pag. 47. Surius affirms of Bucer Sur comment in An. 1526.
modest Bishops the weapons wherewith he was assaulted were meek exhortations perswasions entreaties not bulls curses racks tortures that holy age knew no such Ecclesiastical censures as Luther and his followers were acquainted with The French Historian gives this account of Protestants persecutions page 38. The Doctrine of Luther seemed to encrease by the greatnesse of persecutions which might be seen by the hot persecutions in the year 1534. for searches and informations were no sooner made of the prisoners but they were as speedily burnt quick tyed to a stake after swinged into the aire were let fall into the fire and so by a pullise pul'd up and down untill a man might see them all roasted and scorched by a small fire without complaining not able to speak by reason that they had taken out their tongue and gagged them 2. Arius did not set himself against the vices of an usurping lordly power which might have procured him hatred and revengefull opposition but Luther did whose two vices as Erasmus told Fredrick were that he touched the bellies of the Monks and the Crown of the Pope 3. Arius his heresy was not constantly maintained and stuck to Arius recanted and subscribed the Nicen Creed as did others his followers but Luther's Doctrine was constantly maintained by himself and followers without any recantation or counterfeit compliance 4. Arius his heresie did not seem crosse to reason but rather conformable but Luther's did crosse carnal reason the ground of Popish heresies In these regards Luther might more truly becompared with the Apostles than Arius And indeed his Doctrine though you are pleased to slander it as being acceptable and pleasing to the depravednesse of Nature and so contrary to the Apostles Doctrine is the very same for the substance of it that the Apostles taught being no way contrary to mortification of wills religious fasting chastity and the like And therefore it was not itching after novelties and pronnesse to libertinage that drew many after him but a desire of reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline which were exceeding corrupt in the Romish Church whereof very many were sensible and under which they groaned waiting for freedom and this is that which a great Papist saith Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone Alphons de Castro ado haeres epist nuncup but accompanied with a great troop as with a guard waiting for him as for their Captain and Leader who seemed to have expected him before he came and upon his coming did cleave unto him SHAPE III. PRotestants received their mission from Catholique Bishops in Queen Elizabeths daies and since You answer Ans If some did which is to be proved nay the contrary seems to be proved by Doctor Champney it is evident the greater part did not and what a Church must that companie make of which most are judged fit to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments without Authoritie Repl. 1. We had Protestant Bishops in England before Queen Elizabeths days eminent oppugners of Popish heresies then in the time of Queen Mary whom notwithstanding your fiery rage God preserved making them to survive her bloody raign by these were others afterways ordained as Bishop Parker who was consecrated by the imposition of hands of Bishop Barloe Bishop Coverdale Bishop Scory and two suffragans So that I know no Protestant that needs to use the shape you impose upon us nor do I think any doth but you set up moments and then shoot at them which is a very learned and ingenious prank But 2. Supposing it our Shape I say to your answer 1. Divers Popish Catholiques in Queen Maries days were Protestants in Queen Elizabeths and these might have an hand in Ordinations afterwards 2. Though the greater part of our Pastors received not Mission from Popeish Bishops yet they might have authority You beg the question when you tell us that they are not ordained by Popeish Bishops have no authority We had lawful Bishops Pastors in England before your Pope or any of his gowned Factors knew England But you answer 2ly Admit the calling of Protestant Bishops and Pastors were right in all of them it would not follow that the Protestant Church is true so long as she advanceth Protestantism contrary to the meaning of the Catholique Bishops who never impowâ—red any but in relation to the setting up and upholding of Catholique Religion Rep. 1. If you admit this it will follow according to your principles that there is personal succession and consequently a true Church inasmuch as derivati n of succession is so proper to the true Church that it cannot agree to any false as St. Hierom in Nucam 1. Observeth Sir you remember the words they are your own page 41. but oportet mendacem esse memorem 2. True Religion is not to be measured by mens meaning but by the Word of God So then if according to Gods Word protestantism be the true Religion it s no great matter what your Catholiques Bishops meaning be 3. Catholique Bishops ought to ordain men in order to the setting forth of the unsearchable riches of Christ Eph. 3.8 To preach the Gospel Col. 1.25 Mark 16.15 This is contained in the Scriptures If your Bishops ordain men to preach any thing else they are abusers of their power their ordination is impure and unlawfull and so far to be frustrated Thus our Protestant Bishops and Pastors that have been ordained by you retain that which is pure viz. power to preach the word and administer the Sacraments but reject that which is evil in your ordinations we retain the power which is good and from God but reject those circumstances of yours which accompany the conveiance of it and are evil 2ly You say Communion with the true Church being as necessary a requisite to the makeing up of a true Church as union of parts to the compleating of a natural body what colour for truth in the Protestant Church that is at variance with the Catholique of whom she glorieth to have her power and which she confesseth to be a true Church Repl. 1. I grant that communion with the true Church is necessary but your inference hereupon is vain For 1. We deny that the Popish Church is the Catholique Church You appropriate that name to your selves but who gives it you Indeed the Roman Church in her purity before shee was infected with the Leeven of Popery was a Catholique Church Euseb eccl Hist l. 4. c. 15. l. 10. c. 7. Socr. schol l. 2. c. 2. but so were other Churches called as well as shee with whom you hold no communion now nor they with you as the Church of Smyrna Alexandria Carthage 2. It s not necessary to the constitution of a true Church to have communion with you The Eastern Churches were as much at variance with you as Protestants are yet they were tâ—ue Churches The Affrican Bishops did oppose divers of your Popes one after another telling them they should
mainly differ for it would but be the judgment of one particular man but 2. Calvin is wronged by you for he fully frees the will from all Coaction See Instit Lib. 2 cap. 2. S. 7. Thus I have shewed his first defect his non-production of such points wherein Catholick and Protestants mainly differ And truly I should think the man either a meer stranger to us or void of reason in attributing such points as these to us But he doth but tread in the steps of his forefathers The Catholick Apologist objects against us these Heresies but is most satisfyingly answered by Doctor Morton in his Catholick appeal They are also objected by Spalatensis in that simple Book called his second Manifesto Sect. 8. with whom others are not ashamed to joyn But these Cretians are alwayes liars evill beasts slow bellies such whole consciences are seared with an hot iron Tit. 1.12 1. Tim 4.2 and speaks lies in hypocrisie But let us trie him yet further 2. His second failing is that he doth not produce the generality of Christians as opposers of his errors In some of his instances there is one onely Author mentioned as Sect. 9. In others onely two as Sect. 3. or to make up a number he adds the late packt conventicle of Trent as Sect. 4. where you have Tertullian who goes for a Monothelite with Eusebius Origen who is in this Authors Catalogue of Hereticks spoyling mankind of free-will and the Trent Councell who in the judgement of the French Papists was no lawfull oecumenicall Councell Do you think its a good Argument to say Augustine or Tertullian Origen and the Councell of Trent opposed such a doctrine therefore Christians generally opposed it Origen you say spoiled man of Free-will The Councell of Trent robd generall Councells of their dignity and supremacy above Popes did therefore all Christians or Christians generally spoil man of free-will or oppose the supremacy of generall Councells seeing you are at Paris you may ask the French Papists whether they consented to the Councell of Trent and I hope you will not deny them to be Christians their King being Rex Christianissimus the most Christian King in your Calender Yea secondly he doth produce the names of Christians but he brings them not asserting his Doctrines or opposing the contrary in his Catalogues he offends two wayes First by false secondly by generall quotations 1. His quotations are many of them most false as for instance t is false that S. Paul 1 Cor. 6.13 James 2. John 1. ep 3. or S. Austine de Grat. lib. Arbitr c. 7. do assert an absolute necessity of good works as he saith Sect. 2. If they assert an absolute necessity how dare your Rhemists say that in some Cases they are not necessary or why do they use this limitation when they speaks of good works Supra Rhem. on Rev. 20.12 Margt such as do no good works if they have age and time to do them are not found in the Book of Life Sure this is inconsistent with absolute necessity again whereas you bring Irenaeus and Augustine asserting that faith did dispose and help but alone that she was too feeble and weak to justifie a sinner It s most false that either Irenaeus and Augustine in the places cited say any such thing the like falsity is in other Sections as S. 8. Hierom. in chap. 7. Matth. Sect. 10. August lib. 9. Confes c. 7. Concil Laodic Can. 35. Sect. 13. Synod Francoford Sect. 14. Irenaeus lib. 4. adv haeres c. 34. S. Aug. l. 17. de Civit. Dei c. 17. lib. 20. Confess lib. 10. cap. 3. Sect. 16. Aug. lib. 9. Confess c. 13. these may suffice to shew his forgerie 2. His quotations are many of them very generall and to be sought like a needle in a bottle of hay as for instance Sect. 7. he cites S. Gregory in his Epistles now S. Gregory hath 12. books of Epistles and each book hath many Epistles S. Bede Comment in Cantic Sect. 10. S. Cyprian lib. 4. but of what Quaerat lector Sect. 13. Concil Roman Sect. 14. Lugdun Concil where also he cites Cypprians 19. ep lib. 1. whereas he hath but 12 Epistles in that book this I forgot to mention amongst his false quotations Gaudent in Exod. All this shews that this Authour did rather study names of Christians then to produce their doctrine for the opposing his errors which should have been his main work 3 His third failing is He doth not produce Christians professing truth when first any opposition was made as he promised thereby implying that as these errors were broached in every age so in those ages Christians then living did oppose them in their rise and these Christians he should produce but I finde no such methodicall proceedings in him the error with its Author is mentioned and its opposers lived sometimes many years after it as Augustine is opposing Simon Magus yet lived almost 400 years after him The Councell of Trent oppose Florinus yet were near 1300 years after him Sometimes the errour was broached many years after its opposers lived As against Luther he introduceth Cyprian Irenaeus Justin Martyr Augustine Hierom Gregory Nyssen Cyril of Alex. Cyril of Hierus Concil Nicen. Omnia Concilia vetera i. e. all the Councels that were a thousand years before Luther So against Calvin he brings Ignatius Dionysius who lived 1400 and odd years before him Thus preposterous is he though to speak truth it 's not much material when they are mentioned unless the citation of them were to better purpose then that for which this Author brings them 4. His fourth failing is His Catalogue is not altogether of Roman Catholicks such as were under the Government of Roman Bishops and Pastors Eusebius tells us Euseb Chronogr An. 195. p. 573. that At Ephesus many of the Bishops of Asia met touching the deliberation of the Feast of Easter where Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus was chief-In the foresaid six Synods vâ— of Rome Cesaria Pontus France Ostroena and Ephesus held An. 195. the Bishop of Rome had no more authority then the other Bishops He in his City and they in theirs were cheief Now divers of these he mentions were Bishops of Asia and therefore cannot be brought in as Roman Catholicks were they now living they would clearly disclaim the Popes usurpation yea and reprehend him sharply as Irenaeus did for challenging authority over the Eastern Churches This shall suffice for his answer to his objected errours desiring the Reader to peruse that Elaborate Work of Doctor Morton called The Catholick Appeal especially in that part which is against objected heresies where this Authours quotations are many of them answered My answer being already too large for these short winded times and I having much more to say to him before I have done I wholly wave the discussion of them Only I will take notice of his last words which are indeed the very last words of a dying Argument This prooâ— saith
and originally in God as Lord paramount of all creatures but not incommunicable for as he hath bestowed the power of governing Kingdomes and Common-wealths on Kings and Magistrates Prov. 8.15 Rom. 13.1 So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successours yet men having these powers by way of gift and participation may not be said to govern or to forgive sins but as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection Reply 1. Gods power as to some of its acts is incommunicable His power of Creation is naturally in him and incommunicable to any creature so is his damning and saving power whereby he makes one a vessell of wrath another of mercy of this nature is his power of remitting sin It is God that justifies and it was a serious question though wrongly applied of the Scribes Who can forgive sins but God only Mark 2.7 others cannot do it and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christs divinitâ— saith he Solus Dâ—us remittit peccata c. Bed apud Lyran ib i.e. God onely remits sins and the Son of man hath power of remiting sin therefore God and the Son of man are the same thus the Son of man by his divinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to dy for sinners For the clearing of this I observe that remission of sins may be considered two wayes viz. 1. As it is a judiciall act and denotes formall pardon Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the crâ—mes are directly committed and his absolution is onely satisfactory to the offender as Soto on Rom. 8.33 very well shewes 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts the judiciall act or formall absolution belongs to the Judge but the declaration of this is in the crier 'T is thus in the Church The Church is the crier but God the Judge his act is an act of power and authority whereby Pardon is formally obtained but so is not theirs This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen Lombard is clear for it Ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus c. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 18. F. The Evangelicall Priest saith he doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legall Priest did on them that had the Leprosie Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean but onely upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean nor is this the judgement of him onely but of many other Schoolmen and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned do in a Pharasaicall pride as Lombard speaks claim to it self a judiciall power which Ambrose calls jus potestatis then it s certainly true that the Romane Church claims a power that belongs onely to God But it s certainly true that this Church claims a power the Trent Councill is clear and full for it Concil Trid sess 14. cap. 6. Can. 9. ap Binnium So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say that is no judiciall act but onely an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner This is that we charge upon your Church as an hereticall opinion What you say in answer to our Objection I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church or in meer opposition to us you have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is You say The successours of the Apostles have power to forgive sins as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferioritie and subjection You should have told us what this suitable power is for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen And if you deny her that you confess with us that she claims a power that belongs onely to God Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestowed power of governing on Kings so hath he given the Apostles and their successours the power of formall remission 4. Objection THe fourth Objection is The Roman Church derogateth from Christs Mediatorship making it common to Saints and Angels Answ 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt Gods power and theirs Psal 81.1.6 The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels a certain likeness to the mediation of Christ they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others may not unfitly call them alike by the name of mediation Reply 1. That things that are like have sometime the same denomination none will question but the ground of this is not alwayes likness or resemblance as you seem to assert different things altogether unlike may have the same denomination whilest those that have some likeness cannot The children of God who have his Image and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods though Magistrates are Psal 82. There are two reasons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures 1. Relation the persons stand in unto God and Christ thus Judges are called Gods and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 because Judges and Moses stood in Gods stead were his Vice-royes his Ambassadours 2. Divine authoritie seconding the relation I have said ye are Gods and all of you the children of the most High c. Psal 82.6.105 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christs Now according as God gives these names to creatures so may we provided that we give them 1. Onely to those to whom he gives them 2. That we give them not to any as properly belonging to them but onely as metaphoricall expressions 3. Nor ordinarily but upon speciall and extraordinary occasions and with allusions to Gods own words Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods Act. 14.1 It s not lawfull for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them nor to say to others ye are Jehovah or Christ or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied The Apostle expresly saith There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5.2 If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtfull what likeness doth it There is nothing in the world but hath some kind of likeness to God yet you may not call every thing God though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbes 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels supposing these to interceed though you prove it not and mediation of Christ is so little that it cannot be thought a sufficient ground for this denomination What ever you can say of the intercession of Saints