and therefore to be called upon to pray for us 12. That the Saints after death do obtain whatsoever they desire of God because they deserved it in this life 13. That their merits do profit us for salvation 14. That the Saints are helpers and coworkers of our salvation 15. That the faithful living are ruled and governed by the Spirits of blessed men 16. That the Saints are to be Canonized by the Pope and being Canonized to be worshiped 17. Therefore we must fly to the Saints in our misery § 16. Of the Church 1. THat the holy Catholike Church that we believe is visible 2. And alwayes is visible 3. That it depends not on Gods election nor on true faith and Charity that one belongs to this Church But even wicked and reprobate men are members of the Catholike Church 4. That the Catholike Church is no other than the Roman or that which the Roman Pope is over 5. That the Catholike Church and the Pope of Rome are the same terms 6. Neither are there any Catholicks but those of the Romish Church 7. That he is a Catholike who believes all that the Roman Church delivers whether it be written in the Bible or not 8. That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church 9. That the notes of universality antiquity unity and succession in the Apostles doctrine do agree unto it 10. That the sincere preaching of the Gospel and lawful administration of the Sacraments are not a certain note of the Church 11. To acknowledge the Roman Pope and to be under him as the Vicar of Christ the onely Pastor the head of the whole Church is a note of the true Church 12. That the particular Roman Church is the Mother Mistris and Lady of all Churches yea the Mother of Faith 13. That the Roman Church did obtain the primacy from our Lord and Saviour himself 14. That the Roman Church hath power of judging all neither is it lawful for any to judge her judgment 15. That the Roman Church hath authority to deliver doctrines of faith without or beside the Scriptures 16. That the Roman Church cannot erre in faith much less fail 17. That the Roman Church cannot erre in interpreting Scripture §. 17. Of the Roman Church The Head viz. The Pope The Members 1. THat the Roman Pope is the head foundation husband Monarch of the whole universal Church the universal Bishop or the Bishop of the whole world 2. That the Roman Pope is the rock upon whom the Church is built 3. The names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures from whence it appears he is above the Church all of them are given to the Pope Vnto this Antichristian throne he ascends by a gradation of most impudent lies such as these 4. That the universal Church cannot consist unless there be one in it as a visible head with chief power 5. Therefore the external regiment of the universal Church is Monarchical 6. That the Monarchy of the Church was instituted in Peter 7. That Peter in proper speech was Bishop of Rome and remained Bishop there untill death 8. That the Pope succeded Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy 9. Neither do they give the Monarchy of Ecclesiastical power but of temporal also to the Pope 10 Neither do they make the Pope Christs General Vicar on earth but Gods also 11. They give a certain omnipotency to him 12. They give him power of deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their subjects from the oath of fidelity 13. Moreover without shame they defend that the Pope teaching from his chair cannot erre 14. That his words when he teacheth from his chair are in a sort the word of God 15. That the Pope cannot erre even in those things which belong to good manners or in the commands of morality as well as in matters of Faith 16. We must piously believe that as the Pope cannot erre as Pope so as a private person he cannot be a heretick 17. That the chief authority of interpreting Scripture is in him 18. That the Pope is the chief judge in controversies of Religion 19. We must appeal from all Churches to him 20. They give him authority to dispense with humane and Divine Laws 21. They give him power of absolving men not onely from sin but from punishments censures laws vows and oaths 22. Also of delivering men from Pâ—rgatory 23. Of Canonizing Saints and giving them honors that they may be prayed to in the Publike Prayers of the Church that Churches and Altars may be built for their honor that Masses and Canonical hours be offered publikely for their honor and feast-dayes be câ—lebrated That their Pictures be drawn with a certain splendor that their Reliques be put into precious boxes and publikely honored 24. We must believe that the Pope who sometime puts Murderers Traitors King-killers and other Capital offenders into the Calendar of Saints and Martyrs never errs in the Canonizing of Saints § 18. The Members of the Church are considered either as Congregated in Councils or Severally 1. THe office of convocating General Councils properly belongs to the Pope 2 That in no case a true and perfect Council can be called without the Popes authority no not if it be necessary for the Church and yet the Pope will not or cannot call one nor if the Pope be a heretick And therefore that a Council held without the Popes Authority is an unlawful meeting or Conventicle not a Council 3. That 't is the proper office of the Pope that by himself or his Legates he be president of the universal Council and as the supreme judge do moderate all 4. That the decree of a General Council made without the consent of the Pope or his Legate is unlawful 5. That the Power of confirming or rejecting General Councils is in the Pope of Rome neither are the Councils authentical unless they be confirmed by the Pope 6. That the distinction of lawful and unlawful Councils does depend upon his onely will 7. That the sentence of a General Council in a matter of faith is the last judgement of the Church from which it cannot appeal yet that we may appeal from a General Council to the Pope 8. That the Pope can neither be judged nor punished by a Council or by any mortals 9. That the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive judgement of Councils 10. That the Pope is absolutely over the universal Church and above a General Council so that he can acknowledge no judgement above him 11. We must believe with Catholike faith that General Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot erre neither in faith nor manners 12. That particular Councils approved by the Pope cannot erre 13. That the power of the Pope and Council together is not greater then the Popes alone Turrecrem l. 3. c. 41. § 19. Of the Members by themselves 1. THat to make a member of the Catholike Church there is not required grace or
nature would produce 3. And we say also that this is a point that men may differ in that yet are in a safe way to salvation 3. As to the point of mans merits we say that the Fathers differed from us but in word and not indeed It seemed good to them to call every moral aptitude or Ordination ad Praemium that is the Rewardableness of our actions by the name of merit and every Rewardable work meritorious We thinke it fittest to forbear this name This Verbal difference makes not two distinct Religions 4. As to the point of Justification we confess that the Fathers commonly called that Justification which we now call Sanctification And we our selves maintain that Sanctification doth consist in Inherent Graces This difference therefore being but verbal the Religion and the way to salvation is nevertheless the same 5. As for the points of Perseverance and certainty of Salvation and Virginity or vowed Chastity with the supposed merit thereof and of a Monastical or Eremetical life we think that most of the Churches since the first century have departed from the Apostles Doctrine in these points and therefore we appeal to the Scripture But yet we know that these are not points of absolute necessity to salvation so that whether those Churches or we were mistaken yet is our Religion the same and both they and we in a safe way to Heaven 2. For matters of Government and Discipline we say 1. That we undertake to manifest it as cleare as the light that the Popes Supreme Headship and universal jurisdiction is a novelty introduced above six hundred years after Christ 2. For Diocesane Episcopacy and their ordination some of the Reformed Churches do own it But it is not a matter so necessary to Salvation as that all men that will be saved must needs be of one minde in it 3. We confess and maintain the necessity of true Penitence and such confession of sin as is necessary to manifest Penitence to the Church after a notorious scandal and of confession to those that we have wronged and of private confession to our Pastors in case that we cannot have a through cure of our wounds or comfort to our consciences without it Lastly as for the Ceremonies mentioned which the former Churches used and as for the bare name of a Sacrifice and Altar while they agreed with us in sence we take them not to be matters of so great moment as must make them and us of two Religions as if both were not in a safe way to salvation The best men on earth may differ in as great a matter as one of these and if they in a mistaken zeal shall depart from the Apostles so that we cannot imitate both the Apostles and them we had rather of the two leave them then the Apostles yet holding with them still in the maine Obj. The Religion of Protestants differs from the Abassine and Greek Churches and all the world as well as the Romane and therefore cannot be a safe way Answ 1. If that be not a safe way which differs from the Greeks Abassines c. then the Papists way is much less safe then ours for they do not onely differ from them but un-un-Church them and condemne them to Hell and so do not we 2. We are of the same Religion with them onely we have by Gods great mercy cast out of that one way some stones of offence which they have not yet cast out Obj. 2. The true safe Religion hath had a visible Church professing it from Christs time till this day But the Protestant Religion hath not had a visible Church professing it to this day therefore it is not the true safe Religion Ans The Major I easily grant and disclaim the needless snift of them that would deny it But the Minor I deny If they call for the proof of that visible Church and aske where it was before Luther we say that it was wherever Christ had a Church From Christs time till many hundred years after even at Rome it self and many other places and from Christs time to this day it hath been in Ethiopia Greece Egypt Mesopotamia and many other Countries if not still among the Romanists themselves for full proof of which note that it is from the Essentials and points of great necessity that we denominate our Religion and every difference in â—esser things doth not make a distinct Religion else there were as many Religions in the world as men Note also that the main difference between us and the Papists is not that they deny the substance of our Religion directly but that they superadde a great many of new Articles to the old Creed and have made their Religion much larger then ours many of their new Articles consequently subverting the Fundamentals which they profess So that our Reâ—gion is and still hath been among the Papists and other Churches and if they â—dde morâ— to it that makes it not cease in it self to be what it was Our Religion is wholly contained in the Holy Scriptures â—nd that all the Churches have still allowed of The Papists themselves confess it all to be the Word of God which we appeal to as the onely Touch-stone â—nd rule of our faith Obj. So you would make our Religion and â—ours to be all one Ans As the word Religion sigâ—ifieth the Essentials of the Christian Faith or the â—oints of absolute necessity to Salvation so our â—eligion is with you and is owned or confessed by â—ou As it signifieth all those points that are conceitâ—d necessary to Salvation with the professors so your â—eligion is not all but part with us And as it comâ—rehendeth also all those Integral parts which a man â—ay confessedly be saved without so he do not wilâ—lly reject them so yours and ours do much differâ—nd that your Religion is not all with us is no loss to â— because the points of yours which we disown â—e both novel additions of your own brain and alâ—â— such as contradict the acknowledged verities Wherever then Christ had a Church that did believe all the Doctrine of the Scripture and specially thâ— Creed the Lords Prayer the Decalogue the Doctrine of the new Covenant Baptisme the Lord Supper and the Ministry there was our Religion before Luther If any added hay and stubble if theâ— work be burnt and they suffer loss yet our Religion among them is the same still Obj. But do not you make this Negative a part â— your Religion that nothing but Scripture is to â—â— believed fide divinâ and what Church was of thâ— Opinion Answ 1. We have oft at large shewed that mâ—â— of the ancient Doctors of the Church have asserâ—â— the Scriptures sufficiency at large and appealed â— them as the full Revelation of Gods will concerniâ—â— all things necessary to salvation and the sufficienâ— Rule to Judge of controversies 2. If they did 〈◊〉 of them think that the Church had a supperadâ—â— Revelation by Tradition in
points of order of â— necessity to salvation this doth not make them â—â— us to be of two Religions or wayes of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous â— destructive points under that pretence Obj. But the Church still held those things as â—â—cessary to Salvation which you deny Ans Wâ— deny that to be true Some of the points in differâ—â—â— are novelties of your own which the ancient Churâ—â— did never hold the rest are such as they never â— such a stress as mens salvation upon To conclude Let it be considered whether thâ— Argument may not damne your selves which I tâ— against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christs time â— â—â—w But the Religion of the Romanists as comâ—â—ehending all points of their faith or made by them be necessary to salvation hath not had any visible â—â—urch professing it of many hundred years after â—â—rist Therefore it is not the true Religion nor a â—â—e way to salvation The Minor I shall undertake â—â—re seasonably to make good And our Divines â—â—e done it already No doubt but common reason and justice requirâ—â— that you that call to us so earnestly for a Cataâ—â—gue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages â—â—uld be as much obliged your selves to give us a â—â—â—alogue of yours yea and to give it first because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it Unâ—â—â—take this task therefore and perform it well and â—u shall carry the whole cause Give us a Cataâ—ue of any besides impeached Hereticks that did â—n your main points of Popery for many hundred â—â—rs after Christ and we will give you a full acâ—â—nt of such as contradicted those conceits and beâ—â—â—ed as we do and let both be compared together â— let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence â—â—â—ry it You make a meer empty noise among the â—â—gar of Antiquity and Universality and call for â—roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of â— Church as if in this you had the advantage â— the ballance did turn on your side When as â—â—ough we know that there is no such necessity of â— proof in this as you pretend yet we know your â—dvantage here to be so great that if you will â— be perswaded to this way of tryal it will be to the â—â—â—er shame and confusion of your cause What 's the â—â—tter else that you still appeal to the latter or preâ—â—t Church and that is only to the Romane and that 's onely to your selves If we do but invite you to tryal by Scripture and the Fathers and Records the three first ages you presently scorn the moâ— and fall upon the Fathers with accusations as if thâ— had not understood or believed all that was necessaâ—â— to salvation or to the being of a Christian or Church for you say they did not meddle with thâ— controversies and so you call us down to the laâ— or present times as having equal authority with â— first To which we say 1. That the silence of â— first times concerning these matters if there wâ— no more as yet there is is sufficient to prove tâ— they were not then taken for any necessary points faith For Though our Records of the secâ— Age be very short yet both they and mâ— more those of the third and fourth Ages containe such purposely undertaken explicationâ— the Christian faith that we cannot imagine sucâ— multitude of necessary points would have been oâ—ted 2. And though the Pastors of the present â— have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregatioâ— with those of the second yet they cannot give â— sure an account what was the doctrine and pracâ— of the former Ages nor any way prove it to us â— by producing such records The Papists themselves are so far from denyâ— that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold â— Positive part of our Religion that they hold it theâ—selves For they themselves profess to believe â—â— book of holy Scripture that we do They say â— believe the Creed called the Apostles and the â—cene and Constantinopolitane Creed and that of â—â—thanasius and so do we still taking the holy Scâ—pture onely for our Rule so that their own tongâ— â—ust confess the Antiquity and Universality and â—ccession of our Religion For this is ours But all that they have to obâ—ject is this That we â—n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives To which I say 1. The Negatives at least for the most part of them if not all are â—e meer consequences of the Affirmatives and Posiâ—ves and implyed or plainly included in them For â—xample when our Religion saith Thou shalt worâ—ip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve â—is includeth the Negative Thou shalt â—ot worship or serve Saints Angels or â—ny other save only by a service and honour duely â—bservient to the service and worship of God and â—herefore that we give not Divine worship to the â—onsecrated host or the Virgin Mary or to any â—ther meer creature Our Religion teacheth us to â—o all things to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 This includâ—th the negatives that we must not worship God in â—n unknown tongue or unedifying manner bleating â—nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridicuâ—ous tones Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission to teach the Nations and Baptize Mat. 28.19 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach that is as Commissioned officers nor baptize This affirmative Peter was sent to Disâ—iple Nations includeth this Negative Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome and there â—o reside This affirmative The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church includeth this negative â— Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church This Affirmative It is bread and wine which we take â—nd eat and drink in the Eucharist containeth or implyeth the Negative that It is not Christs flesh and blood which the bread and wine is transubstantiatâ—â— into I might thus instance in many more Our Nâ—gatives are contained or implyâ—â— in our Affirmatives which yoâ— hold or confess your selves 2. I answer further that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. We have a plaine Iâ— the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also theâ— ten thousand words in a tongue unknown 1 Cor. 14.19 We have a plain See thou do it not for I am thy fellow servant Rev. 22.9 And so of the chief differences through the rest 3. If we had but this one point proved that the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists For to Believe all that is in Scripture and
the Catholike Church câ—lâ— Trasubstantiation I confess also that under one 〈◊〉 onely whole and entire Christ and the true Saâ—â—ment is taken I do constantly hold that there is a Pâ—rgatory and that the souls there detained are hâ—lpâ—â— by the suffrages of the faithful As also that the Saiâ—â— raigning with Christ are to be reverenced and called upon and that they do offer prayers to God for mâ— and their reliques are to be reverenced or honoured I do most firmely assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God-ever a Virgin as also of other Saiâ—â— are to be had and kept and that due honor and Vâ—â—ration is to be given them I affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in the Church aâ— that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people I acknowledge that the holy Catholike and Apâ—stolike Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistris â— all Churches And I do promise and swear true Obedience to the Pope of Rome successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Chrisâ— Also all other things delivered defined and declareâ— by the sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils aâ— especially of the holy Synod of Trent I do withâ—â— doubting receive and profess and also all things câ—â—trary and all heresies whatsoever condemned by thâ— Church and rejected and Anathematized do I iâ— like manner condemne reject and Anathematize This â—rue Catholike faith without which no man can be saâ—ed which at the present I do voluntarily professe â—nd truely hold the same will I take care to hold and â—onfess entire and inviolate by Gods help most conâ—antly even to the last breath of my life and as much â—s in me lyeth to be held taught and preached by â—hose that are under me or those whose care belongs to â—e in my office This I.N. do Promise Vow and â—wear so help me God and these holy Gospels of God So far the Trent Confession which I the raâ—her recite that you may see what their Religion is â— their own words and oaths where you see also â—â—at this is but a small part of it for it is moreover â— large as all the Council of Trent and all other â—ecumenical Councils and holy Canons of the Imâ—ossibilities and self-contradictions of which faith we â—hall say more anon So that I conclude that it is not Christianity but â—is additional Leprosie which we call by the name of â—opery they believe this much more then we or a â—reat part more and by believing more they believe â—ss while they destroy the sound faith which they â—efore seemed to profess 2 For the next term to be explained Salvation â—e mean by it principally Everlasting Glory and â—ithall those beginnings of it inclusively which we â—ve in this life consisting in our Justification Aâ—option Sanctification Consolation and Perseâ—erance 3. By the term Way we mean such necessary â—eans as are prescribed us by God for the attainment â— Salvation either as to our Belief or our Affection and Practice according to the directions of the doctrine which we do believe 4. As to the sence of the word Safe it signifieth that which is free from danger or which tendeth to a mans welfare Now here is a double safety considerable in Doctrines answerable to a double danger First it s one thing to be safe from any sin in the way to Salvation and so we may well say that Popery is no safe way which leadeth to so much sin But that 's not all that is here intended But it s another matter to be so deep in sin as not to be safe from the Everlasting Punishment but that salvation it self is endangered thereby and this we principally intend And whereas there are several Degrees of Danger we mean that true Popery heartily entertained and practiced doth leave but small probability if any possibility of the Salvation of any that do persevere impenitently therein to the end Though you may see what I deny in what is already said yet for the greater perspicuity I shall express my sence in these few Propositions following Prop. 1. That Christian doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures which the Papists do profess to believe is of it self without their corruptions a safe way to salvation Prop. 2. Whatever errors are held by Papists or any others which do consist with a true practicâ— belief of the foresaid Christian doctrine which they confess and we are agreed in those errors shâ—â—â— not exclude the erroneous from Salvation Prop. 3. The Papists do not expresly in terms and sence deny any fundamental point of faith Prop. 4. It s possible even practically to hold an error which by remote consequence contradicteth a fundamental Truth and yet to hold that truth practically and so to be saved For either all moral â—errots in Theology as Amesius thought do contradict the Foundation by consequence by reason of the necessary concatenation of Truthes or most at least Prop. 5. There are some errors so great that if they were cordially and practically held would be inconsistent with the cordial practical holding of the Foundation which yet may be held but speculatively and notionally in consistency with the cordial and practical belief of the fundamentals and the person not knowing the contradiction may be saved Prop. 6. Multitudes of people while they take common termes in Divinity in a wrong sence do maintain Propositions which by plain consequence if not directly contradict the Fundamentals according to the proper genuine sence of the words when yet in the sence as they mistake and misuse them in there is no contradiction Even as many on the other side do hold the Christian verity in words who in sence deny it Prop. 7. We have great reason to think that many millions of the Laity among the Papists if not the far greatest part of them do not cordially embrace the most of the Popish corruptions in doctrinals nor the most dangerous of them 1. Because they do not understand them and so cannot so much as speculatively receive them It is not one of a hundred perhaps of many hundreds among them that knows all contained in the Council of Trent alone much less in all the rest of the Council and Canons and customes wherein they place their Religion Nay perhaps it s but few of their Clergy that know this comparatively So that it is but an implicite general belief that they can give to such Canons as are unknown which is not a belief of the particular doctrines contained in them as such 2. Because I hope among most or many of them they are first taught the Creed the Lords Prayer and ten Commandments or at least the Creed and Decalogue though the Lords Prayer be usually taught them in Latine which contain the Fundamentals of Christian faith and practice and therefore we have reason to hope that these are deeper in their minds then any contradictory doctrines especially when they must have so
duntaxat rebus in â—nibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolica atque adeo a seipâ— veteri pura Ecclesia neque alio discessimus zimo quam ut si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae forâ—am redeat nos quoque ad illam revertamur â—mmunionem cum illa in suis porro caetibus habeamus Quod ut tandem fiat toto animo Domino Jesum preâ—mur Quid enim pio cuique optatius quam ut ubi â—r baptismum renati sumus ibi etiam in finem usâ—u vivamus modo in Domino Ego Hier. Zanchius Cum tota mea familia testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae Christi in omnem eternitatem Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholike Church which was never known for many hundred years after Christ then is it no safe way to salvation But Popery doth make a new Catholike Church that was never known of many hundâ—ed years after Christ therefore it s no safe way to salvation The consequence of the Major will not be denyed for they confess that Christs Church is but one He had not a Church of one sort for the first ages and a Church of another sort since though its accidents may vary yet so doth not its essence The Minor I prove thus That which the Papists make to be the Catholike Church is only all those Christians that acknowledge the Pope to be the universal Bishop and head of the Catholike Church having universal supreme jurisdiction and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistris of all other Churches and its only a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane Church But such a Catholike Church as this was never known by the Apostles or of many hundred years after Christ Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholike Church which the first ages never knew It s true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Christianity that the Glory of the Empire occasioned the Bishop to be called Primae sedis Episcopus as one that was to take place of the rest of the Patriarchs who had their several orders or places â—ssigned them as Alexandria to be the second Antioch the third c. which Bellarmiâ—â— confesseth might be after lawfully changed but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency so neither had Rome any government of the rest And as Constantinople was afterward set up above Alexandria and Antioch and claimed to be above Rome so might it as lawfully have been set up above Rome But what ever be said about their quarrels of precedency which pride begun and cherished yet it s most evident in all antiquity that of many hundred years after Christ there was no such Catholike Church in being or known as was centred in the Pope as the head or universal Bishop or Governor or in Rome as the Mistris of the rest We have long ago challenged them to give us the least proof of such a Church in all antiquity and they give us nothing but such forced passages that are nothing to their purpose that its hard for the most charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themselves and do not know that they hypocritically endeavor to cheat poor souls by their vain cavils All the Papists on earth will never be able to answer what our Divines have said already to prove the novelty of their Papal headship nor can all the Popes servants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Christ to prove that ever such a Church was once dreamed of as they now call the Romane Catholike Church Indeed Rome was called then a Catholike Church and so was Alexandria Antioch and all that held the Catholike faith and were not heretical but it was never known till Boniface had usurped the Title of universal Bishop above 600. years after Christ which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that usurped the Empire when he had slain the Emperor Mauritius that the Romane Church and the Catholike Church was all one or that it was necessary to make any particular Church or person Catholike that they acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Romane Pope much less his infallibility To heap up Records here would but stop the plain Reader in his course and somewhat shall be sâ—id of it in the next dispute Onely I now say that if any one question whether indeed the Romane Catholike Church as now constituted be a meer novelty I here offer my self to the fuller proof of it and shall desire no better recreation of such a sort then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papists that will undertake their cause And here I must needs annex this observation What a shameless cheat it is by which the Papists do delude the ignorant perswading them that theirs is the old Religion and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apostles without interruption and that we are men of a new Religion and of a Church that had never a visible being till the dayes of Luther Costerous the Jesuite in the Preface to his Enchiridion instructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Protestants by urging them with three Questions which we shall resolve anon to his shame and the last of them is a challenge to us To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things But we challenge and most confidently challenge all the Papists on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Christ I might say six hundred years that agreed with them not in all things but in their very Articles of Faith yea in theiâ— Church fundamentals yea in the very definition of the Catholike Church We challenge them to name us one man and prove it that ever knew or owned such a Church as Catholike that is now so called and owned by them We confidently affirm and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us that their Church as Popish is a new thing unknown to our forefathers of the first ages that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines unknown to the first Churches We admire at the immodesty of these men to aske us where our Church was before Luther and to call it a new Religion which we profess and to ask us whether we think our selves wiser then all the world was heretofore in the purest times We do most confidently return on them their own demands We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred yea for six hundred years after Christs birth And we wonder how they can think to be saved in a way that was not known for so long time Do they think themselves wiser then Christ and his Apostles and all the Christian world for so many hundred years Again we challenge them to shew us the least proof that ever there was such a thing for so long time as a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane and
headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions called by them their Church and their Religion because it is so new and we dare not venture our souls upon new wayes nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection one sort before the Popes universal headship and the other since nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurpe I desire no better issue then this of our difference Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the tryal of antiquity and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion carry the cause If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours as since Christs Resurrection then we are contented to be of their Church and way Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismaticks upon earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the maine body of the visible Church then Popery is not a safe way to salvation But the Papists are the greatest Schismaticks on earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body thereof Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves It is only the Minor therefore that is to be proved which is too easily done being a matter of fact First The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christs Church on earth condemning all others to everlasting fire 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schisme in making a new center of the unity of the Church of these two in order 1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago much more numerous then now they be The Grecians the Syrians called Melchites the Moscovites and Russians the Georgians all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turkes dominions also the Abassins Egyptians Armenians Jacobites who are neer of a mind and differ from the Papists and submit not to their authority Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany Sweden Denmark Hungary Transylvania Brittain Ireland France Belgia Helvetia and other parts with those in the Indies I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them or not neer so many as they But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago when the Turkes had not yet subdued the Eastern parts and when the Abassian Empire was much more large and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universall headship and jurisdiction of the Pope or submit themselves to him besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him I know that the Papists say that these are all either Hereticks or Schismaticks and so no part of the Catholike Church But the accusation of Schisme is the meer voice of Schisme and for Heresie its true that all men and Churches have their errors which yet deserve not the name of Heresie The Jacobites and the rest that are neer them are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians but yet they are not plaine Eutichites and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures two persons and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct yet they say that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person and so deny two Persons onely in sence and two Natures only in name and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures onely in sence and two Persons in words onely Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said de Conciliis This I must needs say that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites and other Christians that are not of their Communion I should be forced to censure the former much deeper then the latter and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Hereticks or Schismaticks I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians and also that they are free from many of their mistakes yet withall they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from And for the Protestants they are Hereticks only on this supposition that the Pope be Judge By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from But yet this is not all nay the smaller part For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred yea five or six hundred years you will find that the Papists do differ from them all even from the whole Church For then the Popes universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world as is said before All these doth the Romane party now separate themseves from All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians but Hereticks and Schismaticks All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell They have now concluded that onely those are of the true Church that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope and the Mistrisship of the particular Romane Church which none of all those forementioned did They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this new-framed Church of theirs Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive whether there be any more notorious Schismaticks on earth then these men that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christs Church on earth at
But the Church of Rome is a true Church Therefore c. The Antecedent is granted by most Protestants â—he consequence is good for it is the true Religion that maketh a true Church and Popery is their Religion If their Religion be not true their Church is not true If their Religion be true then their Church is true and if Church and Religion be true then they are in a safe way to salvation Answ 1. The word Church doth usually signifie among Christians a Christian society or a company of Christians associated for Gods worship and mutual edification sometime any company of Christians whether so associated or not sometime those are called Christians as distinct from Infidels who profess most of the substance of Christianity but deny some part or who profess the whole substance or the fundamentals though they contradict it again by plain consequence in other superadded points Though these as compared with the Orthodox are wont to be called Hereticks We deny not but that the greatest Papists are such Christians and that as the word Church is applicable to combinations or companies consisting of such materials so far the Romaâ—â—sts are a true Church supposing that we onely speak of Metaphysical Truth But as the word Christian is taken for one that so holdeth the fundamentals of Christian Faith as not to subvert them by plain consequence after he hath professed them so it is yet under dispute whether the Romanists be a true Church and therefore not to be taken as granted However those Protestant Divines that grant them to be a true Church do say that it is but by a Metaphysical verity convertible with the essence but that Morally it is a false Church and not a true as a thief is a True man that is truely a man but he is not a true man that is not an honest faithfull man 2. The thing called The Church of Rome consisteth not of Homogeneal parts or at least that word signifieth several sorts of persons There are some that with the Pope and his Cardinals entertain the full body of Popery and enslave the rest There are multitudes of the people that silently live under them and let them alone and are defiled by them in many things but receive not the great and most dangerous part of their corruption These are not equally to be called the Church nor are they equally in danger of damnation 3. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition For if the Church of Rome be a true Church it is because they are true Christians and not because they are Papists so that to argue The Church of Rome is a true Church therefore Popery is a safe way to Salvation is as unsound as to argue Gebezi the Leper is a living man Therefore the Leprosie is a thing safe or profitable to mans life Popery is the disease of their Church and Christianity is it that makes them a Church You may well therefore coâ—clude that Christianity is a safe way to heaven but not that Popery is so To the confirmation I answer That the Religion of Papists hath two parts The Christian Religion as they are Christians and that maketh them a true Church if they be one And the Popish corruptions which denominate them Papists and that makes them not a true Church nor is a safe way to salvation Obj. 3. If Papists may be saved then Popery is a safe way to salvation But Papists may be saved Therefore c. Ans To the Antecedent or Minor I answer that Papists be not all of a sort some may be saved and some cannot if they so live and dye If you aske who may and who may not I answer that all those of them that hold the substance of the Christian faith and that practically notwithstanding their errors or that hold no errors but what consist with the Practical holding of the Christian faith these shall be saved But all those that finally hold any error which for matter or manner is inconsistent with the Practical holding of the Christian faith shall be condemned 2. To the consequence of the Major I answer by denying it and that on the aforesaid account If a Papist be saved it is not by Popery but from Popery It is therefore no better reasoning than to say If a Leper may live then the Leprosie is wholsome or a safe to preserve life I have already spoke more to this If such do live it is with more trouble and less â—omfort and it s fewer that live long with it then of other sounder men Men should not cast themselves into a course of great doubt and difficulty as to their salvation and when they have done encourage themselves in it because other men of moderate and charitable mindes are afraid to conclude that they shall certainly be damned Is it not a great probability or danger of damnation very terrible though you were not certain to be damned Obj. 4. There is but one true Church and consequently but one safe way to Heaven That one Church is the Romane Church And therefore they and onely they are in the safe way to Heaven Answ If you speak of the Universal Church which is Christs body there is but one and that is all true Christians But if you speak of particular associations of Christians called particular Churches there are many thousands And so we say that the Church of Rome is at best but one particular Church or one combination of some particular Churches under the Bishop of that City But that Rome or the Romane party are the whole of the Catholike Church of Christ we do with abhorrency deny 2. If the Church of Rome be any part of that Universal Church and so in a state of Salvation or way to it it is not as Papists but as Christians as was said before And therefore though there be but one safe way to Heaven yet that one being not Popery but Christianity why may not other Christians be in a safe way to Heâ—ven as well as the Papists especially who are free from those dangerous diseases wherewith the Papists Christianity is corrupted Obj. 5. That Church which hath Vnity Vniversality Antiquity and unintterupted succession of Pastors and Apostles is the onely true Church and consequently onely in the safe way to Salvation But such is the Church of Rome therefore Answ 1. This concludeth not the point in Question That Popery is a safe way to Salvation 2. We deny the Major and blame them that they still thrust it on us without proof To the particulars 1. If Mahometans have unity or if Satan be not divided against Satan it doth not follow that they have the true Church men may agree in evil 2. where was your universality also when there were scarce seven Bishops left that were free from the plague of Arrianisme Universality absolute so that all errors or other parties should be excluded the Church hath never had the happiness to enjoy since the begining of
Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God N. HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation we shall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds Our Belief is thus resolved we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True because the True God is the Author of it We discern that God is the Author of it both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it in that it beareth his image and superscription and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles and other effects which lead us to the cause The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures That these Books were written by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and were confirmed by Miracles and are uncorrupted in the main we are infallibly assured of by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man such as is the Pope of Rome or of any fallible society of men but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible containing in it besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us so that by this infallible history and universal Tradition we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth are the same that they pretend to be And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles and hath not their immediate inspirations we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way nor what surer other means such as we can expect who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses or have Christ or Apostles still among us or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations And lastly the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers as they must be in other things that we would learn and by the help of them without and of the spirit within we are able to understand the meaning of the words especially comparing text with text and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Resolved He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers and perhaps first believeth them fide humana that it is Gods Word He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apostles by Infallible Hystory or Universal Tradition He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Image of God which he findeth on it and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it He believeth it to be True because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost and so is the Word of God who is most True Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine See L. du Plessis of the Church cap. 4. Translat pag. 121.122 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol Can. p. 208.209 210. Disp 2. § 125 126. To this same sence Vid. Sibrand Lubbert Princip Christ Dogm li. 1. pag. 20 c. What the Resolution of the Romane faith is the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part for it cannot be laid down in one proposition because they are of so many minds themselves Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in That the Scripture is the word of God and part of the Rule of faith and duty but not the whole Rule nor the whole Word of God but that unwritten Traditions are the other part and the judgement of the present Church is Gods Word after a sort as they speak That the Scripture hath its Authority in it self from God the prime truth but quoad nos as to us it hath its Authority from the Church That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God or a Divine Revelation And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture as also to decide all controversies in Religion and to judge which is the true sence of Scripture and that this Church must be one only visible infallible authorized thus to judge by Christ and this is onely the Romane Church Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened they fall all to pieces For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a sort sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane 2. And what the formal object of faith is they are not all of a mind whether it be only the Prime Truth or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal But I confess this controversie is more verbal then real 3. And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church they are not agreed neither 4. Especially they are divided in the main viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge and into whose judgement their faith is resolved whether it be the present Church or the former Church Whether it be the Pope only at least in case of difference between him and his Council or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not as the French and Venetians say Yea whether it be the Clergy only or the Laity also that are this Church Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition as Holden White Vane and divers other Englishmen of late as if that were the same with the Romane Tradition or as if it were the point in controversie between us and them And ordinarily they use to tell us of All the Church and All the Christian world and to mouth it in such swelling words that the simple hearer would little think that by All the Church they meant but one man or at the
and Evill Heb. 5.14 The Papists would not have the people to have a judgement of Discerning If they must not Discern they must be ignorant When God so much requireth and extolleth knowledge But I 'le leave this Question and pass to the next Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible in this Decisive judgement which he pretendeth to Which we deny But before I come to give the reasons of our denyal I shall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Churches Infallibility that the true state of the controversie may appear And 1. We easily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Christian Faith and in the very truth so the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth He and every man else that speaks according to Gods word is so far infallible because that word is infallible They need not thank us for this concession 2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome if a true Church nor any other particular true Church can erre in fundamentals or in points of absolute necessity to salvation in sensu composito that is while they remain a true Church they never deny the essentials of a true Church For if they once deny the essentials they do eo nomine cease to be a true Church 3. We grant that Christs universal Church shall never deny any one point of Faith essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to Salvation For then Christ should have no true Church on earth when the whole should thus Apostatize or turn Hereticks and all the then present world should be damned 4. The Church as Reasonable sensible men are infallible in many matters of fact of which they may give us unerring reports as that This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Ancestors as they might testifie it was delivered to them and that this Creed or sum of Faith also was thus delivered in the words now in use c. 5. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left and the present Church possessetâ— to prove that this same Scripture was written by the Apostles and Evangelists and was delivered to the first Churches and from them down to us and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them 6. An illiterate person may have an infallible certainty that all points necessary to salvation are expressed in certain translations of Scripture and that so far and much further they are truely translated and that such things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be though himself cannot read them For all this is infallibly discovered by common consent and especially of adversaries When all men that are certainly able to judge and are honest and impartial affirm it without doubt and those that would gladly contradict it as being by their interests carryed thereto yet cannot do it or at least not with any considerable pretence This gives men as infallible a proof as the common testimony of men doth that there is such a City as Rome or Paris which we never saw 7. And we further grant all that Teaching and Witnessing power to the Church officers which was expressed under the last Question and all that dueness of Belief and obedience to them which was there asserted So much for our Concessions But we deny 1. That either the Pope of Rome or a General Council are naturally or supernaturally priviledged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will or that they are priviledged from the danger or possibility of teaching these their errors to others even to the Church 2. We deny that the Pope or the Romane Clergy are secured from the danger of Apostasie or Heresie They may fall so far as to deny the Fundamentals or Essentials of Christianity though the Universal Church shall never so fall away We shall first speak of the Popes Infallibility and afterward of a General Council that we may speak to the several parties among the divided Papists herein And against the Popes Infallibility we thus argue Argu. 1 They that lay claim to this Infallibility do give us no proof of their claim Therefore they cannot expect that we should believe them The proof lyeth on the pretenders who give us no proof If they can prove it it must be either by his natural perfection or some supernatural endowment by which the Pope must be more Infallible then other men The former they pretend not to and no wonder The later they do pretend to But if God supernaturally have ascertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith then he hath done this either by his written Word or by unwritten Tradition or both by which it must to us be proved But he hath done it neither by his written Word nor by unwritten Tradition For Tradition they must shew it us either in certain monuments of the Church which are in stead of writing but that they cannot do or else in the mindes of all the members of the Church For that which concerneth all their Salvation must be delivered to all But this they cannot shew Nay we shew them the contrary that is the greatest part of the present Church on earth denying any such Tradition and the most approved Writers of the former Ages telling us the contrary and all taking the Pope as fallible so that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Christ that ever had such a conceit as theirs And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themselves have received and are entrusted with and so make themselves the absolute Judges of their own cause and give us no proof but their own words we will believe them as fast as we can but we must desire them not to be too hasty with us And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility 1. Because they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by their infallible judgement Therefore we must know their judgement to be infallible first and therefore it is first to be known some other way and not by Scripture Indeed here they have long tired themselves in their Circle which some of them would hide by vain words if they could but Holden and others of them are forced to confess it and that they have no way out but by retiring to the universal testimony or tradition as an infallible evidence in stead of the Authoritative judgement or infallibility or private Tradition of the Church of Rome They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by the infallible judgement of their Church And that is in the Issue of the Pope And when we call for the proof of that infallibility they refer us to the Scripture So that this is plainly to say that neither Scripture nor
concilii sententia magis tenentur cujus antiquior pâ—tior est authoritas That is As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated and though the Popes Legates concur may yet erre in the faith if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees So that when they say that All the Church cannot err and therefore a General Council cannot erre their own meaning is that one man cannot erre but All the Church viz. a General Council without him may erre Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches or Fathers for six hundred years after Christ Therefore it is not now to be received The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times that there needs not any more to be said That which I shall produce to this pupose shall be anon to prove the following point and this together In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell Chamâ—er Bishop Vsher Doctor White who with many more have fully proved this Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement or the judgement of his Church then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture and of controversies about matters of faith For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to nor doth at all belong to him It is not the Pope as a private Doctor or as the Bishop of a particular Church which is made by them the subject of infallibility but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture and to judge of all controversies of faith into whose judgement at least with his Clergy our faith they think must be resolved If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct And this leads us up to the third Question which we have now to deal with Quest 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane pretended Authoritative judgement Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest I shall therefore say but little to it now reserving a fuller handling it if necessary to a fitter season Only I shall here adde a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth and then I shall adde a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement that is without it Arg. 1. If the Pope or his consistory must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge But the consequent will be denyed by themselves therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work and so of his consistory It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world therefore the consequence is good He cannot make known his determinations to all If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve should have recourse to him for resolution O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented What a concurse would be about his Holiness doors What time would he have to resolve those millions of men If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia or at the Antipodes before they go or send to Rome for Resolution and receive an answer the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution And if they live to see the return of their messengers they must take it on the trust of their words that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself nor know what he is or what is his minde but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates And if the Pope can delegate his power to others and make so many others also infallible then infallibility is not proper to himself and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible who are sent by Christ as these are that are sent by him Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge then all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office For sure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth But he must unavoidably neglect I mean omit that work which it iâ— impossible for him to perform Therefore What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following Quest 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ For a Romane Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ the successor of Saint Peter the head of the Church And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ who is the Saviour and principal head and who is supposed to send him Quest 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ For what is a Church but a society of Christians that is men professing the Christian Faith And how can they know that such men are Christians or profess that faith before they know what that faith is And how can they know that they are to
whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God If Infallibility survive in other Pastors then it seemes it is not the Pope onely that is infallible but others as well as he And was not the Churches Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject But the case is out of question thus farre that we have neer fifty of their own Writers especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joane as Platina in vit Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead l. 1. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence part 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Fasciculus Temporum Nauclerus Volaterane Textor Caryon Sigebertus Gemblacensis Mat. Palmerius Massaeus c. And I marvaile why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it as if their cause lay more on this then other things If a Conjurer a common Whoremonger a Murderer a Simonist a Heretick may be the infallible judge of the faith why may not a woman Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these specially if she had but kept her self honest I should have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender Quest 19. And further I would know If the City of Rome were consumed with fire or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea which Bellarmine confesseth it is not impossile to be done where then were the infallible head of the Church and what were become of the Romish faith If they say that this can never be and that Christs promise implyeth the preservation of the City of Rome I answer 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that 2. Their own writers confess the contrary 3. Let the end determine it But if they say that infallibility is not tyed to the place but to the Person who shall be Peters successor I answer we thought hitherto that to be Peters successor and to be the Bishop of Rome had been all one with them If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peters successor then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while Why not the Bishop of Alexandria Hierusalem Ephesus or other place as well as the Pope specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter as inheriting his first chaire I doubt if Rome were extinct and the Bishop of Mentz or Cullen or Vienna or Rhemes or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Bishops would much contradict it and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head Quest 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter or were they sent by him or did they receive their authority from him Do they find that ever the Apostles or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith as first to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible and therefore to perswade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith because they say its true Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin in Ignatius Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian or any other of those times that the preachers that went abroad the world to perswade men to Christianity did ever use this Popish Medium or go this way to work Did they first preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Christ or Scripture Did they first preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that O that these men would but shew us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument How many and large Orations Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Fathers writings for the Christian Faith to convince the unbelieving world in Clem Alexand. Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen Athanasius Basil Eusebius Cyril Alexandr Augustine and many others And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility â—ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith must be resolved Undoubtedly if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach we should have had the first part and a great if not the greatest part of all thoâ—e Apologies and discourses laid out in the proof of the Romane infallibility What man will go to evince a whole systeme of doctrines to be true and quite forget that medium by which onely it is first to be proved Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God or that Christianity is the right Religion therefore this is true Nay further consider If this kind of arguing had been then used may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them that surely we should have found some of them remembred to posterity Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith the Romane infallibility who stuck at so many things in the faith it self Or have Cyril Alexandr and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest
elswhere Quia nolo humanis documentis c. Because I will not have the holy Church to be demonstrated by humane documents but by Gods Oracles For if the holy Scriptures have placed the Church in Africa alone and in a few places of Rome c. then whatsoever may be brought out of other papers the Church is onely with the Donatists Si autem c But if the Church of Christ is placed by the Divine and most certain testimonies of the Canonical Scriptures in all Natitions then what ever they bring and whence ever they recite it who say Lo here is Christ or lo there let us rather if we be his sheep hear the voice of our Shepherd saying Believe them not For those parcels are not found in many Nations where that Church is but it which is every where is found even where they are therefore let us seek it in the holy Canonical Scriptures And thus he goes on and proves at large by the Scriptures the true Church fitting all as meet to the present schisme of the Papists almost as if he had seen and named it Cap. 18. Begins thus Because therefore the holy Church is manifestly known in the Scriptures c. Remotis ergo omnibus c. Laying aside therefore all such matters let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the speeches and rumors of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the writings of any disputers not in signes and fallacious Miracles because we are prepared and cautioned against such things by the word of God but in the writings of the Law in the predictions of the prophets in the Psalms in the words of our Pastor himself in the preachings and labors of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical authorityes of the sacred Books Next he shews that it must not be out of Parables Allegories or such Scriptures that make no more for one side then the other what then doth he tell them that it is all such and send them to Rome to know the sence no but it is the plain Scripture of which he produceth abundance that must tell us which is the true Church And he thus begins the 19 Chap. Omissis ergo c. Letting pass therefore the snares of delayes let him shew their Church c. and so shew it as not to say It s true because I say it or because my collegue said it or these collegues of mine or those Bishops or Clerks or our Layity or therefore its true because these or those wonders were done by Donatus or Pontius or any other or because men pray and are heard at the Memories or shrines of ours that are dead or because such or such things happen there or because that brother of ours or that sister of ours saw such a sight waking or had such a dreaming vision sleeping Away with these either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceiving spirits For either the things that are said are not true or if any wonders are done by hereticks we must the more beware seeing the Lord when he told us there would come deceivers who by doing certain signs would deceive if it were possible even the elect addeth Lo I have foretold you And if any be heard praying at the Memories of hereticks it is not for the desert of the place but the desert of his desire that he receiveth good or evil No man can have Christ for his head that is not in his Body which is the Church which Church we must know as we do Christ himself in the sacred Canonical Scriptures and not to inquire into the various rumors of men and their opinions and deeds and sayings and sights But let them shew me whether they have the Church no way but by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptuers Because neither do we therefore say that they ought to believe us that we are in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Melevitanus or by Ambrose of Millan or innumerable other Bishops of our communion or because it is predicated or praised by the Councils of our Collegues or because through the whole world in the holy places which are frequented by our communion so great marvailes of hearings or healings are done here some are named What ever things of this sort are done in the Catholike Church are therefore to be approved because they are done in the Catholike Church but it is not therefore manifested to be the Catholike Church because these things are done in it This he testifieth is written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms this we have commended by his own mouth These are the documents of our cause these are its foundations these its upholders or confirmers We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some Believers that they daily search't the Scriptures whether those things were so What Scriptures but the Canonical of the Law and prophets Hereto are added the Gospels the Epistles of the Apostles the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John Search all these and produce somewhat manifest which will demonstrate that the Church either remaineth in Africke alone or is to be from Africk so that it may be fulfilled which the Lord saith This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world c. But bring somewhat that needeth nor an interpreter that you may not be convinced that it speaks of another matter and that you strive to turn it to your own sence Chap. 25. The question is not dark in which they may deceive you You see the Church is every where diffused and increaseth to the harvest This whole Book of Austin is written as if it had been purposed as a confutation of the Papists that will have the Church to contain onely the Romane faction and exclude all the rest of the world and will try the Scripture by the Church and not the Church by the Scripture but fly to I know not what visions and pretended miracles to prove their Church which Austin professeth are not a proof no not of the true Church though there be much more then there to boast of so that the Papists cannot here say that Austin thus dealeth with the Donatists because they denyed the Church of Rome and believed the Scripture he expresly enough preventeth all such expositions of his words August con Cresconium li. 2. cap. 33. p. 177. Saith Ego hujus Epistolae c. I am not bound by the authority of this Epistle of Cyprians ad Jubai because I take not Ciprians Epistles be Canonical but by the Canonical I consider them and that in them which agreeth to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise but that which disagreeth I refuse with his peace And so if thou hadst recited those things which he wrote to Jubajan out of some Canonical book of the Apostles or Prophets I should have had
THE Safe Religion OR THREE DISPUTATIONS For the Reformed CATHOLIKE RELIGION AGAINST POPERY Proving that Popery is against the Holy Scriptures the Unity of the Catholike Church the consent of the Antient Doctors the plainest Reason and common judgment of sense it self By Richard Baxter Contra Rationem nemo sobrius Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo Pacificus Senserit August de Trinit l. 4. c. 6. fine London Printed by Abraham Miller for Thomas Vnderhill at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard and Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street 1657. TO THE Protestant Reader WHen the motion was first made for the Publishing of these Papers it seemed to me to be as the Casting of water into the Sea so great is the Number of the Learned Writings of Protestant Divines against the Papists which will never be well answered that the most elaborate addition may seem superfluous much more these hasty Disputations prepared but for an exercise which is the Recreation of a few Countrey-Ministers at a monthly meeting when they ease themselves of their ordinary work But upon further consideration I saw it was The Casting of water upon a threatning fire which the Sea it self doth but restrain It 's more Engines than a few that are openly or secretly at work at this time to captivate these Nations again to the Romane Pope When so many hundreds if not thousands are night and day contriving our seduction under the name of Reconciling us to the Church if no body counterwork them what may they not do It 's not enough that we have had Defenders and that their Books are yet in the World Old Writings are laid by though much stronger than any new ones But new ones are sooner taken up and read The Papists have of late been very plentifull and yet very sparing in their Writings Plentiful of such as run among the simple injudicious people in secret so that the Countries swarm with them But sparing of such as may provoke any Learned man to a Confutation That so they may in time disuse us from those Studies and so disable the Ministry therein and catch us when we are secure through a seeming peace and fall upon us when we have lost our strength And I am much afraid that the generality of our people perhaps of the best are already so much disused from these studies as to be much unacquainted with the Nature of Popery and much more to seek for a preservative against it and a through confutation of them So that if Papists were once but as fully set out among us in their own likeness as they are under the names of Quakers and other Sects what work would you see in many places I doubt many would follow their pernicius wayes and fall like Sheep of a common rot or people in a raging pestilence especially if they had but the countenance of the times Not through their strength but because our people are naked and unmeet for a defence The work that now they are upon is 1. By Divisions and Reviling the Ministers to loosen the people from their Guides that they may be as a Masterless Dog that will follow any body that will whistle him 2. To take down the Ministers maintenance and encouragements that they may be disabled so vigorously to resist them 3. To hinder their union that they may abate their strength and find them work against each other 4. To procure a Liberty of seducing all they can under the name of Liberty of Conscience that so they may have as fair a game for it as we And ignorance and the common corruption of nature especially so heightened by a custome in sin doth befriend the Devils cause much more than Gods or else how comes it to pass that the Godly are so few and Error Idolatry and impiety doth so abound in all the earth 5. To break the common people into as many Sects and parties as they can that they may not onely employ them against one another but also may hence fetch matter of reproach against our profession in the eyes of the World 6. To plead under the name of Seekers against the certainty of all Religion that men may be brought to think that they must be either of the Popish profession or of none And indeed when all Sects have done their worst it is but two that we are in any great danger of And of those I think we are in more danger then the most are aware of And that is 1. Papists who plead not as other parties onely by the tongue but by exciting Princes and States against us and disputing with the Fagot or Hatchet in their hands And if we have not Arguments that will confute a Navy an Army or a Powder-plot we can do no good against them 2. Prophaneness animated by Apostate Infidels This is the Religion that men are born in And men that Naturally are so endeared to their lusts that they would not have the Scripture to be true will easily hearken to him that tells them it is false Yea so much doth Popery befriend men in a vicious course that some are apt to joyn these together thinking at the heart that Christianity is but a Fable but yet for fear it should prove true they will be Papists that they may have that easie remedy for a reserve If God will preserve us but from these two dangers Popery and Prophaneness animated by infidelitie it will goe well with England The most of my former Writings having been bent against the later I thought it not amiss to let go this one against the former That so I may entice the common professors to a little more serious Study of these points and furnish them with some familiar Arguments that are suited to their capacities that every deceiver may not find them unarmed And here I thought it best to defend our own profession and overthrow theirs in the main and not to stand long upon particular controversies except that one of the Resolution and Foundation of our Faith which is the great difference Yet that private unstudyed men may understand wherein the particular differences lie I have given them a Catalogue of them in other mens words in the end as resolving not to do it in my own In short I have here made it plain that Popery is against Scripture Reason Sense and against the Unity and Judgement of the Church 1. Either Scripture is True or not true If not Popery is not true which pleadeth its warrant from it And some of them argue as if they purposed to disprove the Scripture and to imitate Samson in pulling down the house on their own heads and ours in revenge for the dishonor they have suffered by the Scriture If it be true as nothing more true then Popery is not true which palpably contradicteth it as in the points of Latin service and denying the Cup in the Lords Supper and many other is most evident
3 4. And is your Doctrine like this Isay bids To the Law and the Testimony Is 8.20 And the Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see whether the things were so that were taught them even by Apostles And will you forbid this and burn men for to promote their salvation Did not Paul write his Epistles to the Laity as well as to the Clergy You must strip me of the grace of God and reduce my mind to a state of darkness before I can ever entertain these principles of darkness For light and darkness will not have communion If by Arguments you would perswade me so plainly against the life of nature as that I am bound to blind or kill my self in order to my good there 's somewhat within me that would confute them besides reason And why should not the Life of Grace also be a principle of self-preservation As for your Reason that men must let alone the Scripture and hearken to their Teachers for fear of heresies it will never take with me till I can believe you to be less suspected guides then Christ and his Apostles and till I can believe that a Scholar may not learn of his Book his Teacher both without any contradiction And then for your devotions it is not all the Arguments in the world that would ever reconcile me to them while I have that Law in any prevailing measure written in my heart that teacheth me to worship God in Spirit and in truth What man of Spiritual experience can choose but distaste your way of worship that doth but read over one of your offices and Lady's Psalters and see the affected repetition of words and the ludicrous kind of devotions which you teach the people more like to charms then serious prayers to God! especially if he also observe the huge number of ceremonies which the very body of your worship is composed of As there is somewhat in nature that hindereth a man from delighting to eat chaffe or feeding upon meer air so is there somewhat in the new nature of a Christian that is against this trifling and jesting with God Another thing that hath encreased my distaste of your wayes is the common ungodliness of your followers I have endeavored as well as I could to be acquainted with them where I came and I have known but very few of them but have been either Whoremongers or Swearers or Drunkards or Gamesters or sensual livers nor did I ever meet with one to this day to my best remembrance that manifested a spiritual frame of heart or had any delight to speak of the workings of God upon the soul and the sweet communications of the love of Christ or could give any savory account of any such spiritual workings in them but all their Religion was to stick to the Romish Church and go on in their ceremonious forms of worship abstaining from this meat or that and rioting and pampering their flesh on Holidayes c. If I had known this to be the case onely of the common people in Italy or Spain or France I should not have wondered for I know that most of the people do take up their Religion but upon carnal accounts and accordingly will use it But to find it thus in England where your number is small and you pretend to hold your Religion in so much self-denyal the state being against you and therefore your party should be the purest zelots and shew the face of your doctrine in its greatest glory this makes me judge of the tree by the fruites And the observing of this hath made me admire that ever you can make the holiness of your Church the matter of so great ostentation as you do Yea that such men as H.P. de Cressy can have the face to pretend that your admirable holiness in comparison of ours was the means of their conversion to you Unhappy man with whom did he converse while he seemed a Protestant or where did he live But this was not his fate alone but of divers of his strain When they are carnal Protestants abhorring the power of the Religion which they profess and avoiding and reproaching the practicers of their own Religion and so have no communion with them nor experience of their holiness it is a righteous thing with God to leave them to so much blindness as to run from England to Rome for holiness and that because they abhorred purity they should be so blinded as not to discern the beauty of it and yet to dote on the name and coate of it which may be put on in the morning and off at night And indeed this hath somewhat increased my aversness to observe that by how much the more godly and conscionable any are of our profession the more they are against yours and that so few of this sort are turned to you that I yet know not certainly of one that ever seemed a Godly person And the common ignorant sort of people that know not what a Church is nor what Religion is and that live in sensuality and wickedness are the favourablest to your wayes yea so forward to promote them that many of them would quickly be yours if the times were but changed to you and these are the people that I have known become your proselites When we have lost our labor upon them and left them in their wickedness and they that were filthy are filthy still then some of them turn Papists and this forsooth in admiration of the holiness of your Church When I confess for some of them I have not been sorry to hear that they were turned to you for I thought it may be the liking they have to you might make them hearken more to your reproofs then to ours and possibly you might perswade them from Whoredoms and Drunkenness and Swearing and Lying when we were out of hope But when I perceived that they fled to you for an indulgence in their sin because some of these are but venial sins with you and they have a palliate ceremonial cure at hand to befool them I then acknowledged the justice of God against them I am none of those that think that there is none among you shall be saved I have read that in some of your Writers that perswadeth me it came from a sanctified heart I am ready to acknowledge and honor the Spirit of Christ wherever I can discern it But I must profess that I was never yet so happy as to converse with a Papist that manifested an experienced gracious heavenly mind though I am truely willing to make the best of them And that your Church should be as the sink or channel to receive the excrements and filth of ours is no great argument of its holiness in my eyes And if a few that are less sensual turn to you it is commonly as far as I can discern the Tenants or servants of some of your way that are led by worldly respects and they are such
p. 16 Argument fourth p. 17. to 26. Obj. 1. True Religion is but one answered p. 26. Obj 2. The true Religion hath still had a visible Chuâ—ch professing it p. 32 Obj. 3. Your Religion hath no certain test to discover it p. 40 Obj. 4. You have separated from all the Churches in the world p. 41 Obj. 5. You are divided into Sects and have no unity among your selves p. 42 Obj. 6. You have no infallible certainty of your Religion p. 43 Obj. 7. You want many Articles of the faith p. 45 8â—ou â—ou condemn one another ibid. Obj. 9. Your titles shew you are Sectaries p. 46 Obj. 10. You found us in possession where was your Church before Luther 47. to 52 A Defence of Bishop Ushers Serm of the Churches unity against the confutation of Paulus Veridicus p. 52. to 77. Wherein the common Arguments of the Papists against us are refelled Disp 2. Q. Whether Popery be a safe way to salvation Neg. p. 78 The term Popery and the rest explained to p. 84 Twelve propositions for the full answering of the question p. 84 Argument 1. Popery is built upon and resolved into a a notorious falshood p. 91 Argument 2. They hold Christianity it self on a ground utterly uncertain if not certainly false p. 93 Argument 3. They are disagreed among themselves in the very fundamentals p. 104 Argument 4. Popery is a novel profession unknown to the Apostles and Primitive Church p. 106 Argument 5. They make a new Catholike Church p. 110 Argument 6. They are the greatest Schismaticks on earth p. 126 Argument 7. Popery is an uncertain changeable thing so that a man can never tell when he hath it all p. 128 Argument 8. They expresly contradict the word of God and set up man above it p. 142 Argument 9. They worship the creature with Divine worship p. 153 The monstrousness of Transubstantiation p. 154 Arg. 10. They turn Gods worship into scenical formalities and Ceremonies p. 161 Arg. 11. Popery is upheld by most wicked meanes and so by Satan p. 164 Arg. 12. They adde to all impenitency and uncureableness p. 171 Arg. 13. It plungeth men into certain perjury p. 172 Objections for Popery Obj. 1. It is delivered dowâ— from the Apostles p. 175. Obj. 2. They are â— true Church p. 177. Obj. 3. A Papist may be saved p. 179. Obj. 4. There is but one true Church and that 's theirs p. 180 Obj. 5. They have unity universality antiquity succession p. 181. Confuted Disp 3. Q. Whether the infallible judgeâ—ent of the Romane Pope and his Clergie must be the ground of our belief of the Christian doctrine or of our receiving the holy Scriptures as the word of God Neg. p. 186 The Resolution of the Protestants faith ibid The Popish confusion about the resolution of their faith p. 189 Three questions contained in this one 1. Whether the Pope and his Council be judge of controversies The truth opened in ten propositions p. 195 Arg. 1. p. 199. Arg. 2. p. 200. Arg. 3. p. 202. Arg 4 p. 20â— Obj. Shall every illiterate person be judge of the sence of Scripture p. 205 Q 2. Whether the Pope be infallibie in this decisive judgement which he pretendeth to p. 208. What infallibility we hold p. 209 An answer to that which Bellarmine saith for the Popes infallibility p. 213. to 221 An answer to Knots arguments against Chillingworth p. 221. to 240 Arg. 2. against their infallibility from common sense p. 240 Argument 3. from experience p. 248. arg 4. p 152. arg 5. p. 253. arg 6. p. 256. arg 7. p. 257. arg 8 p. 258. arg 9. p. 259. arg 10. p. 260. arg 11. p. 262. arg 12. p. 267. arg 13. p. 267. arg 14. p 268. arg 15. p. 207. arg 16. 17. p. 272. arg 18. p. 274. arg 19. p. 277. arg 20. p. 278. Q 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane authoritative judgment p 278 Two more Argu. against the Popes judgment p. 279 That we must not receive our Religion on the credit of his judgement manifested in twenty queres p. 281 How Dr. H. Holden shuns the circle p. 282 The ancient Fathers and Church fully against them p. 295. to 351 Their Obj. against us for our want of infallibility answered p. 351. to 356 More out of antiquity against them p. 357. to 364 Their own usuraption against Scripture p. 365 Vincentius Lirinensis against them p. 368. to 373 Dr. Fields Catalogue of Popish errors p. 375 Appendix Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish errors p. 381. to the end Errata PAge 11. line 33. read go p. 12. l. 21. dele it p. 12. l. 25. r. from p. 20. l 8. r. necks p. 22. l. ult d. purposely p. 29 l. 3 r. good p. 3â— l. 22. r. satisfâ—ctory 38 l. 28. r. us p. 38. Mar. So Dr Whiâ—â— c. should be printed p. 39. l. 20. d. not p. 44. l. 13. r. the p. 41. l. 9. r. â—here p. 48. l 24. r decide's p. 50. l. 1 r. symptomes p. 52. l. 33 r. Aegyptian Châ—istians p 58. l. 6. r. Sacran l. 7. r. Eâ—tâ—ri l. 25. d. and the Maronites l 25 r. the p 59. l. 24. r. cause or as p. 60 l 11. r. The Lutheranâ— p â—â— l 26. r. will and p. 74. l. 1. r. of most of the p. 7â— l. 26. d. and by â—bsignation p 76. l 30. r hold p 86 l 1. r Councilâ— p. 86. l. 24. r dâ—ffident l. ult r. on p. 91. l. 29. r. seated p. 101. l. 30. r Iohn and p. 1â—7 l 17 r necessarily p. 1â—0 l. 8 r. nâ—wer l. 14. â— concâ—lâ—is l. 14. r. â—ractarentur p. 114. l. 28. d. to be new p. 115. l 29. r. Teminum p. 120. l. 17. r consequence p. 122 l. 1. r name p. 130. â— 29. r. there p. 131. l. 3 r. aâ— p 134. l. 24 d. not p 135 l 2. r. an uninterrupteâ— p â—38 l 14 r. school 140. l 13. r they l. 32. d. so p 146. l. ult 1 proâ—ul hinc p. 148. l 1 r. last p. 149. l 26. r 17 18 19. p 154. l. â— r. his p. 166 l. 22. r. they may p. 167 l. 11. r. Belsec p. 172 l 1. d. we p 7â— l. 26 r. is p. 17â— l. 25. r. safâ— way l. ult d it p 187 l. 27. add by p. 189 Mar add someâ—92 â—92 l. 4 add and p 202 l. 22. r. uâ— p 209. â— 7. d. the p. 226 l. 3. r. mentioned l. 2 r wasâ— â—6 r. unquestionably p. 233. l. 1 add not p 243 l. 7. r. â—lludiâ—g p. 247 l. 9. d. sell p 249. Mar. r. Krantzius p. 250 l 10. r the twâ—nty second l. 27. add not 251. l. 15. r. decrees p 255. Mar. r succeediâ—g p. 2â—8 l 33. r will p. 27â— l. 11. r. episcopis p 2â—1 l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 p. 283 l 11 r. â—xpâ—rtâ—m p. 2.4 l 2 r. the p. 28â— l ulâ— r. â—mpartito p. 286 l. 7. r. apâ—rtum
p. 29. l. 21 d. it p. 308 l. 18. r judicial p. 309 l. 28. r. confute p. 314. l. 28. r their 's p. 331. l 17. r. Montanus p 333. l. 8 r. Tatianuâ— p. 41. l â—2 r caeteri p 342. l. 1â— r. suburbi â—râ—â— l. 32. â— headed p. 34â— l â—6 r. to us p. 348 l. 2. r Râ—maâ—e l. 4. r. authors p. 355. l. â—0 r. word l. 23 r. proveâ—â— p. 356. l. 2. r. rather than p. 358. Marg. add de l. 28. r. literis p. 59. l. 31. r. secura p. 364 l. 11. d. i. e. p. 366. l. 8. r. Gloss p. 370. l. 8. r. fuâ—sse p. 371. l. 28. add in l 3. add other p. 377 l 5 r. knew l 28 r. these p. 380 l. 23. r. in p. 379 l. 12. r. â—ataloguâ— p. 217. l. â—2 after faith adde Or the object of faith even Christ himself which indeed is the true sence agreeable to 1 Cor. 10.4 And that Rock was Christ QUERY Whether the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant be a safe way to Salvation THE great business of the Divel the Enemy of Mankinde is to keep man from that Salvation which Christ hath so dearly purchased so graciously offered and hath appointed us such excellent helpes to attain To which end it is his first endeavor that men may not know or Believe that there is such a Felicity and what it is and how much to be desired and his next to keep them from knowing the way to it and the last is to keep them from walking in that way when they know it By the first means he keeps from Salvation all Atheists and Heathens that know not or believe not the life to come by the second all Infidels that Believe not Christ to be the way and all Hereticks that Believe not those Truths which are of absolute necessity in subordination to Christ and by the third all Hypocrites and unsanctified ungodly impenitent men in the visible Church that yet have a superficial Belief of these Truths Our Question in hand is for the escaping the second of these snares by discovering which is the safe way to Salvation The Policy of the Devil hath always endeavoured to hinder the world from knowing this way by these two means First if it be possible by keeping them in utter darkness that this way may not be revealed to them or being revealed may not be understood Secondly or if that will not do by making such a number of by-ways on every side that the true and onely way may hardly be discerned And this is his end in raising so many Heresies and this is the course he takes to mislead them that have escaped from the darkness of Infidelity He begun this trade betime even in the dayes of the Apostles They saw the multifarious off-spring of the Deceiver sprouting up apace in their own times yet did it never enter into their thoughts to tell the Church that by this all Heresies should be known That the Church of Rome should condemne them or to send it down to all posterity as the true touchstone to tell them which was the onely right way among all these Heresies to wit That which is believed by the Pâ—pe or Church of Rome This had been a ready and easie way for the Apostles to have prescribed and for us to have received if it had been true It might have saved them much labor in giving us that Body of sacred Doctrine which they have made indeed the Touchstone of the safe way and it might have spared us much more labor of searching and studying which is the way and we might all have sent to Rome and been resolved without any more ado Surely the Apostles were not so envious to our ease and safety as to have silenced this easie way if they had known it themselves But as every Heretick when he findeth out a New way doth condemne the Old as inconsistent with his New so do the Papists Since this new way hath been cryed up that No man can come to heaven but by Rome it is their business to deter people from any other way and to that end to tell them that there is no safe way but theirs As the Quakers tell us that there is no way to Heaven but theirs and some Anabaptists say there is no way to Heaven but by being Baptized again as they are so do the Papists tell us that there is no way to Heaven but by Believing in the Pope and Church of Rome and obeying him as the head of the Church I never saw the place but sure that Town hath some admirable excellency in it that the God of Heaven should so much set his heart upon it as to endow it with such a stupâ—ndious Prerogative that no man should be saved from everlasting Torment that doth not Believe in the Bishop of that City and obey him as the universal head It s a wonder to me that he that set not his heart so much on his Temple at Jerusalem or on that chosen people as not to forsake them for their sins and that hath the Heavens for his Throne and to whom the Sun it self is as Darkness should yet be so taken with a Town called Rome built and long inhabited by Idolaters defiled with the blood of thousands of Martyrs against which the fouls under the Altar cry out How long Lord Holy and true wilt thou not avenge our blood c. as to ordain that no man in the remotest parts of the world even the Antipodes that never heard of the name of Rome can be saved though he should never so much believe in Jesus Christ unless he Believe in the Bishop of this Town and obey him when yet with Andradius and other Papists it s a hard question whether a man may not be saved in those heathen Countries without believing in Christ himself Is it not a marvaile that we never read that Rome was once named by Christ himself and that it never was put into our Creed as one of the necessary Articles to salvation especially when we find there the Catholike Church and Communion of Saints which sure would have been some way intimated to be the Romane Church or that which is headed by their Bishop if it had been so indeed I find but three names strictly so called in the Creed and the Popes or Romane Churches is none of them One is Jesus Christ and the other is hers that bore him and the third is his that Judged him to death and this indeed was a Romane name and if the honor of it in the Creed will do them any service let them make their best of it But however this advantage the enemy of the Church hath got by it that the new Romane Title hath made the old Catholike Title seem questionable to many and now so great is the audacity of the usurping Pope that he not onely questioneth whether any Christians shall be saved that
believe not in him as well as in Christ but he flatly denyeth it and what he cannot get by Scripture and reason he would get by threatning and terrible words to affright the simple telling them that Protestants are not of the true Church or Religion nor in a safe way to salvation because they will not be the subjects of the Pope of Rome Well we shall briefly prove our way to be safe if not to the satisfaction of perverse ambitious or passionate and prejudiced men yet I doubt not to the satisfaction of all humble impartial diligent persons that are willing to know the truth and deny themselves that they may know it and do not stifle it by their lusts or imprison it in unrighteousness in their byassed resolutions And first we shall briefly open the termes By Religion here we mean the Doctrine de credendis agendis about matters to be believed and practised which we hold and profess as of Divine Revelation and injunction in order to Gods Glory and our salvation For though this be but the means towards those holy Affections and practices which are of neerer necessity to our salvation as being the necessary effects of the former yet is it not this later buâ— the former that we are now inquiring after Not of Subjective but Objective Religion not of the fides quâ but the fides quae â—creditur not whether we be true to our Religion and so truly Religious but whether we be of the True Religion or hold that Doctrine which will save them that are true to it in Belief and Practice I shall not much stop the plain Reader therefore with any further and unnecessary inquiry into the Etymology of the word Religion which some derive 1 a Relegendo some 2 a Religando and some 3 a Relegando Relinquendo But as long as we understand what is meant by the word we shall not stick at the Etymology or propriety By the Reformed Religion we mean the Christian Catholike Religion as it is separated from Popery and so by this word we do distinguish our Churches from the Romane Sectaries For it is not every Reformation much less every thing so called that here we have respect to but the Reformation by which we cast off Popery it self which because it was in one Countrey done by a solemn Protestation of certain Princes and Cities against Popery hath been since called the Protestant Reformation and our Churches the Protestant Churches and our Religion the Protestant Religion Our Religion is called Catholike because it is â—he Religion of the Catholicke Church which is so â—alled a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is universal consisting not onely of Jews and their Proselites as heretofore nor of one Town like Rome and those that will be â—he subjects of the Bishop of that Town as the Papists dream but of all that Believe in the name of Christ through the whole world holding the Foundation or points of absolute necessity to salvation and not again denying them by any such contradicting Errors as will not consist with the practical belief of the said Fundamentals As that was called A Catholicke Epistle which was directed to the whole Church and not to any one person or people so is that the Catholike Church which containeth all Christians As Austin was wont to describe it against the Donatists who would have confined it to the adversaries of Caecilianus and followers of Donatus in Africke that the true Church was that which was spread over the world by the Gospel which was commanded to be preached to all Nations beginning at Jerusalem so do we By the Christian Religion I suppose we are agreed is meant the Religion of Believers in Christ or that whereof Christ is the Foundation and prescriber and faith in him the first act which must contain all the essential parts though it may possibly want many integrals or else it is not to be called the Christian Religion They that were called Christs Disciples were afterwards called Christians first at Antioch Act. 11.26 To be a Christian therefore and to be Christs Disciple is all one Note therefore that as the word Religion denoteth the sum of doctrines and way of salvation absolutely necessary so it is but One in all the worlâ— that 's true and saving and that is the Christian Religion So that if a Heathen Jew or Mahometane ask me what Religion I am of in opposition to theirs I will say I am a Christian and not onely that I am a Protestant But if a Christian aske me what Religion I am of I will say I am a Reformed Catholike Christian for such a question in the mouth of a Christian usually implieth that I am a Christian and intendeth the discovery of what sort or party of Christians I belong to But indeed Christianity is not many but one and therefore Christians as Christians are not of many Religions but of one No nor Christians at all that are truely such if by Religion you mean a systeme of doctrines in the main necessary or sufficient to salvation or conceited so to be For as there is no such Body of Doctrine but Christs so no man that is indeed a Christian can believe that there is seeing such a Belief contradicteth the essentia's of Christianity But among those that call themselves Christians there are some Hereticks that deny or plainly subvert some part of the essentials of Christian Religion And among those that are Christians some have such dangerous corruptions as do much hazard the salvation and tend to frustrate them of their benefits of the Christian Faith and these very corruptions they Entitle by the name of Part of their Religion as the Papists do In which sence I must say I am not of the same Religion with them though I hold the same Christian Doctrine as they because I hold not their mixture and add not those corruptioâ—s which they make a part of their Religion The name Protestant I reject not because it was taken up on a just occasion but I take it to be too extrinsecal and private to be the standing denomination of my Religion as being not taken from the nature of the thing but from an occasionall action of a few men in one Countrey though it intimateth that all of their judgement in all other Countries do virtually at least make the like Protestation in the maine I do therefore rather choose to say that I am a Reformed Catholike Christian and when I call my self a Protestant this is my meaning So that by the name Christian which expresseth all my Religion it self Positively considered I am differenced from Heathens Jews Mahometans and all Infidels and those by some called Hereticks who usurpe the name of Christians while they deny part of the very essentials of Christianity And by the name Catholike I adde nothing Positive to the former but onely intimate that I am of the Universal Church and negatively exclude my self from all divided
therefore â—â—ey shall have life supposing it to be a true faith â—â—at worketh by love The Jews that heard Petersâ—â—rmon â—â—rmon Act. 2. were converted and added to the â—hurch even threâ— thousand souls and put into a state of Justification by Believing that Sermon 〈◊〉 37 38 41 46 47. But the Protestants believe â— that Peter preached in that Sermon thereâ—â— they also are of the Church and justified And least the Accusing Devil or Papists shâ—â— trouble the peace of any of his people Christ 〈◊〉 protested it with his own mouth Joh. 5.24 Veâ—â—ly Verily I say unto you He that heareth my word 〈◊〉 believed on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed frâ—â— death to life Me thinks this should make any â—â—liever tremble at the thoughts of condemning thoâ— that Christ hath protested shall not be condeâ—ned Christ hath promised that all those that receive â— words and in whom his words abide shall be beloved of the Father and have everlasting life and â— heard in what they aske Joh. 14.23 15.7 Doubâ—less that which Christ himself preached was the tâ— Gospel and so far sufficient that whoever believeâ— it shall be saved Otherwise Christ could not â—aâ— converted any soul so far as to have brought theâ— into a state of Salvation by his Doctrine and theâ— Peter and the rest of the Apostles were not trâ—â— Christians by the belief of the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 if the Doctrine which Christ preached be sufficieâ—â— to make true Christians and Church-members oâ— those that receive it then the Protestants are such For they believe every word that the Evangelists record of the Doctrine of Christ And if the Papiâ—â— say that there is more of his Doctrine necessary tâ— salvation which the Evangelists did not record iâ— Scripture 1. We call for their proof of it and 2. Wâ—â—â—â—ow that the Evangelists did purposely write thâ— â—â—ur Gospels or Histories of Christ of purpose to acâ—uaint the world with his Nature Birth Life doctrine â—eath and Resurrection c. Luke professeth that he â—rote his Gospel upon perfect understanding of all â—â—ings from the very first which conteyneth a Declaâ—â—tion of those things which are most surely believed â—mong us even as they were delivered by them that â—â—om the beginning were eye Witnesses and Ministers â—f the Word Luk. 1.1 2 3 4. And he tells us Act. â— 1 2. that he wrote his Gospel of all things that â—esus began both to do and teach untill the day in â—hich he was taken up It would therefore have â—een an exceeding blemish to the Evangelists that â—rote of set purpose both the History of Christs â—ife and Doctrine if they had left out any part of it â—hat was of necessity to salvation Protestants thereâ—ore that believe all the Gospel do believe so much â—s may bring them safely to salvation If Christ himâ—elf be not a sufficient Teacher nor the Gospel it self a â—ufficient Doctrine of Life Then whither shall we go to seek it Then Peter himself was not the Rock â—or a true Christian by Christs Teaching And then â—he Pope could not derive that from Peter which he â—ad not But Peter himself thought and taught oâ—herwise He saith Lord whether shall we go we know that thou hast the words of Eternal Life For my part I will take Peters counsel and go to Christ for the words of Eternal Life which are purposely recorded by four Evangelists in the Gospel Let who will go to the Pope for another Gospel to supply the supposed defects of this for I will not In Act. 22. 26. and other places Paul preacheth so much of the Gospel as might have made true Believers and all that the Protestants receive The Church of Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them were a true Church Rom. 1.7 and all the Doctrine that Paul writeth to them we do believe Paul telleth the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20.27 that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole councel of God and this is summed up in Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ vers 21. And whatsoever Paul hath written to these Ephesians or any other Churches or persons we believe But what should we talk any more with such an arrogant unreasonable sort of men that dare maintaine that the belief of all the Holy Scripture is not large enough to salvation Atheists and Infidels say of the Scripture that it is too big to be all true And Papists say that it is not big enough to bring a man to heaven that believeth and obeyeth it Shall the Holy Ghost endite a Volume as big as the Bible and when he hath done shall any pretending to be Christians perswade the world that he that believeth all this shall be damned if he believe not the closet Traditions which the Romane Bishop pretendeth to be the keeper of Nay see the strange contradictions of this giddy fiction They lock up this Scripture it self from the common people in an unknown tongue They damne the translating of it as the root of all Heresies and burn men to ashes for using the Bible when they cannot keep it unknown any longer they translate it themselves as far as they can to their own advantage and put it forth with their perverting Annotations and yet when they have all done they condemne any that read it without a special licence from their Ordinary which in England and France they sometime grant to avoid suspicions but in Spaine Italy c. too few if any at all And when they have written voluminously to prove that the Scriptures are not necessary to the people for salvation and that Ignorance is the mother of devotion they come back again and dispute against the Protestants that the whole Scripture is not sufficient to salvation and he that believes but the Scriptures is not in a safe way to salvation It seems then that the Popes Canons are more necessary then the Scripture For a man may be saved without the knowledge of Scripture but not without the knowledge of the Canons of the Pope Yes that he may too if some of them mistake not if they will but implicitely believe that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church and that the Pope is the infallible soveraign of the Christian world and believe some Articles of the Creed upon his credit he may be saved without either Scripture or Canons so he be but ready to believe and obey whatever shall be offered to him by the Pope for the time to come Moreover Christ and his Apostles do frequently promise Remission and salvation to all that truely Repent that love God in Christ that mortifie the flesh c. but all this do the Protestants and their Religion teacheth them to do it Paul concludeth that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.11 But the Protestants are in
Christ Jesus and their Religion teacheth and engageth them so to walk therefore there is no condemnation to them that do so and they may with the same Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Challenge all the Papists in the world It is God that justifieth who shall condemne us Paul telleth Timothy that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 therefore they may make us also wise to salvation And he addeth that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works vers 16 17. It were endless to recite all that proveth the salvation of them that believe and obey the holy Scriptures But this all true Protestants do I shall therefore leave this taske and next hear what the Papists can say to the contrary and what they are able to produce to prove that we are not in a safe way to salvation Obj. 1. There is but one safe way to Heaven The Protestant Religion is not that one way Therefore not a safe way The Minor is proved thus That Religion which the Church hath owned from the Apostles dayes till now is that one way The Protestant Religion is not that which the Church hath so owned therefore it is not that one Religion The Minor is proved by parts 1. As to Doctrine 2. as to Discipline 3. as to worship 1. The Church ever since the Apostles dayes hath maintained the Doctrines of 1. Free-will to good or evil 2. of Predestination upon foreseen faith 3. of mans merits 4. of Justification by Inherent Grace 5. against the certain Perseverance of all the Justified and consequently against their certainty of salvation 6. Vowed Chastity and Monastical Life In Discipline the Church ever held 1. The Popes Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction 2. The Government by Bishops over Presbyters 3. Ordination by them and not without them 4. Pennance and Confession of sin 3. In matter of Worship the Church hath still used 1. Chrysme to the Baptized 2. Imposition of hands in confirmation 3. The sacrifice of the Altar 4. The Cross 5. Holy dayes 6. Fasting dayes All which the Protestants have cast off Therefore they are not of the same Religion Answ 1. To the Major Proposition of the main Argument I answer The word safe referreth to some Danger that we are safe from The way may be called safe therefore either in respect of sin or damnation Also this way may be called one in respect of the Essentials of Religion or else in respect of some inferior truths and duties that are not of absolute necessity to salvation And so I say that there is but one Religion as to the Essential and absolutely necessary points in which a man can be safe from Damnation And there is but one Religion as comprehending all the Integral parts in which a man can be safe from sin But yet that Religion which in the Essentials and Absolutely necessary points is but one may yet consist with errors in lower and lesser things in the minds of those that hold it and yet be a safe way to salvation though not so safe as to freemen from all sin And consequently there may be differences among true Christians that shall be saved though there be nothing but perfect Harmony in the entire Doctrine of Christian Religion as delivered from Christ and his Spirit Because no man holds that Doctrine entirely and perfectly without any error or ignorance and therefore there will be much difference among those that shall be saved To the Major of the Pro-syllogisme I answer Implicitely and in Generals the Church hath owned the perfect truth in all ages because it hath Believed that all that God saith is true and that the Scripture is his word But explicitely and particularly the Church hath not held all the truth of Religion in any one age since the Apostles For every man on earth hath been Ignorant and the most knowing men erroneous in some things seeing we are all imperfect and here know but in part And so one particular Church might erre in one thing and another in another thing as the differences about Easter Rebaptizing the Millennium Infants Communicating c. shew they did And of the same Church one Member might erre in one thing and another in another thing it being as certain that no two men on the earth are in all things of the same minde as that none on earth are perfect in knowledge To the Minor I answer that the Religion called Protestant is the same in all points absolutely necessary to salvation which the Church hath still owned And in other inferior points the Churches having not been all or alwayes of one minde some ages were more pure and others more corrupt The Protestant Religion is neerer to that of the purer times then the Papists is It is the same in the Essentials it is the neerest it in the Integrals it is more remote from latter corruptions introduced in times more remote from the Apostolical purity To the particular instances of our differences from the former Churches I answer particularly 1. For Free will to God if you mean a natural freedome which is the wills self-determining Power so the Protestants maintain it as well as the Fathers If you mean a moral freedom from ill-inclining habits which is properly a right-disposition so the Fathers maintained it not Obj. Let Scultetus in Medulla Patruâ— and others of your own Writers be judge who still number this inter naevos Patrum Answ Scultetus and Calvin and others might mistake the Fathers sence and think that they spoke of moral Freedom when they spoke but of natural which is inseparable from the will And its like that they did so seeing the Fathers maintained Original sin which is that pravity of humane nature which is clean contrary to moral Free-will 2. And if the Fathers were for a Free-will in a moral-Ethical sence so is one part of the Protestants as much as they were And if they were in the right so are those Protestants If in the wrong then the other part of the Protestants are in this in the right 3. This is a point that men may differ in as much as the Fathers did from us and yet be in a safe way to salvation 4. The Dominicans and the Jesuites differ about it as much as we and the Fathers yea they cannot yet agree what natural free-will is 2. For Predestination upon foreseen faith 1. There is no Declaration of the Churches minde in those times about it but what is found in the wrigtings of particular Doctors 2. We confess that men are Elected to Glory and Justification from guilt upon foreseen faith But we say withall that they are Elected to that faith and that God did foresee it as a thing which he intended to give and not as a thing which corrupted unregenerate
that this is sufficient will surely warrant as to exclude their additions And we have oft proved that the first ages did maintain the Scripture sufficiency This one answer doth fully justifie us against this câ—vil of the Papists The Ancient Church and Fathers believed the Scripture and the sufficiency of that Scripture as containing all points of faith And so do we And so all Popish faith is excluded Though we â—onfess many Ceremonies and points of order â—ere then admitted as from the Church 4. Negatives became necessary to be expresly asâ—erted by occasion of Heresies And therefore who â—an wonder if many of them are never mentioned till â—hose heresies did call them out When there was â—o man so impudent as to say that The Pope of â—ome is the Universal Bishop and Governor of the whole Church or that God must be worshipped in â—n unknown tongue or that Images must be worâ—hipped who could expect that the Church should have occasion in words to express it as a part of their faith that The Pope is not the universal Bishop not infallible c. and so of the rest If Popery had risen sooner it had sooner been contradicted 5. There may be an hundred Negatives made necessary hereafter by heresies which it is not necessary now to put into our Creed or confessions because they are not yet sufficiently contained or implyed in the contrary Affirmatives If Hereticks arise that say that man hath seven souls that the soul returns to be Gods Essence and was so eternally that there are fourteen Sacraments that Infants must take Orders with a hundred the like then it might be necessary for us expresly to deny these and shall they then tell us that our Religion is new and theirs old because we cannot prove that any did before deny theirs So what if we could not prove that any before had said The Pope is not the Universal Governor that is because there was none so shamless for six hundred years as to say he was Whose Religion then is proved new by this ours or theirs But I shall say somewhat more to this anon in the end Obj. 3. That Religion which cannot be known 〈◊〉 having no certain test to discern it by can be no saâ—â— way to salvation But such is the Reformed Religion therefore c. The Minor is proved If they have any such test either it is Scripture or soâ—â— confessions of their own But neither of these therefore not Scripture For that is appealed to by many Religions and therefore can be no proper Test to discerne one of them from the rest Besides it knows not so much as the name of the Reforâ—â—â— Protestant Religion Not any confession for they have no one which they agree in but one disclaimeth what another owneth And they have none agreed on by a General Councel or by all themselves Ans 1. The Test of our Religion is the holy Scripture This we profess joyntly to be the Rule of our faith and life To this we still Appeal If we misunderstand it in any point we implicitely renounce all such eâ—rors because we explicitely in general renounce all that is contrary to the Scripture This may be the true Test of our Religion though others falsly preâ—end that theirs is more agreeable to it Many things may be tryed by the same Touchstone and weighed by the same ballance whereof some may be currant and others unfound or light May not the Law of the Land be the true Rule of our obedience to our Governors though in the Rebellious or disobedient should pretend to be Ruled by the same Laws 2. They are not all distinct Religions which the Papists call so Many appeal to the same Scriptures who agree in the maine concerning the sence and disagree onely in some inferior things These are not several Religions 3. Our confessions do shew how we understand the Scripture wherein we agree in the main as the Harmony of Confessions testifieth though in some lesser things we differ Obj. 4. They that have causlesly separated from all the Churches in the world are not of the true Religion nor in a safe way to Salvation But so have the Protestants done for they are divided both from Romane Church the Greeks Abassines Armenians and all therefore they are not in a safe way Ans It s one thing to withdraw from some corruption of a Church and another to withdraw from the Church 1. We that are now living did not withdraw from Rome or any of the rest for we were never among you or under you 2. Our Fathers withdrew not from the Church as Christian or Catholike but from the particular corruptions of the Romane faction in Doctrine Discipline and Worship rejecting their lately usurped Tyranny by which they would have still obliged them to sin against God As we are commanded to withdraw from each particular Brother that walketh disorderly so must we from a particular Church when they will be so disordered as to Tyrannize over the universal 3. The Church of Rome rejected us by a causeless excommunication who were not de jure under her power 4. We still profess our selves of the same Church with the Greeks Abassines Arminians Copties and all others on earth that hold the Scriptures and that so hold the Anticent Creeds or fundamentals of Christianity as that they do not evidently subvert it again by contradictory Errors If they hold no Errors but what may consist with a true belief of the Fundamentals in the same persons though by an unseen consequence they may contradict them we seperate not from that Church so as to disclaim it from being a true Church And therefore it s not true that we so separate from all the world but as to the Local Personal Communion or presence we dare not joyn with the truest Church in the least known sin But in that respect we cannot be said to separate from the Greeks or Abassines that we have no opportunity of Local Communion with While all men are imperfect one may see that Error which another seeth not and to separate meerly from a sin of one man or a Church is not simply to separate from the man or Church Obj. 5. That Religion which hath no unity in it self or consistency but is broken into many Sects and still running further is no safe way to salvation But such is the Protestant Religion therefore Answ We deny the Minor Our Religion is one simply one and most consistent and having one sure standing Rule not subject to changes as yours is even the word of God himself The same Rule that the first Churches had and the same Test by which the Christian Religion was known of old when the Belief of the Scripture and particularly the Ancient Creeds and the actual Communion with the true Church was the test of a Catholike the one in Doctrine the other in Communion as freeing him from Schismes We believe all the same Articles and we divide not from the
Catholick Church If any depart from Scripcures as to the sence in points absolutely necessary they cease to be of our Religion If any depart from it in lesser things they may yet be of the same Religion with us but so far we disown them if we know it Popery hath no sure test or means to prevent mutation But we have in that we fix on the Immutable Rock If Anabaptists Separatists or any erroneous persons live among us so far as they hold those errors so far they are none of us And if any err whom we dare not reject we yet reject their errors and take them for no part of our Religion And if this Argument hold it will much more condemne the Romanists who have more diversity of opinions and wayes among them then the Protestants as may in due place be shewed Obj. 6. That is not the true Religion nor a safe way to Heaven which men can have no Infallible certainty of But the Protestant Religion is such For they all profess their Church to be fallible Answ We must distinguish between a man that May be deceived and a man that Is deceived And between Infallibility in the Object and in the Subject or Intellect And between Infallibility in the absolutely necessary points and in some Inferior smaller matters And so I Ans 1. The Rule of our Religion viz. the word of God is Infallible yea the onely Infallible Rule of Religion and therefore we have an Infallible and the onely Infallible Religion 2. The weakness of the Recipient must be differenced from the Religion which hath no such weakness There is still the certainty and Infallibility of the Object when the believer through his own weakness may be uncertain 3. No man is Falsus actually deceived while he believes that doctrine of our Religion that is the holy Scripture And this we are certain of 4. No Christian in sensu composito nor no Church is fallible or can err in the Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary For if he do so he ceaseth to be a Christian and that to be a Church 5. In sensu diviso he that was a common believer may Apostatize from the faith and so may a particular Church and therefore is fallible but is not as is said Deceived till it turn from the Infallible truth 6. The best man or Church on earth doth know but in part and therefore erreth in part and therfore is fallible in part or in lower things So that it is not the least proof of the fallibility of Scripture or the Reformed Religion that men may Apostatize from it or that they may stagger in Believing an Infallible Truth or that we are fallible in lesser things All true Believers are actually Infalliblly perswaded of the Truth of Gods Word and particularly of all things absolutely necessary Obj. 7. That Religion is not true nor a safe way to heaven which wanteth many Articles of faith But the Protestant Religion wanteth many Articles of faith Therefore Answ 1. We must distinguish of our Religion as it is in the Professed Rule and as it is Impressed in the mindes of men In the former respect we say that our Religion wanteth no Article of faith for Gods perfect Word is our Religion But in the minds of men Religion is more or less imperfect according to the strength or weakness of mens faith 2. We must distinguish between true Articles of Faith and false ones made by the Church of Rome We are without the latter but want them not but we expect that they who call them Articles of faith do prove them so Obj. 8. Your Religion is unsafe by your own Testimony You condemne one another the Lutheran condemneth the Calvinist as Blasphemous impious and damnable the Calvinists condemne the Lutherans the Anabaptists both and every sect is condemned by others Therefore Ans 1. The Churches confessions pass no such condemnation nor any moderate sober men 2. If two children fall out call one another Bastard they are never the more Bastards for that nor will the father therefore call them so else what will become of your Jesuites and Dominicans Obj. 9. The very name of Lutherans Calvinists Protestants do plainly express a Sect or party different from the Name Catholike which denoteth the true Church which only holds the true Religion And the very name Reformed is novel and no proper title of the Catholike Church but onely a cloak for your Schisme which discloseth the novelty of your Church and way Answ 1. And of how much better signification think you is the name Papist or Romanist You call your selves Catholikes and we call our selves Catholikes You scornfully call us Lutherans and Calvinists which are names that we disclaime and then argue from your own imposed names Would you have us do so by you And as for the names of Protestants and Reformed we use them not to express the Essential nature of our Religion but the Accidental Removal of your Corruptions So that though Scripture or Antiquity talke not of A Protestant or Reformed Religion by name yet it commendeth to us that same Religion which we now call Protestant 〈◊〉 Reformed but then it could not so be called because you had not then hatched your corruptions and deformities which are presupposed to our Reformation The man that fell among thieves when his wounds were healed was a Cured man whereas before he was not a cured man because not a wounded man And yet he was the same man as before and the Theeves â—hat wounded him would have made but a foolish â—lea if they would have dispossessed him of his Inâ—eritance on pretence that he is not the same man and have proved him not the same because he hath â—ot the same name it being not a Cured man that owned that inheritance before Obj. 10. Where the Catholike Church is there the Catholike Religion is and no where else But the Catholike Church is not with you but with us For you found us in Possession of the name and thing and then departed from us as Hereticks in former ages did from the Church Therefore it is not you but we that have the true Catholike Religion which is the onely safe way to salvation Answ 1. The Church must be known to be true and Catholike by the Religion which it owneth and not the Religion by the Church You begin at the wrong end As if I would prove such a thing to be a Vertue because it is in such a man as I esteem when I should rather prove him to be honest and Virtuous because that which is first proved honesty Vertue dwelleth in him 2. Did we not find the Greek Ethiopian and other Churches in possession of the name of the Catholike Church as well as you Yet you would dispossess them 3. We found you in Possession of All in your own account and all is yours if your selves must be Judges But in the account of the Greek Abassine and other Churches
we found you in Possession but of the name of A Church and not The Church a Part of the Church Catholike and not the whole a Corrupt part and not the Head 〈◊〉 the Purest part 4. We departed not from you as â— Church much less as the Catholike Church but â— corrupted Nor do we yet deny you to be a Church but to be a sound Church or the Catholike Church Concerning this and the former Queries especially when our Church was in all Ages before Lâ—ther we shall clear our selves by giving the true state of the case which will Justifie it self Christ came to be the Physician of diseased souls In his Gospel he proclaimeth his office and call them to himself for cure and prescribeth them the means But he takes the time of this life for the accomplishing it and cureth no man perfectly 〈◊〉 death His Church therefore is as an Hospital or â— City so infected that there is not one in it that is perfectly sound One of the deepest radical diseases is Pride which corrupted the blood even of the Apostles themselves So far that it broke out into such an Itch that they could not forbear contending who should be the greatest even in the presence of Christ himself He derides the controversie telling them with you it shall not be so but he that will be great shall be the servant of all This disease of Pride was still alive in part even wherever it was mortified so that such like desires of superiority were excited by it also in the Apostles successors the Pastors of the Church in following ages But it came but to a troublesome Itch till Constantines time For the nailes of Persecution did so claw it that the corrupt blood was let out and the Itch was frequently abated by the smart But when Constantine lifted up the Bishops with honors revenew and the adâ—unction of secular power to their wills or censures â—hen the itch turned to a plain Scab the corrupt â—lood continuing and the scarifying scratches of persecution ceasing But this overspread not the whole body the Catholike Church much less all aâ—ike but it seized mainly upon the Clergy who should have been examples of humility and self-denyal to the rest And principalâ—y on the Cleargy of the Romane Empire and some others that they â—nfected But on none so much as the Bishop of Rome and his Clergys For Rome being the Impeâ—ial seat and drawing to it the glory riches and observance of the world the Bishop of that place must needs be accordingly magnified and observed especially because that he being at the Emperors ear might have pleasured or displeasured almost any Prince or Prelate in the Empire At last by translation of much of the Glory to Constantinople the heat of the disease was conveyed thither too so that John of Constantinople and Gregory of Rome contended about the Universal Supremacy John laid the first â—laime to it because he was Bishop of the Imperial â—eat Gregory laies no claim to it himself but contradicteth Johns pronouncing it a note of Antichrist â—o claim the title of Universal Bishop little thinkâ—ng that his own successors would have claimed it so â—oon At last Phocas being helped by the Romane Bishop to possess the throne of his murdered Prince doth help the Pope to the Title of Universal Bishop â—nd the glory and strength of Constantinople abating Rome did the more easily hold what they had goâ— By this time the Seab was turned to a Leprosie which drew on many other concomitant diseases aâ— its symptuous The rest of the Church was some of it infected with some of the foresaid Scab some more 〈◊〉 some less and some of them still were onely troâ—bled with the old itch though none perfectly souâ— nor was that to be expected much of the Westeâ—â— parts comply with their Leprous Patriarch and â—â—mit to him while he calls himself Universal Bishoâ— and Head of the Catholike Church some conseâ—â— some say nothing though they dissent and indeâ—â— the power was got into his hand so that for fear â— persecution few durst contradict and specially wheâ— they saw no likelihood of doing good Yet some iâ— all Ages even under his nose did signifie their dislâ—â—â— and offer some help to the cure At last in Lutherâ— dayes whole Countries do withdraw from the Râ—mane Leprosie as thousands called Albigenses Wâ—â—denses c. had done before them and so free themselves from the infection and get off the very scab and make fair attempts for the Cure of the very itch Now what doth the Romane Clergy but cry out after us as Hereticks and Schismaticks and asâ—â— us where was our Church before Luther and who were of our Religion till then We answer them that if they have the Leprosie and the times before them had in most parts the scab and the former times the itch cannot we prove that we are Men as well as they unless we prove that we have the Leprosie Scab or Itch as they had Are these Essential or Integral parts of a man As humane nature is still with a Leper but Leprous and still with him that hath the Scab but scabbed so our Religion and Church was at Rome and still is but Leprous since the Usurpation before mentioned It was before that at Iâ—â—â—e but forely scabbed It was before that Rome troubled with the itch It is still in Greece Abassia and other parts but somewhat scabbed is in millions of the people free from that scab â—ho in all Ages disliked the Clergies usurpations â—â—ough we cannot expect to hear this from them in a â—eneral Councel where they are not to be But â—e take the people to be a true part of the Church â—e have separated from you as from Lepers not from the Dead We bury not your title of a â—hurch or Christians so you will adde Leprous â—nd a Leprosie proves most commonly a killing disâ—â—se We have reason to secure our selves from our infection though our love to you were never â— dear So that here 's the quarrel and here 's our defence â— all Christs Hospital in the Western part of the â—orld have much increased the disease that he would â—ave cured them of it doth not follow that any man â—â—at is cured of their Leprosie ceaseth presently to â—e a man that he that is reformed of those vices â—easeth to be a member of the Catholike Church â—r that such Reformed Churches are new things that â—ere not before The Reformation may be new as â—o the latter Ages since corruption prevailed but â—â—e Religion or Church-state is not new It s a sad case â—ith the Church when its corruptions are come to be â—â—counted of its essence so that he that will not reâ—ine the corruptions must not be accounted to be a â—hristian or a Catholike at least and he that will be â—ured must be accounted to be killed The Church â—as a Church before it catcht the Romish Scab or Leâ—rosie and therefore is a Church
their consciences 〈◊〉 when they have faln into it and know not the waâ— out again to have recourse to their faithful judicioâ—â— Guides for advice herein for the safety of their souâ—â— and so far to confess as is necessary to such advice aâ—â— safety But we do not believe that we are bound to tell the Priest of every sin no nor of every â—â—â—â—ous sin for in some cases we may have a fitter cure will not go to a Pyhsician for every prick of a pin â— cut finger which many neighbors or my self can â—re as well as he I will not so far needlesly trouble â—m Nor will I go to a bad unfaithful Physician â—hen I can have a better nor yet to an ignorant â—an because he hath got the degree of a Doctor of â—hysicke when I may go to an able man that proâ—sseth not Physick You know the Applicatiâ—n Its next said They Euangelical councels and works â— supererrogation You not Rep. We acknowledge â—hat there are many very good works 1. Which â—re the duty of some few Christians upon some speciâ—l occasions and not of all or most 2. Which are so â—he duty of those few as that yet many of them are â—aved that perform them not being not made of the â—ame necessity to salvation as some other duties are And we see not how any man can reasonably imagine â—hat there is any work more excellent than others which yet is not a duty when God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart and might and â—trength and to imploy all talents to the utmost for his Glory and that any Duty can be neglected without sin is as absurd How the Greeks and we differ in this we shall better know when you shew and prove it to us He next adds They the Merit of good Works you not We acknowledge that Good Works are pleasing to God through Christ and rewardable and they say in sence no more We thinke not meet to quarrel about the meer name They renounce and abhorre the Popish Merit of condignity ex proportione operis as is before said In the next place the confuter alledgeth his proofs of all these differences from us and consent with them The first proof is out of Act. Theolog. Witteâ—berg in Crispin de statu Eccles in these words Thâ— Greek and Romane Church are divided onely in the contoversie of Primacy and variety of Ceremony Repâ— I have not Crispinius now by me and therefore 〈◊〉 make no other answer but this that if he be truelâ— alledged yet 1. Abundance of great differences 〈◊〉 about Sacraments Orders Traditions c. may be comprised in that of Ceremony 2. Else your own Writers will tell you that this is a mistake His second proof is from Sir Edwin Sands Europâ— Specul To which I say 1. How unworthily did you conceal the multitude of differences mentioned in the same Author in the same place between you and thâ— Greeks and say there was but one 2. By Purgatory Sands tells you after he means not your Purgatory And it s known the Greeks deny it Though they think that the Saints have some less degree of glory distant from the face of God before the resurrection 3. About Transubstantiation and the Mâ—ss Sands is mistaken The Greeks hold a kind of Real presence but not Transubstantiation And the Mass of the Papists doth abundantly differ from theirs as in the denyal of Transubstantiation elevation c. may appear and is at large by many of ours eâ—pressed which may save me the labor of a recital Next the ignorant Priest would by a Syllogisme prove the Bishop a Papist and in the making of his Syllogisme he is out before he could reach the conclusion and begins again and yet would not blot out his former error so wary is he that he lose not a line of his own writing The mended Syllogisme is his Those who embrace the Communion of the Greciâ—n Church notwitstanding the error of supremacy â—annot in reason refuse the Communion of the Romane â—or the same But Mr. Ushers Church embraceth the Communion of the Greek Church notwithstanding that Error Therefore c. Repl. 1. To the Major it is â—alsly supposed that we refuse your Communion for â—hat Error alone It is for that with abundance more 2. To the Minor I answer by denying it and say you shamelesly slander the Greek Church They mainâ—ain not any Power of Governing the whole Church as the head of it and Christs Vicar general nor any infallibility c. as you do Next he will prove that Mr. Vshers Church can have no Union or Communion with the Greek Church at all and that by this Syllogisme That Church which is a member of another Church that other Church must also be a member of it But the Greek Church is no member of Mr. Ushers Church therefore Mr. Ushers is no member of the Greek Church The Minor he proveth from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople and Respons Basil Ducis Moscov Rep. 1. The part is not a part of another part a member is not a member of another co-ordinate member but of the whole 2. I say the proofs of your Minor are vain It is not two mens sayings that â—an make the Greek Church and the Protestants so dis-joyned as not to be members of the Universal Church If Italy tell France and France again tell Italy that they are no part of Europe it is not therefore true If Canterbury tell York that they are not a part of England it is not therefore true Every childe is not a Bastard that is so called by an angry brother If Patriarch Jeremiah fit yoâ—â— turn which I know not for I have not seen him why may not we as well plead the consent of Patâ—iarch Cyrill whose Protestant confession you may see in Alstedius's Euclucopaedia and elsewhere Next he comes to the Abassines where after the mention of their circumcision he as falsly affirmeth that In all other things they profess the faith of the Catholike Church acknowledging the Pope the supreme head thereof and Christs Vicar upon earth which he proves by a confession exhibited to Gregory the 13. and recorded by Possevine Rep. This is to make the foundation like the superstructure and defend falshood with falshood If you were so ignorant your selves as not to know the Romane jugling about that confession you could not imagine the learned Bishop so ignorant Not onely your own Godigam de rebus Abassinorum may tell you but the generality of your faction may sure inform you by this time that all your cunning industry cannot get the Abassines under your Papal Yoak And if you should prevail for the time to come that 's nothing to the time past The Abassines to let pass their errors wherein they differ from you and us do communicate in both kinds they believe the souls of Infants departing unbaptized to be saved because they spring from faithful parents They reject Statues â—â— massy
speculatively may yet hold the contrary truthes practically not discerning the contradiction I would gladly have shewed the vainty of the rest of that Pamphlet because I see he hath contracted most of their common cavils into a narrow room but the rest is less to our present purpose and the same things are already answered by many and therefore I shall no further Digress in the pursuit of this Confuter having already said so much against the chief of their objections as may leave the impartial Reader confirmed in it That notwithstanding the Popish cavils to the contrary it is apparent that the Christian Catholike Reformed Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to Salvation Query Whether Popery be a safe way to Salvation Neg. IT is not as other mens Judges that we determine this Question to their own master do they stand or fall but it is to render an account of our own Belief and practice and for our further confirmation in the truth for the defence of it against gain-sayers and for the establishing of our people against the sophistry and seduction of Deceivers For the explication of the terms I shall tell you 1. What I mean by Popery 2. What I mean by Salvation 3. What by the way to it 4. What by the word Safe 1. Popery is a certain farrago a mixture of many grievous errors in the doctrine of Faith Government and Worship expressed in their Authorized writings especially in their decretals and Councils corrupting the Christian Religion which they profess the whole being denominated from that one falshood that the Pope of Rome is the Universall Bishop and Visible Head of the Universal Church and Christs Vicar-General on earth and that only is the Catholike Church and those only Catholiks that so believe Where note 1. That the Papists professing to be Christians do first own the substance of Christian doctrine and then corrupt it and contradict it by this fardle of their own inventions superadded They profess to believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to be true every Book that we believe and more They profess to believe all the Articles of the ancient Creeds commonly called the Apostles the Nicene or Constantinopolitane It is not the Christianity or true doctrine which they profess which we call Popery 2. It is therefore onely their own invented corruptions by which they contradict the Christian verity which they profess which we call Popery 3. Note That the common denominating corruption is the forementioned doctrine of the Popes Universal Episcopacy and Headship or a supreamacy at least if not Infallibility and that the Catholike Church and the Romane Church is all one and the Pope is the visible center of its Unity 4. Note also that as to the rest of their corruptions they agree not among themselves what is to be esteemed of their faith or Religion and what not and therefore it cannot be expected that we should give you an exact enumeration of the points of their faith and so a compleat description of Popery which is such a self-contradicting unreconcileable hodg podge But their errors may be distributed into these three rankes 1 Those that are established by the Pope and his supposed general Councel These they all receive and own 2. Those that are established by the Popes Decretals without a Council These some own as points of their faith and some reject them I will not adde as the third those that are established by a Council without the Pope not because there never was a Council that dissented from him in Good but because it is a difficult matter at least to find any Council that did go beyond or without him in Evil or erred without his Approbation 3. The third sort therefore shall be those opinions that are commonly maintained by their most Approved Writers which are published in books that are licensed and commended by the Popes Authorized agents but are not determined by the Pope or his Council These though they contend for and lay great weight on them in their disputations yet dare they not own them as any part of the matter of their faith lest they seem to be what they are divided and mutable A man would think that those volumnious hot disputes about Divine things did intimate that the Authors did fide divinâ— believe those points which they do so zealously dispute of But if it be their pleasure that we should so distinguish we will call the rest the Popish faith or Religion and these last the Popish opinions because we would fasten on them nothing but their own If you ask me which be those doctrines which they take for points of faith which we call Popery I must refer you to their Decretals and Councils on one side and Gods word on the other and all the Doctrines in those their Canons or determinations that are against the word of God are the doctrines which we mean by this name If they do lay greater stress upon any one point than others its likely to be on those that are put into their Creeds and Vows and therefore I shall onely recite the latter half of their Tridentine Creed seeing they will own that or â—othing When they have begun with the ancient Constantinopolitane Creed containing the true Principles of Christian Religion and have ended that they proceed thus as followeth The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the Observations and constitutions of the same Church I do most firmely admit and embrace I admit also the sacred Scripture according to that sence which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sence and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and I will never take and interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I do profess also that there are seven truely and properly Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the salvation of mankind â—hough not all to every one to wit Baptisme Confirmation the Eucharist Pennance extreame Vnctiâ—n Order and Matrimony and that they confer â—race and that of these Baptisme Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacriledge I do also receive and admit the received and approved Rites of the Catholike Church in the solemne Administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments I do embrace and receive all and singular things which in the Holy Council of Trent were defined and declared about Original sin and Justification In like manner I do profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true pâ—per and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and fâ— the dead and that in the most holy Srcrament of â— Eucharist there is Truely Really and Substantiâ—â—y the body and blood together with the soul and Diâ—â—nity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there 〈◊〉 change made of the whole substance of Bread â— the Body and of the whole substance of Wine 〈◊〉 blood which change
that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God 4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts or some of them that speak of Peters own person were also spoke of certain successors of his as well as of himself as that on them the Church shall be built and their faith shall not â—ail c. 5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter 6. To this end they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus and was Bishop there but they must know that he was the only Bishop there or at least the chief and that Paul was no Bishop there who is more likely to have been or else that he was the inferior and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls or else succeedeth them both and hath his infallibility but from one unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too 7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once and if there be two which of them is to be believed when they disagree But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome the one of the Circumcision the other of the uncircumsion then it must be known by what right their successors made them one or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision when all Jews were banished from Rome and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing the Pope be not only Pauls successor 8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome yea of Antioch before Rome and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture either as to the Church oâ— the Bishop seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ as they do how shall we know whom to believe and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome 9. It must be known what it is that makes a Pope what is necessary to his being Peters successor Iâ— it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope Or that his party call him so Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror though a Lay maâ— did so he should be Pope And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peters infallible successor at any time But if there must be an ordination and Election then it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration and Election will serve or not If it will then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once they were all Saint Peters infallible successors though one condemned the other If not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of election which being the act that determineth of thâ— person is the maine that must resolve our doubts and also of consecration or ordination And hoâ— shall the people know this when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves 10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect If they have then how came they by it And then whether werâ— all those that were elected by the people in the first ages and by the Emperors in after ages true Popeâ— or not If they were not then Saint Peter hath no successors because of the interruption of the succession so long and the Church had then no visible head If they were then the sufficient power is not onely in the Cardinals And if it be not onely in them then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen onely by them of late ages 11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved when Popes have been chosen three several wayes sometime by the people or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church and sometime by the Emperors and now by titular Presbyters who are Bishops of other Churches and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome If all these several wayes of Election may make true Popes then it seems any way may serve and then the three Popes at once will be all true If not then there hath been an interruption of the succession and so according to their own Principles there can be now no true Pope 12. And here it must needs be known too whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary that he can be no true Pope without it If not then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope If there be then it must be known what that is which few private men at least do know 13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Hereticks yea judged so by Councils or by their own successors and those that were notorious Whoremongers Sodomites Murderers Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedome Simonists buying the Popedom with money c. were capable of being true Popes 14. If they are not capable then we must all know that all the Popes were none such when the Papists themselves confess they were such before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter 15. But if such may be Popes then must we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise and the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church and whether such were infallible in their judging falshood to be truth as they did 16. And we must know that the Pope onely is lawless and under no power of Canons or Decrees of former Popes and Councils Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null and so the succession still hath been interrupted And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty and so null his calling 17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre through ignorance even in universal questions of faith Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick and reach Heresie so it be without a General Council And that most of the rest do only hold that whether the Pope be
or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called If as Bellarmine saith de Concil l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifest be enough then mans error can make Gods promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for ought we know and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops but to all that seem such 25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles which is made necessary If they plead onely the Bishop of Romes succession to warrant all the rest before the forementioned particulars be well answered it will appear that Romes succession hath been frequently interrupted 26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope 27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sence of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sence of that without a living judge And if there be a living judge still of the sence of Councils either he is as infallible as they or not If not then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination If he be then what need of a Council when he is infallible alone 28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another how shall we know which of them to believe And this is no rare matter among them 29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other how shall the people know which is infallible 30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture must we take them for infallible and believe that Scripture only on their words These or most of these must be known by all Christians before they can believe the Articles of their Creed or that Scripture is Gods word according to the Romish grounds When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true they being either false or not evident and demonstrable So that it s now apparent that according to the Popish grounds the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion and that they shake the foundation of Christianity it self 2. And lastly not onely so but they build on a foundation certainly false that is the Popes infallibility or a Councils as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith or matters which they make of necessity to salvation then Popery is no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true Therefore c. We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church and they are not yet agreed among themselves nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters but in their main body The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible and that the Pope is fallible The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible and the Pope is infallible Some others think that both of them are fallible separated but both infallible when they concur And some think that they are both infallible though separated If the Church be the foundation and all must be received upon its infallible authority then no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is either therefore the French or Italians one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals when one saith This is the subject of infallibility and the other say This is it And if a Pope or General Councel differ to whom must the people hearken One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council and others of them say the Council is above the Pope and of this mind have been General Councils themselves as the Council of Basil and Constance and of this mind Bellarmine names Cardinal Cameracensis Cardinal Cusanus Joh. Gerson Iac. Almain Card. Florentin Panormitan c. What a strange impudency then is it of these men to make the silly deluded people among us believe that they are all of one mind and it s we that are divided when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental Who it is that is the infallible Judge And till men know Who it is what the better are they know that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual and no man can believe him or apply himself to him as the infallible judge till he know that it is he indeed that is such Seeing then according to their own principles either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation how shall we know which it is and which to joyn our selves to with any safety Were it not for weakening the Popes interest they would burn the French Papists as Hereticks as well as us Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year in the main parts of Popery then is it no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The consequence they will not deny that which the Apostles the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven for there are not many safe ways But that which the Papists as Papists go in is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in therefore it is not the safe way And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery but it is a new Religion or new corruption of Religion appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tryed by it which plainly shewes that they take it not to be on their side And for the Councils and Fathers for the first three hundred years or much more they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversie and therefore are unfit to determine them But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now And can they be all silent about the onely ground of faith If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground would they not have told us so How could they convert the infidels and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith And what they took for the grounds their writings
present the far purest and renounce communion with them all and proclaim them Hereticks or Schismaticks and sentence them all to the flames of Hell Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Christians that have gone before them yea that dare unchurch and damne to Hell the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years For what do they less when they unchurch and damne all that acknowledge not their new made universal Bishop which the Primitive Church never did And when they make that to be essential to the Catholike Church which the first Catholike Church did never know I know there be some Enthusiasts and Anabaptists and such giddy persons that do as the Papists do condemn all the Churches of Christ except themselves But yet the Schisme that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papists who have set the Christian world into a flame of dissention and make it their very business daily to bâ—ow â—t up and do nourish so many Colledges of Jesuites and other orders to that end What notorious impudency is it then in these men to tell us that we are schismaticks separate from them and aske us how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation and why we will not be of our forefathers Religion and do not observe how they condemne themselves by all these questions What more evident then that the Papists have separated from all other Christians in the world How dare they condemne the far greatest part of Christians on earth to eternal torment yea and by plain consequence though they will not acknowledge it the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years were it but one soul that they should presume to censure they might well bethink them of an answer to Pauls Question Who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master doth he stand or fall When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome he knew of none then that would justifie the judging of all the world and say They are my servants or subjects and therefore I must judge them Do the blind Papists think that any sober considerate impartial Christian can be of their mind and damne the most of Christs Church on earth meerly because they will not be subject to the Pope of Rome If this Article be so necessary to salvation Why do not we find it in any ancient Creed Why must we not say I believe in the Pope of Rome as well as I believe in God Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romanists that is meant by the holy Catholike Church why would not the composers of the Creed tell us so And why did none of the ancient Churches understand and expound it so And why did no age add the word Romane and call it the holy Romane Catholike Church 2. And then withal besides the present Schisme which they have made they have laid the ground of a perpetual schisme For they have made a new definition of the Catholicke Church and made it another thing then it was before and they have made a new head and center of its unity so that all the old sort of Christians to the end of the world that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and center must needs be of a different body from the Romanists And if these men say that it is the rest of the Christian world that first withdraws from them 1. Let them prove that the Greek Abassins the rest of the Christian world that deny subjection to them except these in the West were ever under them 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore I mean their forefathers to countenance the Romish usurpation tyranny they withdraw only from that usurpation separate from Rome only as it is a faction not as from a Church If we be drawn into a schism separation from all the Christian world by the fraud of Rome is it unlawful for us to repent return to the unity of the Catholike Church and to renounce the Schism that we were guilty of This is our great sin we are schismaticks because we will not continue schismaticks we are Schismaticks by casting off the Schism of Rome because we will not be Schismaticks by continuing to separate from all the Churches else on earth 3. But let us come to the tryal with them who laid the first Schismatical Principle Was it not they that first defined the Catholike Church as equipollent with the Romane and first made the universal Headship of their Pope to be the center Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apostle do so Did they give us such a definition of the Catholike Church Or did the Church do so for many a hundred year after them Prove this well and take all and we promise to turn Papists without delay The plaine truth is this The Catholike Church for many hundred years after Christ was that Body of Christians who were united or centred only in Christ the head and held communion in the fundamentals or great and necessary points of faith and worship and had no mortal head or Center But the worldly greatness of the City of Rome occasioneth the inflation and proud usurpation of her Bishop and he will needs make himself the Center of union and universal head when there was no Center or head but Christ before And is not this the vilest Schisme that men can tell how to be guilty of suppose that the King of Spaine having his Dominions remote one part from another some in Europe and some in the Indies that for five or six hundred years the Indies should acknowledge no other head but the King of Spaine and the Governors of each Province should receive their several Commissions immediately from him and stand in no regimental subordination to one another but onely be bound by the King to have communion and hold correspondence for their mutual safety and the common good If now after so long time the Vice King of Mexico shall by Degrees make himself the sovereign of the rest first claiming onely the first place in their Assemblies because he is Governor of the greatest City and then requiring them to do nothing without him or his consent and at last proclaiming himself the head of the Indies under the King of Spaine and that none are subjects to the King but those that profess themselves also subjects to him but all the rest are rebels and traytors and to be used accordingly exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and use them as such And all this upon pretence that Spain is so far off that the King there is invisible and inaccessible to them in the Indies and therefore the King hath given him a Commission to be his substitute as being more visible and accessible If now the rest of the Presidents Governors and Provinces shall refuse to acknowledge the Headship of this man and shall declare that they dare
the Apostles The third is That which is kept in the universal Church and through all times past is deservedly judged to have been instituted by the Apostles though it be such a thing as the Church might institute The fourth is When all the Doctors of the Church do with one consent teach that such a thing descended by Apostolical Tradition either Congregate in a General Councel or writing it apart in books this is to be believed to be an Apostolike Tradition The fifth Rule is this That is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition which is held for such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is entire and continued These are Bellarmines five Rules But 1. What the particular Apostolical Traditions are which are Gods Word according to these Rules he had more wit or less honesty then to let us understand Is it because the word of God is indeed yet unknown or cannot be known or because it is not fit to make it known or because the Pope must pretend to the keeping of these hidden Laws that so the world may receive them at his mouth 2. And I would fain know whether these Rules of Bellarmines to know the unwritten word by are themselves the Word of God or not If they be are they written or unwritten and how known to be so If not then it seems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word 3. And why may not another Doctor by these Rules know the unwritten word as well as the Pope and another Church as well as the Romane 4. And why may not the Christian people through the world procure from some one charitable Pope through so many hundred years a Catalogue of those unwritten verities that the word of God may be once commonly known and men may know when they have all without uncertain dependencies on the Pope or travailing in vain to Rome to know 5. And for those few that Bellarmine hath instanced in viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary The Baptisme of Infants the validity of Hereticks Baptism the fast of Lent the inferior orders of the Clergy the veneration of Images To the first I say It is no Article of Divine Faith but of humane Ecclesiastical The second is proved fully out of Scripture And so is the third if you take it of such Hereticks in a larger sence as expresly exclude nothing essential to baptism but expresly include it all But for the rest Bellarmine should remember how elswhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by the Paulinists because they were Anti-trinitarians For Lent I say no more can be proved of it but onely that it is an ancient Ecclesiastical constitution And the inferior orders are apparently novelties introduced after the first age if not the second too and not mentioned in any of the first writers but the sum of Church Officers enumerated without them Much more novel is the unlawful use of Images in Churches or as immediate instruments to excite devotion in prayer and for other lawful use we deny it not 6. But principally I would intreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us but what is proved to be such at least by his own Rules Let us have some proof that it proceedeth from the universal Church and not their naked word without evidences And then we must intreat them to be so honest as not to unchurch the Greeks Abassines Armenians Protestants and all the Christians in the world except Romanists that so they may be the whole Catholike Church and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Testimony alone Nor yet to perswade us that such a Council as theirs at Trent conteined the whole Catholike Church real or representative nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers and say that those were all the Doctors of the Church More particularly I answer to his Rules in order To the first I say 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word 2. If the whole Church embrace it then it is no secret and therefore we all may know it yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope To the second Rule I say You may prove a mistaken observance of rites by the greater part of the Church but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten which none could constitute but God But if they did still it must needs be known to all and therefore not controvertible or lockt up in the Popes closet Prove also that the universal Church may not erre in some lesser matters about Christs supposed constitutions To the third I say If by all times past you include the Apostles then we grant your Rule but meer Ecclesiastical Canons may be observed through all times shortly after the Apostles and yet not as Apostolical but Ecclesiastical Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule I am not out of doubt that you will but disgrace them and fail your Readers just expectations To the fourth I say 1. I will believe you if you speak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apostles or so neer as that the danger of mistaking was not great 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions asserted to be Gods Word by all the Doctors of the Church not neer all in any one age unless you make your faction to be all The last Rule is but a meer trick of wit to get the key into the Popes hand alone To which I say 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted succession of true Pastors from the Apostles may fall into many errors in process of time which in Tertullians and Irenaeus dayes when the memory of all the Apostles practices were so fresh they could not fall into so easily 2. Those Churches have received their unwritten verities either by writings from their predecessors or without If by writings why cannot others find it there as well as they If without it must be an uncertain and mutable means or by a means so publike still that all as well as they may know of it 3. And we undertake to prove that the succession of true Pastors of the Romish See hath been long ago and often interrupted And therefore this Rule will not serve your turns But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papists to prove the uncertainty of their faith yet the next is the chief that I intended which also proveth the mutability of it 2. The Papists ordinarily hold that as to us that is Gods Word which the Pope with his Clergy say is Gods Word
and so to eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup Alas they know all this they cannot but know it and yet they will contradict the express word of God God saith Drink ye all of it and Let a man examine himself and so drink The Pope saith Let none of the people drink of it but the Clergy only What is this but to abrogate Gods Laws and set up the Popes above and against it Yea unless it were to shew the world their Power to contradict Christ and destroy his word who can imagine what should move them to this attempt If there were any temptation of profit or honor in the business as there is in the maintaing of the Popes supremacy Purgatory Indulgences Pardons c. we should not wonder at it But what profit or honor or pleasure is it thus to contradict Christ and for them that adde such a multitude of their own Ceremonies to affect so to cut off one half of the Sacramental Rite and matter which Christ ordained Nay thirdly Do not these men know that the Bread and Cup were both given to the people by the Primitive Church and that it so continued for many hundred years and that their alteration is a meer novelty Yes they know all this For the matter is so far past doubt that they cannot but know it And yet these deceivers would make the people believe that they are of the old Religion and our Region is new These are they that cry out against our casting off Apostolical Traditions and the Churches constitutions and customs and going in new wayes which our forefathers knew not These are they that make it a mark of an Apostolical Tradition that the whole Church hath received it and that as from the Apostles And yet these men dare cast off not onely that which they know the whole primitive Church received and practised as from the Apostles as Justin Martyr Tertullian and all antiquity profess but also is expresly contained in the Scripture With what face can these that exclaim against novelty introduce such a palpable novelty into the Church with what face can they that so cry up antiquity gainsay all antiqiuty and they that cry up the whole Churches consent so go against the consent of the whole Church for so many Ages after the Apostles They dare not deny but this part of Popery is utterly New against the constant practice and Canons of all Churches The third point which I shall instance in is Their performing Gods publike service in Latine and forbidding the people to read the Scriptures in their known vulgar Tongue when as the Apostle Paul hath written the greatest part of a whole Chapter 1 Cor. 14. expresly against this opinion and practice and for using of a known tongue that others may understand and be edified The evasions by which they would elude that part of Scripture are so senceless that I think it not necessary to recite them but rather suppose that they need no other confutation than the bare considerate reading of the Text and therefore I shall venture the Reader if he have common capacity and impartiality and be but willing to know the truth upon any thing that the Papists shall be able to say for their Latine Service and locking up the Scriptures so be it he will but read that Chapter considerately And are not these good Teachers in Christs School that will lock up the Grammar from their Schollars when it is the very office of the Presbyters to teach it the people And to hide from them that word of the living God which he hath given the world to be their Directory to salvation The Prophets and Christ and the Apostles did speak and write this word in a knowâ— tongue to the people to whom they did immediately direct it And must All hear and read it then and onely the Learned now Are not these the men that take away the Key of knowledge and will neither enter in themselves nor suffer others to enter They do expresly contradict the Commands of God and bid the people not read the Scripture when God hath charged them to write it on the very posts of their houses and on their doors and that it be as a frontlet between their eyes and that they teach it their children speaking of it lying down and rising up at home and abroad Deut. 6 11. God makes it the mark of the Blessed man Psal 1.2 3. To meditate day and night in his Law as making it his delight and the Papists commonly maintain in their writings that to have the Scripture in the vulgar tongue is the root of all heresies God maketh the study of his word the duty and mark of all his Disciples and the Papists make it the mark of a Heretick and have burned many a one for it here in Queen Maries dayes and tormented and burnt many by their bloody inquisition for it abroad The very Pharisees thought that their vulgar were cursed that knew not the Law and the Papists will not let it be made known to them lest it make them accursed God saith To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 The Papists cry out precul hinc away let it alone meddle not with it it will make you Hereticks And indeed they have had large experience that the way which they call heresie and contradicteth their impieties is most effectually promoted by the word of God and therefore they think they have some reason to speak against it Saint John saith These things are written that ye might believe and that believing yee might have life throagh his name Joh. 20.31 The Papists say Read not these holy writings lest they destroy your faith and bring you to damnation When the man Luk. 10.26 asketh Christ What shall I do to inherit eternal life Christ answereth him thus What is written in the Law how readest thou directing to the course which the Papists do forbid The Apostle saith that Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope Rom. 15.4 But the Papists will not have men learn that which was written for their Learning Comfort and Hope Johâ— wrote to fathers young men and children 1 John 2.12 13 14. Gods anger against the Jews was that He had written to them the great or wonderful things of his Law and they had accounted them as strange things Hos 8.12 And the Papists will force people to be strange to these writings Yet how familiar comparatively they were to the vulgar Jews and their very children â—s known and acknowledged Is it not a high advancement of the Gospel Church above the legal Jewish Church which the Papists do vouchsafe it That we may not have the same liberty or means of knowledge as the very children of the Jews had Their children must be taught
that They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sence of the greatest part of Scripture and so they are sworn to take it in no sence because the fathers are not unanimous 2. He that knows not the unanimous sence of the Fathers where they are unanimous is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sence 3. If by The Church whose sence they also swear to admit be meant the present Romane Church then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith yea which in this oath they swear to which are against much more without the unanimous consent of the Fathers The Fathers never consented to this very Article that we must take and interpret the Scripture onely in the unanimous sence of the Fathers They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sence of the Fathers and withal swear the contrary in particulars even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to but against Never did the Fathers consent that There are seven truely and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ Never did the Fathers consent who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before that the Council of Trent did not erre or could not erre Nor That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind and the Cup withheld nor That there is a Purgatory or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful nor that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to Nor that Images were to be worshiped nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church and the use of them wholsome Never did the Fathers consent that the Romane Church is the Mistris of all Churches or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christs Vicar Let these proud deceivers shew us if they can when the Fathers or any one of the Ancients did ever take any such oath himself or perswade others to it Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith and Trent oath What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed and withal swear to believe that Christ never dyed rose or ascended or that there is no resurrection or everlasting life Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction and the profession of it plain perjury then Popery is not a safe way to Salvation I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors formerly called Heresies which the ancient Church hath testified against and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned or insisted on as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby Satisfactions and many Semipelagian errors Image-worship with many the like But that this is beyond my present intended scope and purposed brevity and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines Let us next here what is said of most moment to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption is a safe way to Salvation For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles Therefore c. Ans 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question It is Popery that we are disputing of and this argument instead of Popery speaks of The Religion of the Church of Rome The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts First the Christian Faith Secondly their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which â—e profess The second is it that we call Popery and â—ay It is no safe way to salvation 2. And of this I deny the Minor and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in thâ— West And even the multitudes still dissented and some opposition was still made against it and all the Esterne Churches and the rest of the Christian world did dissent Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Vsher de contin successione slatu Eccles Occident and his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge and by Bishop Jewell and Doctor Field and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus which shew us that he setled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholike Church and taught the people to believe as the Church believes that is to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves it is then an easie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn then they may say The Fathers are for them and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter when there is never a true word in it Then they may frame and forge new Decretals and cut out of the Ancient Writers thâ— which is against them and bring forth spurious writings under their names and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther for its easie to prove any thing where themselves are the Judges and no witnesses but their own must be heard But if they dare leave that hold and come into the light its easie to evince the novelty of Popery though not of every particular error they hold Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church then Popery is a safe way to salvation
must lye upon the exposition of them The points absolutely necessary to salvation are plainly delivered 2. Obscurity shews the need of a Teacher but not of a Judge At least its plain that when any Teacher shall remove the obscurity those texts oblige us as well as the plainest 3. As I said If the Pope be Judge of all difficult controverted texts he is an unfaithful Judge that will not expound them to us and decide so many controversies as yet depend What good will it be to the Church to have such a Judge of difficult controverted texts of Scripture as in the consciousness of his ignorance dare not give us his judgement but hath left them undecided these fifteen hundred years This dumbe Oracle that hath eyes and sees not and a mouth but speaks not is not a fit foundation for the Churches Faith 5. Where God calleth men to Office and Power he accomplisheth or fitteth them in some measure for the performance of it but God hath not fitted all Popes no nor any to Jugde Decisively of all controverted difficultyes in Scripture and Religion Therefore he hath not made them Judges of them The Minor shall be further proved anon Many Popes have been ignorant and unlearned many Heretickes unfit to decide all such controversies and they have shewed their unfitnesse by their non performance or ill performance The great Objection of the Papists is this Obj. 1. What! Shall every one be the Judge of Scripture and take it in what sence he please shall every unlearned man or woman expound it according to their own fancies then we shall have variety of expositions Whether is it fitter for the Church or every simple fellow to be Judge Answ 1. Neither Hath God made subjects to be Judges of his Lawes by which they must live and by which they must be judged Neither they nor your Pope must be Judges of the Lawes in a proper sence but obeyers of it 2. We say not that the people should expound the Scriptures as Teachers of others unless in their own callings as to the children servants c. when they are able This we reserve to the Officers of the Church 3. Nor do we say that any people must expound Scripture according to their own fancies or mis-guided conceits but according to the true meaning of them 4. Nor should they in difficult cases which are past their understandings presume of their own wit to know the right meaning but have recourse to the Teachers that God hath set over them that so by their help they may learn the meaning of that word which they understood not 5. And if their Teachers be singular or give them just cause to suspect their skill or fidelity they have more reason to regard the Judgement of the Judicious then of the ignorant and of the whole Church then of any one or few so far as the credit or authority of men must support a learner while he is a learning 6. But what Is it indeed such a monstrous heretical conceit in the eyes of a Papist that every Christian should have a Judicium discretionis a Judgement of discerning to perceive and discern which is truth and which is falshood Good Lord whether will the heat of contention carry men Why if they must not have this discerning judgement 1. Then God doth bind them all to be fools and ignorant 2. And then Religion and the Christian Faith are the endowments of bruits that know not what they hold or do and not of Reasonable men 3. Or else they that will be Christians must have no Faith or Knowledge which is a contradiction Is not Faith an act of discretion Must not he that believeth the Resurrection and Everlasting Life believe them with his own understanding And doth he not in believing them Judge them to be True and Judge the contrary doctrine to be false 4. Why will you read or preach Scripture to the people if you would not have them receive it by a judgment of discerning would you not have their judgment discern the Truth of what God hath written or the Priest shal preach to them 5. Doubtless you will allow them a judgement of Discretion about the Popes Decrees and Canons and your own Determinations How can they believe you if they do not by judgement discern the things you say to be true And why will you not allow them the like towards God and his Word Will you say It is their duty to believe the Pope and their sin to believe God Or it s their duty to understand the Popes Laws and their sin to understand Gods Laws Why what do you say less when you yield them a judgement of discretion as to the Pope or Church and deny it in Respect to the Word of God If you say that they will misunderstand the Scripture I ans 1. So will the Pope and the best and wisest man on earth in some part because while we are here we know but in part 2. Their error is their sin But doth it follow that they may not see at all for fear of missing their way Must they put out their eyes and be led by the Pope for fear of erring Must they not know or labor to know for fear of mistaking Will any Master take this well of his servant to put out his eyes or do nothing for fear of doing his work amiss Or refuse to go his journey lest he miss the way Then we must not judge of the Popes Laws neither and consequently not judge them to be true for fear of erring in our judgement When you prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church would you not have the people judge of your proof for fear of erring This is even to make beasts of Christians 3. What are Teachers for but to guide them and help them to understand If you are afraid lest they should erre be the more diligent in instructing them But this is the difference between the work of a Popish Teacher and ours They make it their work to put out mens eyes that they may have the loading of them because they are troubled with an imperfection in their sight and therefore will erre if those imperfect eyes be left in their heads we make it our work by all means we can use to cure their eye sight that they may be able to see themselves in the mean time advising them while their eyes are under cure not wholly to trust to them but to use the helpe of others to shew them the way and to tell them of dangers The Protestant will set his Childe to School that he may learn to know that which through childishness he knows not But according to the Popish way we should forbid them all books or learning lest they misunderstand them and let them never know any thing lest they know amiss The next step is to send them to Bedlam The Apostle would have men have their senses exercised to discern Good
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
the ancient Church do any such thing As other Bishops condemned Heresies as well as the Pope so many a Heresie was judged such by the faithful without any more interposition of the Pope then another Bishop Having seen thus how little their great Champion hath to say for the Popes infallibility I could willingly have look't about me into some of the rest of them to see if they can say any more but that it s known that most of them tread the same path Only I may not over pass the new way that some of them have taken up of late to prove their infallibility and to avoid their common Circle And this you may see in the Jesuites late superficial answer to Chilling worth Forsooth they tell us that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture it is but for our sakes because we confess the Authority of Scripture but not of their Church But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter then they set the Church before the Scripture and independantly of it The reason of this Jesuite supposed to be Knot is this Because the Church is before the Scripture and because the Miracles wrought by the Apostles did first prove their own infallibility and from thence secondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Romane infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture and before the belief of it he tells â—s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apostles proved their infallibility which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Victory over all sorts of enemies conversion of Infidels all which Notes are daily more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last And withall he tells us that These Miracles c. prove them to be infallible in All things and not onely in some or else we cannot know which those some be and what to believe and what not Thus you have the sum of the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth But all these Knots are easily losed without cutting yea shake them onely and they fall loose like Juglers Knots 1. We easily grant that Christ the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himself delivered in the flesh as it containeth many things superadded to the old Testament and the doctrine of John Baptist 2. It s evident that Christ himself gathered his first Gospel-Church by preaching his Doctrine that is he drew them to be his Disciples by convincing them that he was the Messiah the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world so that this his Doctrine was before this his Church 3. We grant that the Apostles were Apostles before themselves did preach the Gospel as Apostles But it was the Gospel and preacht by Christ before they preach't it 4. We easily grant that both Apostles and Gospel were long before the writing of this Gospel which we call the holy Scriptures 5. We grant that the Apostles Miraculous works did sufficiently prove not some onely but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it in the name of Christ and as his For though they confirmed onely those Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commission yet seeing God would not have set to this seal if they had gone beyond and against their Commission therefore it also assureth us that they kept close to it But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commission nor afterward in any point which they should deliver as their private opinion which they fathered not on the Inspiration of the Spirit The Apostles were not infallible about Christs Death Resurrection and Ascension when they understood them not The Disciples were not infallible about the Acceptableness of Infants to Christ when they forbad them to be brought Thomas was not infallible about Christs Resurrection when he believed it not Peter was not infallible when he gave Christ that Satanical councel for which he was â—antum non almost excommunicated Mat 16.22 23. Even presently after the great promise to him Nor when he denyed that he knew Christ with curses and oathes nor when he dissembled and Barnabas with him Gal. 2. 6. We maintain that the Apostles Doctrine thus sealed by Miracles and Delivered in Writing to the Churches doth carry with it an Attestation from God of its infallibility if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Intitled The Vnreasonableness of Infidelity 7. It is this sealed Doctrine contained in Scripture and preached by Ministers which converteth men to Christ and maketh them Christians and therefore it is in order before the present Church and the cause of it 8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commissioned the Pope to do the work which he Commissioned the Apostles to do and gave them the power of Miracles to confirme that is to Attest the Works Sufferings Resurrection and words of Christ as eye or ear witnesses of them from himself and to be the first promulgators of some of his Laws to the universal Church and to deliver down an infallible sealed Scripture to all succeeding Ages and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world Let him shew his Commission for this Apostleship if he would be believed 9. We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet or is inspired by the Holy Ghost as the Prophets and Apostles were that so they might infallibly deliver us Christs doctrine 10. And they cannot expect that we should believe till we have some proof of it that the Pope or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles or are endowed with a spirit of Miracles or that they can convince those that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church or that ever they confirmed those points by Miracles which is now called Popery Thus much to let the Jesuite know where we differ from him And now to the point We call for his proofs which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non esse non apparere are to us all one Give us sufficient proof of your sealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles or the Popes Infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles did the Scriptures and their preaching and then you shall carry the cause and we profess that we will rejoycingly pass into your Tents and proclaim you Prophets or Apostles of Christ But when we live among you and so did our Fathers before us and hear you prate and boast of Miracles when we cannot see that ever you did so much as make a dead flea alive again nor cannot see the least Miracle from you if we would
written by Laertius than the Lives of the Saints are by Christians and Suetonius did far more incorruptly and more entirely set forth the affairs of the Romane Caesars then Catholikes have set forth I say not the affairs of Emperors but of Martyrs Virgins and confessors For they But ours do for the most part either follow their own affections or else of set purpose forge so many things that indeed I am not onely ashamed of them but also aweary of them For I know that these have brought to the Church of Christ small profit but much disprofit I spare mens names because It is certain that they who write Church History feignedly and deceitfully cannot be good and sincere men and that their whole Narration is invented either for lucre or for error whereof one is filthy and the other pernicious The complaint of Ludovicus is most just of some feigned Histories in the Church He doth indeed prudently and gravely reprove them that take it to be a matter of piety to forge lyes for Religion A thing that is very pernicious and no whit necessary For we are wont not to believe a Lyar even when he tells truth They therefore who by false and lying writings would stir up the minds of mortal men to worship the Saints these seem to me to have done nothing else then to make men deny belief to truths because of falshoods To what purpose is it to pretend the name of History to fictions and fables As if the holy men of God did need our Lyes But while some do too much indulge their own affections and write those things which the writers mind and not the Truth doth dictate they make us such Saints sometime as the Saints themselves would not be if they could Can any man believe that Saint Francis was used to take the Lice on him again which he had shak't off him The Writer thought this was part of the mans holiness but so do not I who know that the holy man was pleased with poverty but not with filthyness And how ridiculous is this that the Divel raging on a time against our father Dominicke was constrained by this Saint to hold the candle so long in his hands till it did not onely trouble him but incredibly pain him Such examples cannot be numbred but in these few most of the rest may be understood which have darkened the histories of the most famous Saints They do therefore exceedingly wrong the Church of Christ who think they do not well set forth the excellent deeds of the Saints unless they adorn them with feigned Revelations and Miracles Wherein the impudency of men hath neither spared the Holy Virgin nor the Lord Christ Of late years when I was at the Council of Trent I heard by some that Aloysius Lippomannus was healing this disease by writing a history of the Lives of the Saints in a constant and grave speech But I could never yet see this nor any other which I could allow of all those that have come into my hands So far for Melch. Canus And do their own most Learned and Judicious Writers cry out of Lyes and Histories so much more false then the Heathens and impudent forgeries and say that they never saw any of these Histories which they could allow of and yet must we needs make these the Foundation of our Faith instead of the sealed Word of God What a Religion have the Papists that is built on such a foundation Yea of the reports of some of the late Writers that were next before Popery I will add a few more words of Canus ib. li. 11. pag. 337. Cicero thought Demosthenes nodded somtime and Horace thought so of Homer himself For though they were excellent yet but men And the same perhaps may I say justly and truly of Beda and Gregory One of them in his History of the English the other in his Dialogues do write certain Miracles talk't of and believed by the vulgar which the criticks of this age will judge to be uncertain I should have more approved those Histories if their authors had according to the aforesaid rule to severity of judgement joyned more care in their choice And how he lets fly at the lyes of Antonius and Valvacen The next page shews And page 338.339 how he censures Eusebius himself But I must forbear more such citations lest I weary the Reader It is now long since Doctor John White told them of their Cajetans words who saith It cannot be known infallibly that the Miracles upon which the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints are true And their Antoninus Florent saith of the visions of Bernard and Brigit about the Virgin Maries conception They are fantastick visions and mens dreams And their Claudius Espeucaeus saith No stable is so full of dung as the Legends are full of fables Yea very fictions are in their portesses And Gerson All these the Church receives and permiteth them to be read not as certainly true but more attending to what might be in pious recogitation then to what indeed was done And Doctor White then made a challenge to them that we will admit of all those Miracles which are reported by such men as some of their own Writers do openly Note for Lyars Which challenge the Popish Replyer had no mind it seems to take up But though it belong to the Romanists to prove their Miracles which prove their Infallibility without Scripture and not to us to prove the Negative yet I shall try to shame their confidence by a few pertinent Questions when it shall appear how little they have to say in answer to them Q. 1. And first I desire to know of them whether the Miracles that prove their infallibility without Scripture are wrought by the Present Church or by the Church of former ages onely If by the present why cannot we see them Why are we still sent to Saint Brigit or Saint Francis or Saint Somebody that is long ago dead and gone We thought once we had had one neer us here I mean the Boy of Bilson who did wondrous things in favor of the Papists but in the Issue by the industry of Bishop Morton he was proved to be a counterfeit and confessed himself trained up by the Papists for the cheat But if it onely the Generations that are dead and gone that wrought Miracles then I would further aske 1. Doth it not seem then that your Church is Apostate in that it hath lost the gift of Miracles which you suppose so necessary And how will the Gifts of your predecessors prove your present infallibility any more then the Gifts of the predecessors of the Greek Bishops will prove their infallibility that now are 2. If past Miracles may serve without present then what need any more than the old Miracles of the Apostles And then why are not all the Apostles successors infallible as well as the Pope Seeing all the Apostles had the gift of Miracles
forbear to reckon up any more because the Reader may find it done so fully already in so many and the excuses of Bellarmine by Chamier and many others so fully answered and because it is a thing so far out of question that nothing but gross ignorance or impudency can deny it It is so common a thing for Popes to contradict and repeal one anothers Decrees that their Platina in vita Stephani saith Following Popes do alway either infringe or wholly abrogate the Decrees of the former Popes Erasmus Annot. in 1 Cor. 7. saith Pope John the 22. and Pope Nicolas are contrary one to another in their whole degrees and that in things that seem to belong to the business of Faith Lyra in Mat. 16. saith that Some Popes have Apostatized Occham shews that many things in the Docretals do savor of Heresie One Pope teacheth Emanuel King of Portugal to marry two sisters Another teacheth our King Henry 8 to marry his brothers wife And even Pope Paul 4. with his Council of Trent decree that it should be lawful for him to allow those degrees to marry together which God in Leviticus had forbidden and to forbid those which God had allowed which was a judicial error of the Pope and his Council as many more in that Council were But I will add another Argument like the last which is as followeth Argu. 4. If the Pope be infallible then all the writings of all Popes are of infallible verity But all the writings of all Popes are not of infallible verity Therefore the Pope is not infallible The consequence of the Major Proposition will be denyed by Bellarmine unless it be limited to such writings by which the Pope doth teach the Church in matters of faith Though indeed they will never prove him infallible in Teaching the Church while they confess him fallible in his own judgement yet let us for disputation sake grant them this But then for the proof also of the Minor I proceed thus All the Theological writings of Leo Gregory Gelasius Nicolus 1. Adrian 6. and other Popes are not infallible But all these writings were to teach the Church in matters of faith Therefore all the Popes writings which are to teach the Church in matter of Faith are not infallible I think no â—ober Papist will maintain that all these writings are infallible And that they are written about matters necessary to be believed or done for our salvation is evident to any man that readeth them And if they were not written to teach the Church to what end were they written Do Popes publish writings about matters of Religion and not to teach the Church by them If they say it is but to teach part of the Church I answer 1. What part is it and where is the limitation expressed for example of Gregories Dialogues Morals de officio Pastoris c. 2. The Pope in a Provincial Council may teach but part of the Church and yet Bellarmine saith that he is there infallible Moreover if all the Popes writings be infallible from his gift of infallibility then they are equal to the Scriptures nay what are they but Gods word and all Popes are Apostles or Prophets that is inspired men of which more anon but that 's false Therefore Obj. These writings come not from the Pope as Pope but as a private Doctor and so he may err Answ Can the Pope lay by his relation when he is teaching the Church do it as a meer private Doctor when he is not a meer private Doctor It is a hard strait that the Papists are in to tell us and themselves when the Pope teacheth as a private Doctor and when as Pope They are never likely to be agreed about this among them And all that we have for it is but the private word of Bellarmine and some such disputers but we have no Scripture Canon or Decretal to tell us how we shall know one from the other If therefore we have no infallible means to know when the Pope teacheth as a Pope and when as private Doctor then we have no infallible means to know when he teacheth infallibly But the former is most certain therefore so is the later And so if the Pope were infallible it would do us no good If they draw forth rational probabilities and make every private man judge of them they may as well warrant men by such means to judge of the sence of Scripture which they so much abhor Argu. 5. If General Councils be infallible or to be credited then the Pope is fallible But according to one party of the Papists a General Council is infallible therefore the Pope is fallible The consequence of the Major is easily proved 1. Because General Councils have differed from the Pope 2. Yea they have deposed divers Popes and that for heresie charging divers Articles against them as also for wickedness of life The Council at Pisa deposed two Popes at once Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. and in the tenor of their deprivation call them Notorious schismaticks hereticks departed from the faith scandalizing the whole Church cut off from the Church unworthy the Papacy The Council of Constance deposed the same Pope Benedict again commanding all men to esteem him as an heretick and schismatick The same Council deposed also John 23. accused for holding and defending as his judgement that there is no eternal life nor immortality of the soul nor resurrection of the dead and so was a stark infidel Concerning this Pope I would desire the impartial Reader to observe what a miserable answer Bellarmine is put to give and whether it do not plainly give up their whole cause His words are these de Pontif. li. 4. c. 14. Respondeâ— Johannem 23. non fuisse Pontificem omnino certum indubitatum proinde non necessario esse defendendum erant enim eo tempore tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius 12. Benedictus 13. Johannes 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis corum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex cum non deessent singulis doctissimi patroni That is I answer that John the 23. was not a Pope altogether certain and undoubted and therefore it is not necessary that he be defended for at that time there were three that would be taken for Popes Gregory the 12. Benedict the 13. and John 23. and it could not easily be judged which of them was true and lawful Pope seeing there were not wanting to each of them most learned Patrons So far Bellarmine Where observe 1. That even learned men yea General Councils and the Church may be uncertain which is the true Pope It s worth the enquiring then whether they be not uncertain that the Romane succession is interrupted and uncertain at that time whether God had any word or what was the sence of it and whether it was certain to them that the Church failed not when they had no certainty of the
head and whether their head and so their Church were then visible or invisible when they could so hardly be known And note that Bellarmine doth disclaim the Com-popes with this John 23. and saith elsewhere that it was most likely that this was the true Pope They have brought their glorious head Church and infallibility to a fair pass Besides this the General Council at Basill did shortly after depose Pope Eugenius the forth declaring him to be A rebel against the holy Canons a notorious disturber and scandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church a Simonist and a perjured wretch incorrigible a schismatick and an obstinate heretick To this Bellarmine hath not a word to say but onely that the Council did him wrong and at Lansanna undid their acts And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may erre which he maintaineth 2. And that a Pope may be a heretick and to be deposed in the judgement of a General Council And are the Papists forced to yield us thus much I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papists surviving him whether that General Councils do erre in faith and be Hereticks or not for that their judgement If they do so err then where is the visibility of their Church with the rest of its privileges which they so boast of when its Representative body a General Council are Hereticks as thinking the Pope to be fallible But if they erred not de fide or were no hereticks 1. Then its seems the Popes infallibility is no fundamental 2. Then it seems we are no hereticks neither for denying that which General Councils of Papists pretended by them to be General have denyed 3 Nay why should they be angry with men for erring such an error as they account it which their own general Councils may one after another erre Argu. 6. From the Papists own open known confession If the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and Council to be fallible they have little reason to blame us for affirming the samewhich they confess But the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and General Council to be fallible Therefore c. I do not mean that all the Papists confess it of both but one part of them confess it of one and the other of the other of them Bellarmine and his fellow Jesuites with the Italian party do confess that a General Council may erre in matters of Faith The French and Venetian Papists with all the Doctors of their party affirm that the Pope may erre and be a heretick and teach heresie so that by the confession of one half of them a Council may erre and by the confession of the other half the Pope may erre If any imagine that though both may erre dis-junctly yet not conjunctly I shall onely now say that the concession that each of them dis-junctly may err destroyeth the force of all those Arguments which are brought for their infallibility and therefore will prove it of them also conjunctly But we have yet further proof Argu. 7. If the very substance of Popery be nothing but a fardell of errors brought in by the Pope and his Council to corrupt the Christian Religion among them then certainly the Pope and his Council may erre But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent All the Question being of the Antecedent and it being proved before in the former disputation and fully by our writers against them I shall thither for brevity refer you What impudency is it to introduce such abundance of corruptions contrary to the express word of God and after all this to say they cannot erre when they have so plagued the Church with their errors They teach men to serve God in an unknown tongue and speak and hear they know not what to worship the Bread with divine Worship to receive onely the bread when Christ ordained that they should have the cup and so do abolish one half of the Sacrament they adore the Virgin Mary and other Saints they plead for justification by the merit of their own works as having a condignity of the reward they make the Church a new thing by making a new head and center of unity and a new and daily mutable Religion in a word they poison both Church policie Worship and Doctrine by their errors and when they have done they stand to it that they cannot erre Like a Leper that should maintain he cannot possibly be Leprous when he is covered with it already or like a swearing or drunken beast that should swear that he never did swear nor was drunk nor ever can be when he lyeth drunk in the dirt and breaths out his oaths What need any impartial diseerning man any other proof that the Pope and the Church of Rome is not infallible then actually to observe the swarm of their errors that have troubled the Church Argu. 8. If the Popes themselves are to be believed or if they are not to be believed they are not infallible But either they are to be believed or not Therefore If they be not to be believed what need there any more proof If they are what need there also any more proof when they themselves confess themselves fallible Not a Pope for above six hundred years after Christ did ever pretend to infallibility as can be proved Pope Adrian the sixth one of the most Learned and best that ever they had this many hundred years hath written his judgement that the Pope may erre And I think he is liker to know himself as to his infirmities than any of his flatterers are His words are these De Sacram. Confirm art 4. ad fin Dico quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus puta Pontifex certum est quod possit errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem haere sin per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo plures enim fueâ—unt Pontifices Romani haeretici That is I say that if by the Church of Rome be meant the Head of it to wit the Pope it is certain that he may erre even in those things that touch the faith by asserting heresie by his Determination or Decretal for there have many Popes of Rome been hereticks Thus you hear what a Pope sayes of himself Argu. 9. If the Pope be infallible then either it is his mind in believing or his tongue in speaking or his pen in writing that is infallible But it is neither his Mind nor Tongue nor Pen Therefore he is not infallible 1. That his mind is not infallible in point of belief is confest by the Papists themselves One part of them saying he may erre and the other maintaining that he may be a hereticke and that many have been so That his tongue and pen is not infallible when his understanding erreth is plain 1. In that otherwise he should be infallible in dissembling and God is feigned to promise a man to keep his tongue from error when he
Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lye They that receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved are threatened to be given up to delusions and therefore have no certainty of being infallible They that choose their own wayes God will choose their delusions Isa 64.4 There is no communion between light and darkness Christ and Belial therefore no infallibility with the children of Belial Of all men naturally till Christ illuminate them by special grace it is said in Scripture that they are blind deceived lyars of no understanding receiving not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 Prov. 28.5 Rom 3.11 Prov. 6.32 9.4.10 15.21 7.7 12.11 2 Pet. 1.9 2 Tim. 3.13 Tit. 3.3 It is onely the elect that cannot be deceived even in the foundation Mat. 24.24 None of the wicked shall understand but the wise shall understand Dan. 12.10 They are threatned to be given over to blindness that they may not understand Isa 6.9.10 Act. 28.26 27 Mar. 4.12 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Psal 111.10 God promiseth to teach the humble Psal 25. but the proud he still resist when he giveth to the humble his grace 1 Pet. 5.5 Jam. 4.6 And not onely the minds of the wicked but their tongues are deceitful even when they know the truth so that a wicked Pope may lye and deceive Psal 36.3 Prov. 12.5 Mar. 7.22 Rom. 3.13 I confess that a wicked man may have some kind of superficial knowledge of all those doctrines dis-junctly at least which are known to true Believers but as he hath no solid knowledge of them so he hath no promise or assurance of infallibility in that which he is capable of knowing Nor is it so like that a blind deceitful man should be universally orthodox And for the Minor that many Popes have been notoriously wicked I need not prove it while their own Historians and disputers too do so commonly confess it It s well known what wickedness the Councils that deposed them charged upon some and what poisoning and other murders Simony conjuration incest common adulteries and other wickedness is by the writers of their lives and other Historians charged on so many more that I should but trouble the weary Reader to no purpose to cite them Read the lives of Pope Sylvester the Witch the 2. Alexander the 3. and the 6. John 13. and the 22. and the 23. Gregory the 7. Vrbane the 7. c. in Platina Luitprandus Fasciculus temporum Martinus Polonus c. Ticinus hist li. 6. of John 13. shews that his sins were proved in Council that he ravished and committed filthiness with maids widows and wives at the Apostolick doors committed many murders drunk to the Devil and at Dice ask't help of Jupiter and Venus and at last was slain in the act of adultery See of Sylvester 2. Fascic temp an 1004. Martin Polonus Anno. 1007. Platin. in ejus vita Of Boniface the 7. See Baronius himself anno 985. n. 1. Of Alexander the 6. see Guicciardine hist li. 1. and Onuphrius vit Alex. 6. But I will name no more Argu. 15. Other Bishops and Churches who have as good a pretence to plead for their infallibility as the Bishop and Church of Rome are yet generally acknowledged fallible even by themselves and by the papists Therefore the Pope and Church of Rome also are fallible All that 's doubtful is whether any other Churches or Bishops have as fair a plea for infallibility as the Romane which I prove thus 1. The Plea of the Romanists is that their Bishop is the successor of an Apostle who was infallible and so the Promises belonging to him do belong also to his successors And the successors of the rest of the Apostles may have the same plea For all the Apostles after the Holy Ghost fell on them were infallible as well as Peter And therefore their successors have as fair a plea as Peters successors Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter Answ 1. There can no greater a promise to Peters successors be shewed then was made Mat. 28.29 to them all Lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world 2. The Papists according to their new fundamentals must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility for they say their infallibility is in order first known evidenced and to be proved before it be known that Scripture is Gods word 2. The plea of the Romanists for their Popes infallibility is that he is the successor of Peter But the Bishop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the successor of Peter and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility Therefore c. That History which telleth us that Peter was Bishop of Rome doth tell us that he was Bishop of Antioch also yea and that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome so that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church What reason then can the Papists give why the Bishop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peters successor as the Bishop of Rome Unless they could prove that Peter did by his last Will and Testament bequeath the honor of succession and the priviledges of infallibility to Rome onely which they have not yet that I can find been so bold as to go about to prove Otherwise if one must needs be preferred why should not the eldest unless they be disinherited and the younger hath the blessing which must be proved Whence is it but from the honor of their Antiquity that Antioch Hierusalem Alexandria and Rome should be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches And if Antiquity be a good reason for that then why should not Jerusalem and Antioch on the same account be preferred before Rome seeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches and Antioch the more ancient seat of Peter in the judgement of them that make him Bishop of either So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to say for infallibility then Rome who yet make no prentence to it Argu. 16. The Apostles themselves were not infallible till the holy Ghost fell on them nor by any other help without the extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost for before they understood not that Christ must dye rise and ascend till it was done but Peter Mat. 16.20 disswadeth him from suffering therefore the Pope if he might plead succession from Peter cannot expect more then Peter himself had and therefore cannot expect his infallibility without his spirit and inspiration And therefore those Popes that have not the Holy Ghost and that inspiration as Peter had cannot pretend to be infallible as his
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
nothing at all to gain-say But now seeing what thou recitest is not Canonical by that liberty to which the Lord hath called us I refuse it c. And he compareth it to Peters compelling the Gentiles to Judaize Gal. 2. shewing that even Peter should have been so refused in error The words of Austin in Epist 19. ad Hieron are commonly cited I have learned to give onely to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honor as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned soever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judged but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true As commonly cited is that li. 3. Cont. Maximin Arrian c. 14. pag. mihi 306. Sed nunc nec ego c. But now neither ought I as fore-judging or for prejudice to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the authority of this noâ— thou of that Let matter contend with matter causâ— with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both It were too long to recite the fourtieth part which Augustine hath to this purpose He that would seâ— more let him read his Epist 112. de Morib Ecclesâ— Cathol c. 7. Epist 111. Contr. Faustum li. 11. c. 5 de Trintat li. 3. c. The words of Optatus lib. 5. advers Parmen arâ— frequently cited by our writers which are thuâ— Quaerendi sunt judices c. We must seek judges Iâ— Christians they cannot be admitted on either side because by siding the truth is hindred We must seek a judge abroad or without If a Pagan he cannot know the Christians secrets If a Jew he is an enemy to the Christian Baptism On earth there can no judgment of this matter be found We must seek a Judge from heaven But wherefore should we go knock at heaven when we have it here in the Gospel A Testament I say because here we may well compare earthly things to heavenly is such as that a man that hath many sons doth command them all himself as long as the father is present there is then no need of a Testament So Christ as long as he was present on earth though yet he be not wanting or absent commanded the Apostles whatever was needful for the time But as a father when he feeleth himself neer to death fearing lest after his death the Btethren should unpeaceably quarrel doth before witness put his Will out of his dying brest into writings which may endure And if there shall rise any contention among the Brethren they go not to the Grave but seek the Testament and he that resteth in the Grave doth silently speak by the writings The Living Lord whose the Testament is is in heaven Let his will therefore be sought in the Gospel as in a Testament The Author of the imperfect work on Mat. commonly imputed to Chrysostome Homil. 49. saith At this time since heresie hath possessed these Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge of Christians that would know the truth of Belief but the Divine Scriptures For before it was declared by many means which was the Church of Christ and which was Gentilism But now it is by no way known to them that would know which is the true Church of Christ but only by the Scriptures How therefore should he that would know which is the true Church of Christ come to know it but onely by the Scriptures One would think this were plain enough if the Papists were not the Judges of the meaning of all writings as well as the holy Scriptures which condemne their cause Junilius ad Primasium â— part divin legis li. 2. qu. 29 Saith Vnde probamus libros c. How do we prove that the Books of our Religion are written by Divine inspiration Many wayes of which the first is the truth Scripturâ— it self then the order of things the agreement oâ— precepts the manner of speech without affectation or compasses and the purity of words Therâ— is added also the quality of the writers and preachers that meer men could not have delivered such Divine things and vile men such high things and uneloquent men such subtile things unless they were filled with the Holy Ghost And the force oâ— the preaching of it which it had when it was preached though by a few contemned men Hereto is added the witness of the contrary party as the Sybils or Philosophers the expulsion of adversaries the utility of the consequents the event which by acceptations and figures and predictions were foretold and lastly the Miracles which were continually wrought till the Scripture it self was received by the Nations of which this sufficeth for the next Miracle that it is known to be received by all Saith Chamier citing this passage Here are arguments enough to prove the authority of Scripture internal and external but no mention of the Churches antecedent judgement to determine it The same may be said of Eusebius Anstia and the rest that prove the Scripture and Christian Religion Hieromes words are frequently cited on Math. 23. Hoc quia de Scripturis c. This is as easily contemned as proved because it hath not authority from the Scriptures And on Isaiah 8. He saith Side aliquo dubitatis c. If you doubt of any thing know what is written If you would know the things that are doubtful rather give up your selves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures And on the 86. Psalm He saith Quamvis sanctus aliquis c. Though there be some Saint after the Apostles never so eloquent yet he hath not authority And Epist ad Rustic Since covetousness entered into the Church as into the Empire the Law is perished from the Priests and the vision from the Prophets And the same Hierome Epist ad Evagr. fol. 150. Edit Basil per Froben 1516. Tomo 3. pag. 329. Edict Basil 1536. Tomo 2. Saith thus Quid â—uim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat Nec altera Romana urbis Ecclesia altera totius orbis existimanda est Et Gallia Britannia Africa Persis Oriens Judia omnes Barbarae nationes unum Christum adâ—rant unam observant regulam veritatis Si Authoritâ—â— quaritur Orbis major est Vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Fugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caeteram omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Sed dicis Quomodo Romae ad testimonium Diaconi
presbyter ordinatur Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem Quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas That is For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do Nor is the Church of the Romane City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another Both France and Brittaine and Africk and Persia and the East and Jndia and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ and observe one Rule of truth If you seek for Authority the worlds is greater than the Cities of Rome Wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanis of the same Merit he is also of the same Priesthood The Power of riches and the lowness of poverty make not a Bishop high-eror lower But they are all the Apostles successors But you say How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon What tell you me of the custome of one City why do you defend a few of which superciliousness is arisen against the Laws of the Church It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers can put such a sence on these words of Hierom as shall consist with that which he purposly doth oppose But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words he was acquainted with Romes claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters in the beginning and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops how then could Hierome believe the Popes universal jurisdiction Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church Greg. Nazianzene saith of Councils If I must write the truth I am of this mind that I will flye or avoid all Councils of Bishops for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils then a removal of them To this of Nazianzene Bellarmine answereth that Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful for he lived between the first and second general Council where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Hereticks had a bad end And he names five of them Answ 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregories words to some Councils which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may erre and then where is the French Religion 3. I would fain know where was the Churches infallibility and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens dayes If there were no lawful General Councils nor could be then it was not in them therefore it must be either in the people and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them or else as Bellarmine will say in the Pope alone or in the Romane Clergy with him I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Romane Clergy in particular are Infallible though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world and not talke of the whole Church and all the Church when they mean but one man 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmines how far the universal Church was visible at that time when all Councils were bad and none could be lawful The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole and the â—aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong â—o that the Church was visible onely in one man or â— few particular persons according to the Papists common reckoning who judge by the Pastors visiâ—ility Yea the Church of Rome it self was invisible â—hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Hereâ—ick If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man or in the Laity of many partes opprest by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say then we will â—ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther and more too 5. It s confest here also that â—ot onely a Council but the greater number by â—ery many of the Bishops of the Church may be â—eretickes or erre in faith 6. And then the Church may lye in the smaller oppressed part and why then may not the most erre now Stapleton himself confesseth â—hat Luther was not much out of the way when he said â—here were scarce five Bishops â—o be found that turned not Arrians And Hieromeâ—aith â—aith Dialog advers Lucifer The whole world â—â—aned and wondred that it was turned Arrian â— And did the authority of the Scripture at that time â—ll quoad nos when the judge was turned heretick â—ven Liberius and the Councils And if the high Elogies of the Romane Church would prove its Authority then see what Nazianâ—ene saith of the Church of Caesarea In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta found among his own works Edit Paris Tom. 1. pag. 785. and also in Basils works translated by Musculus Edit Basil 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. Seeing every Church as being Christs body is to be watched over or looked to with greatesâ— care and diligence then specially yours which anciently was and now is and is esteemed almost oâ— nigh the mother of all Churches on which thâ— whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the center not onely for the soundness of doctrinâ— long divulged to all but also for that conspicuouâ— grace of Concord which God hath given them What would the Papists say but that this were foâ— their supremacy if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome And I think there is no doubt but that in thosâ— ancient times the Church was acquainted with thâ— true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further 8. Whether thâ— truest Government may not stand with great desolations divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors Greg. Nazianzene saith Orat. 20 pag. mihâ— 345. That when Basil seâ— upon the great work of healing the Church The holy
it and at last it s come to this that there is nothing remaineth established and inviolable with us nor with any before us And as for the likeness ' of God the Son to God the Father it is the Belief of our miserable time that he is not like in whole or but in part We are excellent judges or Arbitrators sure the seekers of the heavenly misteries who do calumniate in our professions of the faith of God we decree yearly and monethly Beliefs of God we repent of our decrees we defend them we Anathematize those that were defended we damne other mens matter in ours or they damne ours in theirs and biting one another we are consumed one of aouther A Belief is again sought for as if there were no beliefe A belief must be written as if it were not in our hearts Being already regenerated by faith we are now taught to believe As though the Regeneration were without Belief We learâ— Christ after Baptism as if Baptism could be anything without the faith oâ— Christ p. 309. Amonâ— these shipwracks of faith the heritage of our heavenly patrimony being noâ— almost profligate it is the safest way for us to retain that first and onely Evangelical Belief confessed in Baptism and understood and not to changâ— that good Belief which onely I have received and heard Not as if those things which are contained in the Council of our Fathers are to be damned as irreligiously and impiously written but because through mens rashness they are used to contradiction that for this the Gospel might safely be denyed under the name of novelty as if it were innovated that it might be mended That which is mended alwayes effecteth this that while every amendment doth displease every amendment may be condemned by a following amendment as if now whatever it be it were no amendment of an amendment but began to be a condemnation of it In this much O Emperor Constantius I admire thee as of a blessed and Religious will desiring a Belief onely according to what is written and indeed justly hastening to those very words of the onely begotten God that the brest capable of impartial solicitude may also be full of the knowledge of the words of God He that refuseth this is an Antichrist and he that counterfeiteth it is Anathema But this one thing I intreat of thee that the Council being present which now quarrels about the Belief thou wilt vouchsafe to hear me a few words of the Holy Scriptures and I may speak with thee of the words of my Lord Jesus Christ whose banished man or Priest I am O Emperor dost thou seek a Belief Hear it not out of newpapers but out of the Books of God Remember that it is not a question of Philosophy but in the doctrine of the Gospel I desire not audience so much for my self as for thee and the Churches of God For I have my Belief with my self and need none from without That which I have received I hold and I change not that which is of God But yet remember that there is no hereticke but doth falsly pretend that he speaks that in which he blasphemeth according to the Scripture Here he names Marcellus Photinus Sabellius Montaneus Manichaeus Marcion They all speak Scripture without its meaning they pretend faith without faith For the Scriptures lie not in reading but in understanding nor in prevarication but in charity Hear I pray thee what is written of Christ lest under them those things that are not written be preached Submit thy ears to those things which from these Books I shall speak lift up thy faith to God Hear that which profiteth to Belief to Unity to Eternity I will speak to thee with the honor of thy Kingdom and thy faith all things profitable to the peace of East and West under the publike knowledge under a disagreeing Council under a famous contention I will defend nothing to scandal nor that is without or besides the Gospel Here he reciteth a short creed in Scripture words especially about Christ I confess I fear I am too tedious in these long citations but I do it that the Papists may not say that we take particular words or shreds of sentences without the full sence Here I desire that it may be noted 1. That Councils may erre and differ 2. That they are so far from being the authorized judges of our belief that in Hilaryes judgement their determinations have occasioned the ruine and dangerous divisions of the Church 3. And that this is not onely true of the Arrian Councils but of the Council of Nice it self though its Belief were sound even by the novelty of terms and example for further innovating 4. That Hilary never calls the Emperor to consult with the Pope or Church of Rome as the authorized infallible judge even when he professeth to tell him all that was necessary to the peace of the whole Church East and West If it be said that this is because Hereticks believed not Romes authority or infallibility I answer It had then most neerly concerned Hilary to teach it them when he taught them all that was necessary to peace especially if that be the foundation into which the rest of our faith must be resolved 5. Lastly note that it is only the word of God and the ancient Baptismal Creed which Hilary here calls them to for Peace and healing of all the worlds division O sad case that this advice was never taken to this day O happy Church when ever it shall be taken and never till then And here because I am afraid of wearying the Reader and making these testimonies unproportionable to the brevity of the disputation I shall forbear adding those that I thought to have added yet assuring any Papist that readeth it that it is not for want of more sufficient Testimonies of the Fathers on our side For I had ready to transcribe in those few books which stand at my elbow sufficient Testimonies shorter or longer in all these following Authors in their own writings viz. Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus the supposed Dionisius Areop Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandr Athenagoras Fatianus Arnobius Athanasius Lactantius Macarius Cyril Alexand. Cyril Hierosol Synesius Epiphanius Eusebius Caesariensis Chrysostome Gregorius Thaumat Neocaesar Greg. Nyssen Basilius Seleuciae Ambrose Theodoret Damascene Isidore Hispal Gaudentius Brixianus Vincentius Lirinensis Salvianus Massil Caesarius Arelatens Alcuinus vel Albinus Beda Vigilius Joannes Maxenâ—ius Alcimus Avitus Prosper Fulgentius Oecumenius Theophylact. Bernard with many others besides all before named of whom some speak fully to the point and all the rest call us to the word of God in Scriptures for the resolution or ground of our faith and not to the authority or infallibility of the Pope of Rome I shall onely stay so long as to adde two or three of the eldest though briefest and two or three Canons of some Councils because there will seem more weight in
their testimonies And for any Reader Papist or Protestant that would have more Testimonies to this end to see whether it be Romes authority or infallibility or rather the Scriptures that is the Testimony which must support our faith and is first to be known I desire them to read them already collected in Chamier in Doctor Sutlive in Sibrandus Lubbertus de princip Christ Dogmat in Chemuitius and Bellarmine himself who reciteth them out of Chemnitius and pretendeth and vainly pretendeth to answer them to whom Lubbertus and many more of ours have therein replyed But specially read that excellent Treatise of Philip Mornay Lord du Plessis of the Church Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians useth not once to them any argument from his authority and infallibility which sure he would have done for the healing of so great a schisme if it had been true Nay when he doth earnestly press them to submit to and obey their own Presbyters he never requireth any obedience to himself or to the Romane Church Nay so far is he from taking any notice of any universal Monarchy or infallibility in himself that he doth not so much as take notice of any Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in their own Church nor once call them to be determined by any single or supereminent Bishop at all but onely to obey their Bishops or Presbyters Ignatius writing to the Romanes calleth them onely the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quae praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum or as Bishop Vshers ancient Version hath it Quae praesidet in loco chori Romanorum which is not a presidency over the whole Church And towards the end he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Memores estote in precibus vestris Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae prome jam Christo Pastore utitur as Hier. Vairlenius Sylvius interpreteth it in his Edit pag. 69. I know that the old vulgar Latin Edition which is in Joachimus Perionius his Edition pag 494. and in Bishop Vshers pag. 89. translateth it Mementote in orationibus vesiris illius qui pro me recturus est ecelesiam quae est in Syria as if it were his successor that he would have them pray for But as Vairlenius so Vedelius also better translateth it Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae pro me jam Domino pastore utitur Edit Vedel pag. 250. And Bishop Vshers old Latine Translation is Ecclesiae quae pro me pastore Dei utitur And the next words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. solus â—am visitahit sit vestra in eo dilectio as the vulgar Latin Version or Solus ipsam curabit visitabitque As Vairlenius and Vedelius or rather as Bishop Vshers old Latin version Solus ipse Jesus Christus vice Episcopi sit From whence I gather that the Bishop of Rome was not the Bishop universal of that Syrian Church or else Ignatius 1. Would have sure commended it to his care 2. Or at least not have expresly said that Christ onely was their Bishop when he was gone Moreover is it a probable thing that Ignatius would have so frequently and importunately have pressed the Church that he wrote to in all his Epistles to be subject to and obey their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and yet would never have given them one word of advice to be subject to and obey the Bishop of Rome if the peace and unity of the whole Church and the very faith and salvation of the particular members had so much depended on this as the Papists would perswade us Certainly a Negative Argument from the silence of the writers of those times is a sufficient confutation of the Romish usurpation Policarp in his Epistle to the Philippians perswadeth that Church to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ not mentioning any other superior Bishop much less an universal Bishop to whom also they must be subject And whereas Valens one of their Presbyters was faln with his wife into some sin which Policarpe professeth his sorrow for he doth not direct them to seek remedy at any higher power but perswadeth them to reduce him themselves as a straying member And having before mentioned divers heresies of those times be addeth as the Remedy not an advice of appeal to Rome or to seeke for their determination or to hold to their infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Wherefore leaving the vanity of many and false doctrines let us return to that Word which from the beginning was delivered to us It is to the first word and not to Rome that this blessed Disciple of John doth send the Philippians for stability against errors Irenaeus is said by Eusebius Eccles Hist li. 5. cap. 26. to have sharply reproved Victor for breaking the Churches peace by excommunicating the Asian Churches about Easter day and tells him that The like was never heard of and that his predecessors did otherwise therefore he took not Victor to be infallible And it is apparent that all the Asian Churches â—ho stood against Victor and were excommunicated by â—im did little dream that he was the universal Bishop or infallible Nay their Bishops sharply reprehend him and their words are yet extant saith Eusebius Moreover in the same Chapter of Eusebius it is expressed by Irenaeus to Victâ—â— that Policarp the Disciple of John differed from Anicetus and neither of them could be perswaded to alter his opinion Therefore Policarp never dream't either that the Romane Bishop was infallible or was his Governor whom he should obey And its worth the reading in the 24. and 25. Chapters of Eusebius how confidently Policrates opposeth Victor alledging a General custome from the Apostles and resolveth never to change his custome And the Bishops and Churches here in England did follow the same custome and differ from Rome And in the 28 Chapter Eusebius mentioneth an ancient writer that opposed the heresie of Artemon and whereas they alledged that all the Bishops of Rome till Zephyrinus were of their mind and preached it even Victor himself that is against the Godhead of Christ he answereth them thus This peradventure might seem to have some likelihood of truth if it were not oppugned first of all by the holy Scriptures next by the books of sundry men long before the time of Victor As Justin Miltiades Tatianus Clemens and Irenaeus So that this old writer supposed it no impossible thing for a Bishop of Rome to have taught heresie And in the very conclusion of the Chapter and Book Eusebius recites many more of the words of that old writer among the which there are these against the hereticks of those times for presuming to correct and so deprave the Scriptures which methinks should touch the Romanists to the quicke Belike they are altogether ignorant what presumption is practised in this wicked deed of theirs For either they perswade themselves that the holy Scriptures were not
indicted by the instinct of the Holy Ghost and so are they Infidels or else they think themselves wiser then the Holy Ghost and what other thing do they in that than shew themselves possessed of the Devil So that if we must go to the Arbitration of the Pope to know whether the Scriptures were indited by the Holy Ghost We must go to him to know whether we must be Infidels or not For they that deny this are Infidels But I hope all the world will not remain Infidels till they know the Arbitrement of the Pope or till his Authority move them to be Christians For its an impossibility and contradiction that any man should believe in Christs pretended Vicar as his Vicar and believe an authority and infallibility which he or his Church of Rome hath received from Christ before they believe in Christ himself How Tertullian lib. de Pudicitia c. 21. takes up the Pope if he pretend to his pardoning power from Do tibi claves or supra hanc Petram I shall for brevity refer you to the place in him And Origen upon Math. on the words is large and full against them I refer you to the words themselves in him I conclude this ranke of testimonies in the words of Tertullian Credunt sine Scripturis ut credant contra Scripturas They believe without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scriptures Had Scripture been for the Pope and Papists then the Pope and they would have been for Scriptures and then we might have spared all this ado But because it is against them no wonder if they be against it I shall next give a touch more of some passages of Councils concerning this controversie And first it is known that the first Councils did commonly decree that appeals should be from a Bishop to a Synod or the Metropolitane and that if the Synod of Comprovincials disagreed that the Metropolitane should call some of the next Province to assist them and that was the highest unless there were a more general Council as Concil Antiochen Can. 14. and divers more beyond doubt declare So that here was no appeal to the Pope Yea in the 6. Canon of that Council of Antioch it is decreed that till an offending Priest Deacon or Layman be reconciled to his own Bishop or else have given satisfaction to a Synod that no other Bishop shall receive him so that Rome it self may not receive him much less absolve him Also in the 22. Canon of the same Council and in many other Councils it is decreed that no Bishop shall come into the City of another Bishop not subject to him about ordination and if they there ordain any it shall be void and they shall be questioned by a Synod And Chrysostome hereupon complaineth of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria for exercising authority at Constantinople out of his oâ—n jurisâ—iction contrary to the Canons as may â—e sâ—en in his first Epipse to Pope Innocent I know they pretend that by that Epistle he yet acknowledged Innocents superiority and jurisdiction As if a man might not make his moan or seek all possible relieâ— from any that are capable of helping them without respect to superiority or jurisdiction It was Râ—mes greatness and interest in the Emperor and others and not a universal jurisdiction that made Innocent seem capable of affording some help to Chrysostome But thus Baronius the Popes Annalist where ever he findeth but a letter writen to the Bishop of Rome or his advice or help in any thing desired doth presently conclude that they acknowledged in the Pope universale regimen an universal Government And by the like reason many another should be universal Governor as well as he Moreover in the third Council of Carthage Can. 26. it is decreed Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appâ—â—â—tur princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut â—liquid huâ—â— modi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus that iâ— That the Bishop of the first seat shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first â—â—at One would think that this were as express against Romes usurpation as can be spoken But they that must be the interprets of Scripture because it speaks â—â—t plain enough must be judge of Councils too which it seems can speak no plainer then Scripture 〈…〉 taught them to speak anew Or if plainer may be of the power as well as the name let us hear the Council of Milevis of which saith Prosper Aurelius was the Captain and Augustine the ingenium And Baronius saith that Augustine was magna pars a great part of the Council and by reason of his great abilities and interest Whether there were two Milevitane Councils as Baronius not improbably thinks or but one it much matters not The Canons are now usually commixt as if they were one and undoubtedly the true Canons and so that which is now the 22. Canon runs thus Item placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteriis inferiores clerici in causis quas habuerint si de judiciis Episcoporum suorum quaesti fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum Quod si ab eis provocandum putaverint non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum a nullo intra African in communionem suscipiatur That is It seemeth good that Presbyters Deacons and the other inferior Clergy if in their causes they complain of the judgements of their Bishops neighbor Bishops shall hear them and being used by them with their Bishops consent shall end whatever is between them But if they think good to appeal from them they may not appeal but to the Africane Councils or to the Primates of their Provinces But if any think to appeal to those beyond Sea let none in Africk receive him into communion Then it was a matter of excommunication to appeal to Rome and consequently to acknowledge their universal Government and now it is become essential to a Church and to a Christian to believe it The General Council of Nice before this according to such Canons as are now extant C. 6. doth give the Patriarchs of Alexandria power over Egypt Libia Pentapolis quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome so that the Bishop of Rome is equalized with them and his power restrained to his own Patriarchate or the Ecclesiae suburbicariae of the extent whereof read Salmasius his learned Treatise against Sirmondus de Ecclesiis subuarbicariis which was so plain to Cusanus a Cardinal of Rome that it made him say hereupon Videmus quantum Romanus Pontifex ultra sacras observationes ex usu consuetudine subjectionalis obedientiae hodie â—cquisivit That is We see
Church li. 3. Cap 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed â— hold that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now urge nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with nor corruption of the Originals nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation nor the Heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of Grace or sin and two other the one of Grace the other of Sin That all those evils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as Ignorance Concupiscence Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul difficulty to do well and proneness to do evil were all natural the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come forth from God That these evils are not sinful nor had their beginnings from sin that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature without addition of Grace and in the estate of Original sin differ no otherwise but as they that never had and they that have lost rich and precious cloathing so that Original sin is but the loss of that without which natures integrity may stand That no evils are brought in by the fall but nature left to her self to feel that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature None of these errors touching the estate of mans creation were the Doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching Original Sin there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam but that Adams personal sin is imputed onely That the propagation of sin is not general Mary being conceived without Original sin That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positive evil but privative onely and that therefore there is a third place neither Hell nor Heaven named Limbus Puerorum which is a place whereas some think they who are condâ—mned thither though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and all possibility of ever coming thither yet are in a state of natural happiness and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the Doctrines of the Chuâ—ch being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian Verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine So likewise the Church wherein they lived neither know nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins which the Romanists now Teach nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giver to love God above all and to do actiâ—â—s morally good or not sinful without concurrence of special Grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative nor merit of congruence and condignity nor works of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities nor uncertainty of Grace nor seven Sacraments properly so named nor local presence nor Transubstantiation nor â—rall manducation of the body of Christ nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead nor remission of sins after this Life nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell hundreds of years by Divels in corporal fire out of which prayer should deliver â—hem nor that the Saints hear our Prayers â—ow or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the gross idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes judgement and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depâ—sâ— Princes and dispose of their Crowns and digrâ—â—ieâ— and that whatsoever he doth he may not be broughâ— into order or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council Those are the errors which we condemne and our adversaries maintain and defend these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed though we do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries but by approving these impieties we had just cause to divide our selves from them or to speak more properly to suffer our selves to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather then to subscribe to so many errors and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us but onely to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject especially Bishop Vsher de successione Statu Eccles and his answer to the Jesuits challenge Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock Doctor Fields Treat of the Church especially the Appendix to the third part Simon Birkbecks Protestants evidence Doctor Whites Way to the true Church Abbot against Hill Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis Mornays two Treatises of the Church and the Mystery of iniquity to say nothing of that of the Mass Johan Lidii Waldens Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers Your after Pope Aenaeas Sylvius Histor Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius which I will adjoyn Rainerius contr Waldens cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt fuerunt non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum idque tribus de causis 1. Quia est diuturnior aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum 2. Quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis eo
that Evangelical command So let your light shine c. § 7. Of Confirmation 1. THE Sacrament of Confirmation is more worthy then the Sacrament of Baptism for as it is done by greater Priests viz. Bishops which cannot be done by less so also it is to be had and held with greater veneration and reverence 2. That Confirmation does excel Baptism in regard of its effecting grace to well doing 3. That the Sacrament of Confirmation does confer Grace making us acceptable ex opere operato and indeed more then Baptism does 4. In which the fulness of the Holy Ghost is conserred viz. ex opere operato 5. The matter of this Sacrament is Chrisme oâ—â—unction which they call the Chrisme of Salvation 6. That by this holy Chrisme made of Oyle and Balsom and smeered on the forehead in form of a Cross the sevenfold Spirit of Grace is given 7. For that the holy Spirit is given to us by Oyle as it was given to the Apostles in the form of fire 8. That he will never be a Christian that is not by Episcopal Confirmation Chrismated 9 Instead of Imposition of hands the Bishop gives him that is confirmed a boxe on the eare to confirm him forsooth and to drive away the Divel § 8. Of the Eucharist 1. IN the Sacrament of the Eucharist they teach and urge the corporal presence of the flesh of Christ As if that Sacrament were instituted to nourish bodies and not souls 2. And that the body and blood of Christ is made really present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the very body of Christ and of the whole substance of the wine into his very blood 3. That this Transubstantiation is made by reciting the Sacramental words Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And therefore they call these operative words 4. That these words are to be muttered with a low murmuring as if Christ had spoken them Magically to inchant the Bread and not to instruct his Disciples 5. Thus they expound them This i. e. under these figures is my body and yet they urge the litteral sence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. That the body of Christ is made of the Bread in the Eucharist as Wine was made of water 7. And yet that the Priests when they make the Body of Christ of the Bread do not produce it as some will have it but do change the substance of the Bread into the very pre existing body 8. That after the words of consecration the meer accidents and indeed all the accidents of the bread and wine do remain 9. That not so much as the first matter doth remain after the change of the bread 10. That the substance of the bread is consumed and ceaseth to be and yet is not anihilated 11. That the substance of the bread ceasing the substance of the body of Christ succeeds and is contained under the accidents of the bread 12. That those accidents are not in any subject nor do they subsist of themselves but are upheld by God after a supernatural manner 13. That they are in somewhat else but do not inhere in it 14. That the body of Christ does remain in the host as long as the accidents of bread remain uncorrupted 15. That as long as the body of Christ is in the host It is accompanied with Angels 16. That in the corruption of the species there is matter substituted by God in that very instant in which those species cease to be and in which something else is Generated 17. That the subject of these Accidents is quantity which also it self is an accident and which they feign to subsist without a quantum that hath dimensions 18. That the Elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist do not nourish if taken in a great quantity without a Divine Miracle And therefore neither do they nourish the mice that take a small quantity without a miracle 19. But as they take away the substance of the Bread and Wine and so with that the substance of the Sacrament so they rob the Body of Christ of almost all the essential properties of a true body by this fiction of Transubstantiation 20. And as they feign the Accidents of bread in the Sacrament without the substance of it so they must needs feign the substance of Christs body without the Accidents of it 21. Many do teach the presence of Christs body affirming that one and same body of Christ undivided does exist upon innummerable Altars and every where whole 22. That the body of Christ being in many places at once and yet not in the space between is not discontinued or divided from it self in respect of its proper substance or quantity but only is divided from it self in respect of place 23. That one and the same body of Christ being in heaven and on earth yea in innumerable places on earth at once is indeed visible and palpable in heaven but on earth invisible and beyond all our senâ—es There it is limited and circumscribed here t is unlimited there it has its Dimensions here t is free from all dimensions 24. Moreover they teach an Oral and Capernaitical Manducation of the flesh of Christ for they say the body of Christ in the Eucharist is really and sensually touched broken and eaten 5. Yea that wicked men receiving the Sacrament of the Altar do chew the body of Christ and break it with their Teeth 26. And upon the same account is the very body of Christ devoured by Mice and Doggs if they chance to eat the host 27. By reason of this Mystery of Transubstantiation they call the Sacrament or consecrated host their Lord and God 28. That the Mass Priest when he makes the Sacrament or as they themselves speak the Body of Christ he is the Maker of his Maker 29. The Priest does adore the consecrated Host and does offer it to others by lifting it up to be adored 30. And for the same end they keep it and carry it in solemn Procession that it may be publikely adored 31. That the Eucharist when it is carryed to the sick is to be adored by all those that meet it those that do adore it are to have indulgences those that don't adore it are to be counted Hereticks and are to be persecuted with fire and sword 32. By this Bread-worship they commit great idolatry whilst that they adore a peice of Bread with the worship of Latria which is onely due to God 33. In honor of this Breaden-God they celebrate the feast of the body of Christ 34. Although they confess Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament with both Elements of Bread and Wine and though they acknowledge this Sacrament was received of the faithful in the Primitive Church with both Elements Yet they determine that it is to be communicated to the Laity in one kind or Element onely and forbid the Priests giving it to the people in both kinds upon
interpretatus est qui ait Religionum se nodos exolvere Hierome in c. 9. Amos August de via Rel. c. 55. Retract l. 1. c. 13. li. 10. de Civit. Dei c. 4. are for the same derivation 3 Macrob. Saturn li. 3. c. 3. Servius Sulpitius Religionem esse dictam tradidit quae propter sanctitatem aliquam remota ac seposita a nobis fit quasi a relinquendo dicta c. vid. Martin in verb. Sometime Religious is taken for the same with sacred and so is applyed to Persons Actions Things Places Times c. we here take it for a prescribed way to salvation or that which by us is Believed or professed to be such and this is our Religion * In this the Ancients differed among themselves Austin and his followers being for absolute Predestination and for Reprobation upon foreseen unbeâ—ief and others being for Predestination i. e. Election upon foreseen faith * Austin Prosper Fulgentius c â— fully maintain the Perseverance of all the Elect â—houâ—h not of all the Justified Mat 4.10 Mat. 28.19 So Dr. White confesseth that we cannot bring a Catalogue of those that in all ages have maintained our Negations of their corruptions because the Corrupters were 〈◊〉 then risen up and how should we prove that the Church opposed an error before it was hatched How far we account the Church of Rome a true Church and yet the Papacy no true Church See Junius in his exact book de Ecclesia Cant. Bellarm. oper Vol. 2. col 1019. And the judgement of several of our Divines by Bishop Hall in his Defence against Burton * You may see it in Mich Gâ—ldâ—stus dâ— Monarch pagâ— 30. Tom. 1. Dr. JT Blondell de Decret pag. 397.403 Roffeus Cont. Lutherum See Mr. Sing's Rejoynder in Defens of Bishop Usher p. 78.79 80 81 c. * Note that he calls the Papists a Sect as well as the Reformed a Bellar. de Verbo Dei li. 1. cap. 2. b Bellar. ibid. l. 4. cap. 3. c Bellar. ib. l. 3. c. 10. Gretsâ—r de Agnosc Script cap. 7. Col. 1908. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 23. But say plainly that the judgement of the present Church is Gods word vid. Melcb Ganum li. 5. c. 5. q. 3. Turnebull in Tetragonis cap. 7. 8. d Vid. Malderum 22 aequ 1. Art 1. Sect. 6. Stanlet princip dâ—ct li. 8. c. 21. li. 9. c. 3. respons ad arg 5. Et in controv rel Contr. 4. q. 3. are 2. Denfens author Eccles l. 3. c. 16. §. 4. Turnebull Tetragonism c. 6. § 2.3 â— 8. §. 3. Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. Gretser Defens istius capiâ—is col 1575 1576 Defens c. 10. de Verbo Col. 1451. sed è contra nelius scribentem leg Peter de Alliaco insent 1. qu. 1. art 3. litera E E. Lyranum Prolog in Biblia e Vid Turnebull Totragen c. 2. a § 5. ad sinem suarez Disput 3. de fide sect 2. § 5 Disput 2 sect 4 § 5. Disput 3. sect 12. § 4. Bellarm. li 3. de Verbo Dei c. 10. ad arg â—3 15. Et Lib. de libero Arbitr c. 3. § At Catholici Gretserâ— in Defens c. 10. li. 3. de Verbo col 1437. estius in sent 3. dist 23. § 4. Maldeâ— in 22 ae Thom. q. 1. a 1. sec 3. f Lege Riveti nostri Isagog sac script cap. 20. suarez Disp de fide 5. sect 7. § â—1 g Vid. valent Tom. 3. Disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. § 12. Bellarm. l. 2. de Sacram. in Genere cap. 25. suarez Disput 5. de fide sect 5. §. 5. sed contra Melius Waldenfis li. 2. Doctrin fid an t c. 19. operum Tom. 1. c. 27. sic Alphons a Cast adu haeres li. 1. c. 2. Melch. Can lib. c. 3. li. 2. c. 1 â—etr Trigos in summam Bonaven qu. 1. ar 3. suarez contra scipsum de fide Disp 5. §. 3. Bellarm. contra scipsum generalia controv fine vid. Durand in 3. sent dist 24. qu. 1. â—erson de vita spirit an lect 2. Coroll 7. è contr Fâ—ann Driedon li. 1. de Eccl. Script dogmat cap. 1. Waldens li. 2. doctr fid antiq cap. 19. 20. Melch. Canum Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. p. 26 27. c. h Vid. Mel. Canum ib. pag. 27. 28 c. contra Th. Waldensem i Melc Canus Loc. com l. 5. c. 5. fol. 162.163 k Mel. Canus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164. l Staplet relect contr 4. qu. 2. in â—xpl art â—otab 2.3.4 Valenâ—a Tom. 3. Disput 1. punct 1. §. 5. m Canus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164 165. n Mel. Canuâ— ubi sup l. 2. c. 7. f 27. Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. suarez Tâ—sput 8. de fide sect 5. §. 4. Alphons a Castro adv haeres l. 1. c. 8 Waldensis doctr fid l. 2. c. 22. 23. Becanus Traâ—â— â—â— fide c. 2. qu. 5. §. 4. o Pighius li. 4. Hier. Eccles c. 8. Bellarm. li. 4. de Pont. c. 6. p Staplet contr 3. qu. 4. concl 2. Canus li. 6. c. 8. q Stâ—plet Contr. 3. qu. 4 Concl. 2. Rhimensin Luc. 22.31 Hart. in Conf. with Reignolds c. 7. sect 3. r Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif c. 3. § â— suarez de fide Disp 5. sect 8. § 4. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. qu. 1. p 7. § 40. Å¿ Turrecremat li. 2. summ de Eccles c. 12. li. 4 part 2. c. 16. Valent. ubi sup câ—l 233 t Vid Alphon. a Castro li. 1 adv haeres c. 4. u Bellarm. de Concil li. 2. cap. 2. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. qu 1. pâ—â—ct 7. § 45. Col. 274 suarez Tract de fide Disp 7. sect 7. §. 10. Bellarm. de Concil li. 2. cap. 1â— x Turrecrem summ li. 2. c. 64. Andrad defens fid Trident. li. 1. pag. 86. y Vid. Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 3. Staplet Con. 6. qu. 3. art 5. Valentia Tom. 3. Disp 1. qu. 1. punct 7. §. 45. So Canus and others See Bannes in 2.2 q. 1. a. 10. p. 149. restraining the text to Peter alone a Baron an 1028. c. 5. b Antonin sum hist p. 3. tit 23. c. 4. § 6. c. 7. § 8. c. 1. § 4. Math. Paris hist Angl. in Henric. 2. pa. 92. c Vita Bern. prafixa cjâ—â— qaribuâ— Surius Bonavent Antonin Legend baec recitant d Hist Ang Henr 3 p. 329 ☜ a Opuscul de â—oncep Virg. c. 1. b â—art 1. tâ—t 8 c. c. c 2 Tim. 4 Digr 21. d Part. 1. e Whites Works fol. pag. 158. ☜ Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 8.9 10 11 12 13 14. a Vid. Binnium Tom. 1. Conc. part 1. p. 478 notis in 7. Epist Liberii p. 480. p. 422. Item Baron â—â—â—o 357. § 9.344 § 3.4.5 359. § 4 10 Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4 c. 9. b Vid.
That it is Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia that Austin speaks 2. That its cum omnibus and therefore not an Argument onely for such as deny the Church and right grounds 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred ☞ 4. So may wâ— say As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Romane Catholike Church Andradius Defen l. 2. Vainly replyeth that this is spoken onely to those Hereticks that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures 1. That 's plainly false for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish * That is Savingly Constantinus Magnus See Andrad Tâ—ef l. 2. fol. 110 c Where are the rest of his cavils Salvianus Massil de Provid li. 3. pag. mihi 62. The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres * That is before they corrupt antient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves Because many of these Errors are delivered onely by particular Doctors and all be not of a mind as to the sence and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning I thought meet to adde these Animadversions to acquaint you in what sence we reject them What I pass by without Animadversion I leave upon them as it is here charged and also suppose the difference to lie plain a 1. That is as the Authenticke sign of Gods will For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith as the Authorized chief revealers and God himself onely as the principal efficient and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed and the Catholike Church as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth 3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabrike 6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many especially Blondel in a just volume that abundance of them are forgeries and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines 7. At least quoad nos So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature 8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakeâ—s have their doctrine of the light within us 9. It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement 10. We confess as Peter saith of Pauls Epistles that there are somethings in them hard to be understood which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction But we maintaine that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends that is to be the Rule of our faith and life 11. This is one of their greatest errors 15. The last clause that the Popes authority is greater then the Churches the French do not hold And so they are divided in their foundation 16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder then the Church and we yield that the Church is elder then â—â—â—ings But we affirme that the doctrine as fetcht from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature as the cause of it at least as to the generality of members 17. The Negative is their master error but the Affirmative Proposition is not denyed of us as to every kind of dependance but of some special sorts of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit 2. c. 18. The height of Romish arrogancy 20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding â—â—le for there is eâ—â—ugh in it against them 21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God and contrary to express Scripture and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest and had they but this â—ne they could never expect that the Catholike Church should unite upon their principles 1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite so it was of God But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted or the corruption of the will inclining it to evil it is not of God 2. See Rada's first controversie 3. A posse mori and a posse non mori were not then Natural But a non posse mori or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience and is now given by Christ And a non posse non mori or an actual death are the fruits of sin 4 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical 1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us 2. Saith Davenant the point of Predetermination is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with But they that do are not of a mind in it no more then they 4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment but onely permitteth it But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention And so he justly withholdeth his grace and giveth men over to the power of the devil their own lusts 2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortifyed and all its motions subjected to holy Reason And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often The flesh and the body if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination much of the end that I say not the whole 4. Sins are called voluntary either because they are in the Will or from the will In the first sence the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second the ellicite and imperate acts Also they are voluntary directly and formally as are the wills owne acts and habits or participative as are the acts and habites of all the imperate faculties And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses nor any further then voluntary 5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin 8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in We have vicious habits and the abscence of Rectifying habits call this what you will Free will is either Physical and that all men have as they are men or moral which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good and this all have or to be free from vicious Habits and this onely the sanctified have and that but in part 9. It is the most noble controversie among the Schoolemen and Thomists and the greatest part seem rather to erre on the other extream and the Scotists that hold this to rectifie them do giâ— such explications of their doctrine as are well worth our study as you may see in Rada's first controversie
and so with much ado scapeth death I think notwithstanding the scaping of these last we may well conclude that Poison is no safe or wholesome food I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation Therefore it is no safe way God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation therefore it is not a way to salvation 2. It is the way toward damnation and from salvation therefore it is no safe way to salvation The proof of all together shall be next fetcht from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falshood and resolved into it are not a safe way to Salvation But such are the doctrines which we call Popery Therefore For the Minor They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility or at least his Councils This the Papists do confess and maintain But that this is a Notorious falshood is evident 1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred and judicially erred and erred in matters of faith Bellarmine is put to answer to no less then fourty instances of erring Popes and how shamefully or shamelesly he doth it any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case may soon discover 2 It is notorious that Councils have erred I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by it self in the next disputation 3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm I mean One part of them do confess that the Pope may err as the French and the other the Italians and Spaniards confess that a Council may erre One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope and the other that it is not sealed in a Council particular or general of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may erre 1. When they dissent from the Popes Legates 2. And when they consent with the Lâ—gates if those Legates do cross the Popes instructions 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions the Council and all they may consent in error And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus and the Constantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first which erred saith he because the Popes Legates followed not his instructions The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common consent Decree that the Council is above the Pope which now saith Bellâ—rmine is judged erroneous 4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it that the Pope may err out of Council And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth and tells us that he is fallible Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians understanding then the Pope knew his own Surely I must do as I would be done by and if any man should perswade me that I know that which I do not know or that I am infallible when I know my self subject to error I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my self then believe another of me that speaks the contrary And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible But of this more in the next disputation where you shall have fuller proof Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion it self as held by them on a foundation that is utterly uncertain or else certainly false then is it no safe way to salvation For it would extirpate Christianity it self But the Antecedent is true as I shall thus prove 1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith as I shall further shew in the next argument They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church and they are not agreed what that Church is 2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people no nor any Doctors in the world can have the knowledge of therefore their faith must needs be uncertain To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest It is the Authority of the Church they say upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation they would not believe it saith one of them no more than Aesops Fables Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is and that we now take notice of their more common opinion that it is all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance yea or of any man living can be sure and sound when all these following particulars must be first known before we can have such assurance 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word and what is a point of faith and what not so that that is so to us which they judge so or that we are bound by God to believe them Now which way doth God give the Church this Power Is it not by Scripture or unwritten tradition in their own judgment And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession For if they fly to universal Tradition and natural obligation they give up their cause and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation as from their Romanâ— Church So that a man must according to their doctrine believe that the word of God written or unwritten hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God or know it to be the word of God that is He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it Here is one of the impossibâ—lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith 2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word yea or their supposed unwritten verities infallibly according to the Romane way of believing they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement and this also must be known by the word of God which is supposed not to be known yet it self 3. They must also know
thousand years been ever a true General Council in the world The Popish Doctors as Doctor Holden de Resolut fid li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156. say that It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truely General And is it so when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks Ethiopians Protestants c. and most of the Church are absent and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause Quest 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost when there is no General Council It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred or a thousand years together Have we no Church then Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils then they speak of the Church that is past and gone of which I moved the doubts before And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages they would hold us to the present Church and that must be their own and so be sure to be judges in their own cause Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romanes and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians and so the rest to be the word of God as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches Indeed they made use of the intervening humane but certain testimony of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands But Tychicus or Trophimus or Timothy or Onesâ—mus were not a General Council nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle and not that the particular received it from the universal How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus Timothy Philemon to the Ephesians c. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them Quest 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice when there had been no General Council to â—etermine the business Quest 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world for not taking the Scripture for the word of God who have seen or heard it and had all other â—estimonies of it but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council Shall none of â—hese perish for this unbelief Quest 16. And if it be the Pope that they call â—he Church and take it to be this infallible judge â— then demand How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word or that the Christian Faith is â—rue The like also I ask of a Council How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves and so take it on their own words or else on the words of some others â—f the former then they Believe it because they Believe â—t then they are the original of their own belief and believe themselves first and then would have all the world to believe them And this is not onely to be â—o arrogant as to be the God of themselves and the Church but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason and to expect that all others should do so too But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures from whom then is it not from any others of the present Church doubtless therfore it must be from the former Church And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath and therefore may believe it without recourse to him and as infallibly as he 2. And then it seems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith whereof one is necessary only to one part and not to the other that is All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be Gods word because the presenâ— Pope or Council saith so having first believed the infallibility but the Pope and Council themselveâ— need not any such ground of their faith And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general But even the Clergy themselves out of Council or who never were of the Council which sure is more then a hundred for one must thuâ— differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith This is another taste of the famous Romane unity Paul saith there is One Faith bâ—â— if two divided Foundations or Reasons of Belieâ— do make two Beliefs surely the Church of Rome hatâ— two Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jesâ— Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility when he so chid his Apostles foâ— striving who should be greatest and telleth them so expresly that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and are called Gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so And when he sets before them a little child and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them must be as that child that is that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excell in and so to serve one another in love Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master that is of their Faith Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ or whether the Scripture be his word or not Quest 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead and when there are three or four at a time and when there is an interruption by Schisme thirty years together as it is known there hath been Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it Or
any internal virtue but a profession of faith is sufficient The Members of the Church considered severally are The Clergy The Laity 2. That Clergy men are not held under civil Laws by any coactive but onely directive bond 3. That Clergy men breaking the Civil Law cannot yet be punished by any civil Judge nor be brought before the Tribunal of Secular Magistrates 4. That the goods of the Clergy both Ecclesiastical and Secular are free from the Tribute and Taxe of Secular Princes 5. That men are to be prepared for receiving Orders by the first shaving 6. By how much the higher degree of Order any one is in by so much the larger shaving is he to be crowned with 7. That single life is alwayes joyned to holy Orders by Divine right The Popish Clergy aâ—â— either Seculars and those either Regulars Of the lowest Order Of the higher Order which they call Priests and are both The less as Presbyters The greater as Bishops 8. That the Clergy men of the highest Order are Priests properly so called which they say are instituted to offer an external and real sacrifice 9. The choice of Bishops does belong to the Pope by Divine right That all the Bishops receive jurisdiction from the Pope 11. The Romane Church hath Cardinals for sides-men to the Pope upon whom the universal Church is turned as upon hinges 12. These are to be joyned with the Pope in the Government of the universal Church 13. That those whether they be Bishops or Presbyters or Deacons are not only to be preferred before other Bishops Archbishops Primates Patriarchs but to be equalled even with Kings § 20. Of Councils and Monastical vows 1. THey teach that there are Evangelical Councils distinct from commands which no man is bound to perform but they who profess perfection and would deserve more and greater things than eternal life 2. That the study of perfection is not of command but Councils 3. Such Councils are those of not seeking revenge of loving our adversaries of not swearing c. 4. Not to obey a Council is no fin 5. That some perfection is necessary to salvation and that consists in the full observation of the commands 6. That some other perfection is greater and is necessary not simply for salvation but for a more excellent degree of glory and that consists in the observation of Councils 7. By obedience to Councils men do supererogate 8. That vowed Virginity and single life are most acceptable worship to God 9. Yea and the greatest satisfaction for sin and merit of eternal life 10. A Monastick life is a state of Perfection 11. All that 's done by vow is a worship of God 12. Monastical vows do satisfie for sin and deserve eternal life 13. Our entrance into Religion is a second Baptism or in stead of a new Baptism by which satisfaction is made for all former sins 14. That perfection is to be placed in true Monastick vows as the vow of voluntary poverty the vow of perpetual chastity the vow of Monastical obedience 15. That voluntary poverty is rightly vowed to God 16. That its lawful Lawful yea a meritorious work a work of perfection and supererogation in Monks to live on begging 17. It is lawful yea meritorious for the younger men to vow single life for ever 18. The vow of single life is to he kept by them who have the gift of continency 19. There is none but may alwayes contain if he will 20. That 't is lawful for children to enter into a vow against their parents consent 21. They allow of great variety of vows which have various rules of life invented by men beside the holy Scripture And as if there were greater perfection in those rules then in the doctrine of the Gospel and a more compendious way to perfection and salvation they teach by the observation of them eternal life and a more excellent degree of glory is obtained 22. They give the obedience which is due onely to God unto the men that live after the Rules of the Franciscan Domincan order c. 23. That the Apostles were the first Christian Monks 24 To them who are buried in the Cowls of the Monkes especially of the Franciscans they promise remission of sin in some part 25. That Princes are not the supream Governors of their subjects on earth in all causes spiritual and temporal 26. They make Princes subject to the people as well as to the Pope §. 21. Of the Law Of Charity or things to be done the sum of which are in the Decalogue 1. THat regenerate and baptized persons may perfectly fulfill the Law so far as they are bound to fulfill it in this life 2. The fulfilling of the Law in this life is not onely possible but easie 3. That every degree of Grace is sufficient to fulfill the commandments and expel all sins 4. That we are not bound in this life to love God with all our hearts 5. And all our souls and all our strength Neither are we bound not to have evil concupiscence 6. That venial sins as they call them do not hinder that perfect obedience which is required in this life 7. That the regenerate can do more then the Law requires 8. They teach their Disciples to worship God under a humane shape or figure 9. That Angels are to be worshiped and called upon 10. Also Saints that are dead are to be worshiped and called upon 11. That a more than ordinary worship is due to the blessed Virgin such as they teach Christs humanity waâ— to be worshiped with but to the rest of the Saints ordinary worship 12. That the members of the Blessed Virgin are to be adored for so they touch them I worship and Bless thy feet with which thou didst tread down the Old Serpents head I worship and bless thy comely eyes c. 23. That according to the five letters of her name Maria she is the Mediatrix of God and men the Auxiliatrix or helper of God and men the repairer of the weak the illuminater of the blind the Advocate for all sin 14. They name her the Queen of heaven our Lady and Goddess the Lady of Angels the fountain of all graces Orat. Steph. Patracen in Concil Later Sess 10.666.6 f. 15. For her honor and worship they have composed Duties Letanies Rosaries and a Psaltery all full of Idolatry 16. In the Psaltery of Mary whatsoever almost David had spoken of God and Christ they blasphemously give to her as for example O Lady in thee have I put my trust deliver my soul from mine enemies In Psal 7. And I will praise thee O Lady with my whole heart Psal 9. I put my trust in thee O Lady Ps 10. Save me O Lady Psal 11. Keep me O Lady because I have hoped in thee Psal 15. The heavens declare thy Glory O Virgin Mary Psal 19. To thee O Lady have I lifted up my soul Psal 25. Have mercy on me O Lady who