is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians And he fully and expresly meets with your self and such like flatteries of the Roman Church who monopolize the word Catholick to be Non tamen ejus sedis c. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church extoll themselves as if that Church only as they speak exclusively were the Catholick Church and that it behoved us presently without triall of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See and that for all Doctrines and pontificall constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit If we attribute this to that See we shall expose the Catholick Church to all errours And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies than those flatterers who do make her not onely the chief but the onely Church and extolling her above the Word and Catholick sence of Scripture above all the Catholick Fathers yea above the Church triumphant and consequently above the spirit of God do make of her I know not what Idoll This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom The world is greater then a citie So that it is evident the Roman being but particular cannot be the Catholick Church But supposing your definition good I come to examine whether it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church in the severall particulars of it as you say it may 1. You say Its a societie of men this agreeth to the said companie for in that companie is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchie or heavenly order and subordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon of Deacon to Priest of Priest to Bishop of Bishop to chief Bishop or Pope who is subordinate to none but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exalter of himself above all that is called God 2. Thes 2. and of the Laitie to all Answ 1. I know not whether to pity or laugh at you seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men I wonder you do not go more directly to work It s not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are sub-Deacons Deacons Priests Bishops chief Bishop a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men for you would perswade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order so that we cannot tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels Why might you not as well argue thus In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness there are or have been divells incarnate conjurers Magitians Simoniacks Whore-masters therefore the Church of Rome is a societie of men I am sure it s as good an argument as yours to prove your Churches manhood What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set that they do not hinder and trouble but as great and less strings musically tuned make and preserve the melodious harmonie of peace and concord Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter I am sure they are neither musically tuned nor do they make melodious harmony by this argument you might prove your fidle strings to be a society of men but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons 2. The second part is Linked together This agreeth to the said company for in that company there is no diversitie of belief but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe Asia Africa and America where one and the same belief is imbraced for one and the same motive Gods revelation proposed by the Church Answ 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applyed to your Church in this second part it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacraments which you seem to forget this may also agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants who as is evident by their confessions of their Faith do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Roman 2. What you say of the same beleef that it s received upon the Churches account I have before confuted it and for further answer to it refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him Lastly your talk of your Monarchiall sway c. is but a Popish brag or if reall t is an usurpation for which you cannot plead Law nor antient possession as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Popes dominions 3. The third part is lawfully sent This agrees to the said company for in that companie no man clarifieth himself but one receiveth power from another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priest from the Bishop the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope Answ 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholicks Preachers though no man can inferre any thing else from your words for you say To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company which company you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops c. yet there receiving of power one for another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope and that they used it lawfully the latter of which especially wil be difficult for you to prov considering that your Priests c. are ordained not to an Evangelicall imployment as preaching the Gospell and administring the seals of the Covenant of grace but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospell knows not 4. The fourth part is able to shew c. This agreeth to the said company for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faithfully and with clearness deduced Writers of severall ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the wâ—rld authentick Schemes and Catalogues of Popes Bishops and Pastors succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles and from time to time laid open their doctrine Answ 1. Personall succession as I have shewed is no mark of a true Church its agreeable to other Churches and this is the succession which your Authors do principally if not onely demonstrate 2. It s observable that there is no personall succession of Bishops and Pastors to whom you joyn sub-Deacons and Deacons distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with though particular Churches as Spain France c. have had Apostolicall institution
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
will waver because of supposed want of succession and for stubborn mis-believers the proof of succession will not bend or make them supple they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets speaking in Scripture would not believe though one should rise from the dead Luke 16.31 But to what purpose bring you the Text 1 Pet. 3. there is nothing in it for succession in order to the bending of the minds of mis-believers unless you understand the wives being in subjection to their own husbands whereby they that obey not the Word may without the Word be won to be the wives proving their Episcopal succession But for the necessity of producing succession you urge testimonies and reasons which I shall now in order examine The testimonies are these viz. of Tertullian Bidding the Sectaries of his time let him see the beginning of their Church and unfold the order of their Bishops and Pastors Likewise Optatus lib. 2. Contr. Parmen The Origin of your chair shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church St. Augustine de vit credend ep contr Faust manich came not behind these in pressing the necessity of succession and derivation where he ingeniously acknowledgeth them to be of force to hold and keep him in the bosome of the Church There keepeth me said that great Saint in the Church the succession of Priests from the very sitting of St. Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep even oo this present Bishop Answ There is no necessity of producing succession for there may be true Apostolical Churches without personal locall succession as I shewed out of Tertullian and its confirmed by Azorius who gives these two only reasons why the Church is called Apostolical because it was propagated by the Apostles Azor. inst moral p. 2. l. 5. c. 21. 9. 4. and holds their faith and doctrine the former reason points out the primitive this latter succeeding Churches though without personall succession 2. There may be succession where there is no true Church as I shall shew hearafter 3. If the Fathers do demand succession of Bishops or Pastors it s in order to Doctrine which they account the main yea the foundation of the other thus doth Tertullian in the words I quoted and Gregory Nazianzen who saith that the succession of faith is the true succession for those that professe the same Doctrine of faith are partakers of the same Throne Naz. Orat. de Laud Athanas So Tertullian and Optatus the one requiring from Sectaries the beginning of their Churh the other the Origin of their Chair both which phrases refer to their agreement with the Apostles not to personal succession Fathers urged succession of Doctrine as necessary but not the succession of persons 2. It s of such as being an inconsiderable party yet excluded all others from being of the Church of God but themselves such were the Valentinians opposed by Tertullian and those whom Optatus speaks of Thus we might demand of the Romanists and say The Origin of your Church shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church When did you begin to be such When had your Pope his universal power as Emperor of the World c. Or 3. It s of some Churches not of all viz. 1. Of such as had begun with the Apostles not others which began long after and therefore could not shew such succession 2. Of such as were in their times not of after ages their demands extend not to us Present Churches are not so able to shew succession as those were in whose times heretical Bishops had no place in the Church as Austin shews for having reckoned up the Roman Bishops from Linus to Anastatius living then Ep. 165. he concludes that in the rank of this succession there was not one Bishop found that was a Donatist and also whilst there was a short space betwixt the Apostles and them the latest of them living within four hundred years after Christ in which time there were no expurgatory indices no â—â—opping of their mouths who wrote the truth The Fathers of the first centuries were few and not subject to Popish purgations whereas the case is now otherwise we are not much short of the 1700 years from Christ our Authors that might shew our succession abused by you Your argument therefore is not good succession must now be demanded and produced for so it was in the time of Augustine Optatus Tertullian 1300 years ago 4. They rather demand the Origin and beginnning of Churches than succession of Bishops leaving more to antiquity than to succession 2. You argue for the necessity of succession thus Derivation of succession is so proper to the true Church that it can not agree to any false as St Hierom in Micam 1. observeth assuring heretiques to have no such riches as come to men by plain inheritance from their Fathers Answ This is most untrue Bellarmine dare not affirm it that its necessarily inferd that where there is succession there is the Church to whom Mr. Hart consents Hart. confer c. 7. div 9. saying Indeed succession of Bishops in plaâ—e is no good argument unlesse it be joyned with succession of Doctrine The reason is this derivation of succession may agree to a false Church ex gr to the Church of Constantinople who reckon from Andrew the Apostle to the Bishop that sitteth now which Church notwithstanding you account unsound Stapleton pronounceth of the Greek Churches in general that they can shew a personal succession from the very Apostles yet you account them not true Churches for they are not under your Roman Pope but against him 2. Your testimony of Hierom makes nothing for you For 1. It grants that hereticks may have fathers whose children they are and what is this but succession 2. That which it denies is that they have such riches as come by spiritual inheritance i. e. divine and wholsome truth the riches of the Apostles successors It s a simple conceit to imagine that succession is the riches that men have by inheritance from their fathers their inheriting of their fathers riches is not succession but succession is the cause of their inheriting they are but poor children that have only this that they can tell you they proceed from their fathers and succeed them Such children are your Popes they can tell you who was their father grandfather and great-grrandfather and this is their riches much good may they do them Whilst Protestant Pastors have true doctrine the true riches of the Apostles To this Testimony of Hierom you add a reason to prove that derivation of succession is proper to the true Church saying Its evident in it self by reason the true Church was planted and established before any false began therefore must need be a non plus ultra a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ to keep off the like continuation of succession Answ 1. If it
have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces nor receive any such to communion as they did excommunicate yea Saint Cyprian and a company of Bishops with him did dye out of the communion of the Church of Rome Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. for any thing appear to the contrary yet they were true Bishops and their Churches true Churches Yea further supposing Communion had then been necessary it is not so now the corruption of your Church being greater then it was in Cyprians time so that Gods command doth take place with us 1 Tim. 6.3 5. 2 Cor. 6.14 15 c. Apoc. 18.4 and the example of the Apostles Acts 19.8.9 3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholique Church viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches whose Doctrine we receive and profess yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doctrine amongst you so far we have communion with you also 4. You deliver two palpable Lyes 1. That we glory to have our p wer from the Popiâ—h Church We look upon it not as our honor but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power We account it our honour and glory in it that we are out of your Bethaven and that we have the ordinances of God within our selves 2. Lye that we confesse you to be a true Church We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholique Church We say you were once Bethel now Bethaven Rome was once a faithfull City but now become an harlot Her name is given her by God and acknowledged by us as belonging to her Apoc. 17.5 Mistery Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth 3ly You answer Pro estants derivation from Catholiques is not prooâ— for a personal succession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Protâ—stants which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation iâ— being not required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostleâ— of men meerely sent but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England Reply 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you it being proper to the true Church onely as Doctrine you say is not But I see now succession of Doctrine is the more principall succession So unstable are men maintaining errors 2. In derivation of succession it s not necessary that those we derive from agree in all points with us If it were I know where your succession from Peter would be you not being able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt holding some errors which the ordained may be free from either altogether or in some measure or if not when they are ordained yet afterwards Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained 3. We can shew a derivation of succession though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles professing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points but these could not nullifie our claim to them nor make that they should not be called Protestants Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number the least addition or Diminution altering its kind and grounding a new denomination But supposing it good and true we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians nor yet with those who lived but a little while ago your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines 4ly You answer Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholiques inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols no concord with Christ and Belial 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King 5. c Rep. 1. It s one thing to be amongst wicked men another thing to approve of them A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence who notwithstanding approves not of it When Israel was most corrupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal Rom. 11.4 When our Saviour came the Jewish Church was very corrupt yet there were some few in it who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church Isay 1.9 Yet none of these did approve of the corruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4 If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 God had a people in Babilon a people like corne among chaffe good fish amongst bad ones These till God gave an opportunity of delivering themselves did dwell with the daughter of Babilon Zech. 2.7 They had external communion but wanted inward affection to her they had no concord nor agreement with her in her grosser errors But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company lyers and innovators this would leave a stain upon her reputation make her sinceritie be suspected hâ—r Doctrine contemned and despised but she who is all fair Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt Rep. 1. It s no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are erroneous It was thus with Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi and the Churches of Asia Rev. 2.14 15 20. There is no Church can claim exemption The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call lyers and innovators and upon that score have come into your expurgatory judices 2. You assert that of the Church of Rome which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church viz. to be all faire without spot or wrinkle a priviledge belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members only of the visible Church in this World and herein you shew your self to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained professed that their commission and power was to preach and inculcate that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad p. 81. 2. You take that for granted which we constantly deny that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle c. and that Protestants are lyers and innovators which you are yet to prove 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church without all that danger you talke of while they lye
and so many that they require strong memories to retain them 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases for it is supposed that the Law when delivered is clear and manifest at least in the substantials of it 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes 2. You answer with respect to the Church The Church besides the Letter of Scripture which she reads assiduously with watching fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof and her own reasoning hath the help of a better and sure tradition and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here is hard to guess I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees their other imployments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously with watching fasting Prayer and for your common people they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would so that you must either give us another definition of Church then you do page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not reade the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching c. 2. What ever you speak of the Church may be as truely spoken of particular Christians they are capable of reading the Scriptures with the use of fasting watching Prayer they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them as with those you call Church And therefore I shall conclude with you leaving what I have said to the impartiall Reader desiring him to judge by it whether private Christians being rationall men yea men indued with Gods Spirit and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures may not according to the ability given them and in their places seek for and deliver the sence of Scripture and whether this be any undervaluing of Gods Wisedome and Providence or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties CHAP. XI Of the Roman Church BY the word ROMAN say you are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock Answ 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean whether an acknowledgment de facto or de jure only If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor you overthrow its universality It is not then Catholique for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy and worship not the image of the beast nor receive his name in their foreheads Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor by all Christian Churches There were other Patriarchs besides him who had their several distinct limits Azor. inst mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs and whose power did extend to the constituting ordaining and confirming Bishops Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers as your Azorius testifies yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople Can 2. by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose Scult Synlag medul Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this Inter Patriarchas c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief to whom as Patriarch the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West were subject Here is priority of Order but no supreamacy of power over the other Patriarches the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome as the Nicen Creed hath it but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities c. His power was provincial not oecumenicall 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor it will remain to be resolved who those are whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality and set Roman against Catholique which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute and are called Catholique Churches but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof I say A proper predicate For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion and Jerusalem but these are only figurative expressions of it it is never called the Church of Sion or the Church of Jerusalem though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome or the Roman Church the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy 2. Notwithstanding I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others This company say you together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church Answer 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I finde them propounded 1. Argument That company of Christians compose and make up the true Catholique Church to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above mentioned company therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church p. 72. 73. Answ If you speak of an exact and perfect definition wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined agreeing fully to it and not to any thing else I subscribe to your major proposition but deny
the minor For proof whereof you give us a definition and then apply it to your Church that is first you suit your definition to the Roman Church and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition The definition is The true Catholick Church is a society of men linked together in the profession of one Faith in the use o◠the same Sacrament and under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent that are able to shew their personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles without the least interruption Answ 1. It might rationally be expected from you that when you bring a definition upon the truth whereof the validity of your argument depends you should have fetcht it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain It s not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure and then confine the buyer thereunto or for a subject to frame a definition of Law and according to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law If it could be thus what man could not lay a foundation for suits yea and carry away anothers right by his new definition I challenge you or any other to shew me this definition of the Catholick Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers either Greek or Latine till which time I might justly defer an answe◠The former part I confess is warrantable but desinit in piscem mulier formosa Supernè But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture I shall therefore first examine whether it be in Scripture and then whether it such as it is be a pliable to the Roman Church 1. Say you A societie of men and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists others Pastors and Doctors A most necessary part of the definition you did well not to commit the poof of the Churches manhood because none denies it 2. Linked together under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4 this we grant 3. That are able to shew c. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of mountains and all Nations shall flow unto it Is 2. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun Psal 118. Sir you are now gotten to Rome and the Scripture leaves you what sober man that reads these Texts would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to shew c. but it sticks in your teeth and therefore you stop at shew And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist Ps 39.6 with a little variation surely you walk in a vain shew surely you are disquieted in vain you heap up Scriptures and know not how to apply them The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say Isa 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospell by the access of the Gentiles by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly But what is this to the shewing of personall or doctrinall succession of the Churches Bishops Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord onely the Bishops of the Church and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains that all the Bishops of the Church shall be personally visible Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rabbins 2. In quoting Psal 118. you commit two errours one personall quoting Psal 118. for 19. The other vulgar reading after the Latine He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun which is a most false reading as ingenious Papists confess Vatablus reads it thus Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis He hath placed a tabernacle in them i. e. the Heavens for the Sun that is as he notes Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis c. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen Lyranus tells us In Hebraeo c. In the Hebrew and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun Now do you think that either Vatablus Lyr◠Hierom or the Hebrews would infer that because the Sun is in the Heavens c. it s able to shew its own or Bishops personall succession I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew and Hierom and produce a false translation to so little purpose as you do for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a shew or were manifest yet it makes not for a successive visibilitie of an Hierarchicall Church Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible and obscure the lustre of the Sun as common experience testifieth 3. Their Personall and Doctrinall succession He gave some Doctors and Pastors c. untill we all meet in the unitie of Faith Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world God will still raise up some to preach his truth though there may be interruptions in particular Churches nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of succession of Bishops but only a non interruption of Christs presence But suppose Isa 2. Psal 19. Prove a visibilitie and Eph. 4. Prove a succession and Matth. 28. Prove a non interruption Yet to say therefore the Church must be able to shew a succession without interruption is fallacia compositionis And now let any man judge whether your definition be spirituall or no. 2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logick it s not adaequata definito not fitted to the Catholick Church For first it may agree to a particular Church as well as to the Catholick as is evident to any that examines it And secondly it doth not agree to the Catholick i. e. The universall Church For first Bishops and Pastors do not shew succession as Governours of the Catholick Church but as Bishops and Pastors in particular Churches The Popes shew their succession as Bishops of Rome The Patriarch of Constantinople shews his succession as Patriarch of that place thus the Bishops of England shew their succession in the Church of England He that shews a personall succession of government over the Catholique Church must produce not a Pstoral or Episcopal but Apostolical succession which Papists themselves lay no claim to 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors as can shew a personal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption 3. This difinition comprehends not Popes and Bishops who are parts of it The Catholique Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius in these words Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est c. The sence of the article of one Church is to believe that all the Congregations of the faithful are one Churche and that
as well as Rome and it s your task to prove not onely that the Pope but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able as were also the Churches of Smyrna Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spain in France Iren. adv haeres l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in Egypt in Lybia in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars 1. As to personal succession though she have a bed-role of names of Popes yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina the Popes Library keeper Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser 30. Now I find her constitutions the one made by Julius the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election declaring him to be no Pope and that no one ought to account him Pope and further that without any further declararation he be devested of all his dignities and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity See both of these in Azorius's Morals Azo instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza wherein such a one is declared to be a thief and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud Nay it s evident that many of her Popes came in this way I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza for many of them he tells us that Christopher 1. And Boniface 7. got the Popedome malis artibus by fraud and cousinage others of them have come in by force Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent Sylvester the third saith he was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult Clement 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third Iohn 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father Leo the 8. was ordained by the Clergy but Otho the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair whilest Gregory the fifth lived So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us that course became so common that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots false Popes c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second An. 912. meets with such as these for able entry nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions and makes him Antichrist 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie I have shewed the contrary yet the constitution of Julius takes hold of Heretiques as of simoniacal Popes 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair there was no trial of the Popes humanity and that was occasioned by an Harlot gotten into the Popeal Seat Yet it s asserted and that truly that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes It s not known where to place Clemens and for Boniface 6. Caranza saith its a great controversie amongst writers at what time he sate in Peters Chair Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time and each had their parties joyning with them Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years There was three others at the same time with him viz. John 24. Benedict 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession and therefore I come to the next particular viz. Doctrinal succession 2. Then as to Doctrinal succession Rome is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles There are two things concern her to prove as to this 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now both which are too difficult for Popish heads Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3.20.28 impossibility of perfect personall obedience c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off as the Jews are c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate rendring honour tribute c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning c. 15. 4. Lastly that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again let Papists shew us so much as one Father that beleeved and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it 5. Your last part is without the least interruption c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument 2. Argument That company composeth and maketh up the truh Catholique Church which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cathâ—lique Church Answ 1. To your Major 1. It s obscure and doubtful what you mean by Power as distinct from the
The thoughts and study of this Controversie may be a means to divert that heat which flye into oâ—r faces one against another We have an enemy that seeks the ruine of us all and is getting ground of us whilest we are contesting with our selves Should we not unite against him Papists are no despicable adversaries they are politick in getting and cruel in their possessing power over us Should they prevaile they would soon put a period to many of our controversies to a deal of our fury against Ministers Ordinances Truths I know it will be said this Controveâ—sie is old and very much is already learnedly written against it and there needs no more To this I answer 1. Though the Controversie is old yet it still continues We have not yet seen the expected fall of Antichrisâ— It would favour ill to perswade an Army to leave off a Siege because much powder and bullets have been shot against it Bâ—bylon is not yet stoâ—med and taken and ruined 2. I acknowledge that much hath been leaâ—nedly written against it I reverence the memory of learned Whitakers Reinolds Chamier Cameron Perkins Rivet with many others with whom Papists may cavil but shall never confute My designe is not to adde perfection to their labours nor to oppose them mainly with whom they have contested If I mention Bellarmine Baily c. it s only because they comply with or dissent from my present Adversarie my purpose is only to imitate them who opposed Popery in sâ—ch as maintained it in their times I rake not amongst the dead but meddle with a present writer If Papists will writ anew against truth it cannot be unseasonable to write anew for truth Many errours long since confuted and laid in the dust yet rising again are assaâ—lted by later Divines I had rather say much for truth then too little What I thought necessary to say against this Authour I have spoken avoiding invectives and needless digressâ—ons endeavâ—uring to prevent some charges in thy buying and some pains in thy reading of it and some rayling from my Adversary if he should reply I commit thee and this labour to Gods Blessing If thou reap benefit by it give God the praise and let the Authour have thy prayers whereby thou shalt oblige to further service Thine and the Churches Servant in the Work of Christ William Brownsword The Contents of this Book CHapter 1. Of Happiness Page 13 Chap. 2. Of the way to Happiness Page 14 Chap. 3. Of the diversities of Faiths Hopâ—s and Charities Page 23 Chap. 4. Of the Churches Power and Infaâ—ibilitie in matters of Faith Page 27 Chap. 5. Oâ— the possibilâ—tie of keeping the Commandements Page 69 Chap. 6. Of Religion Page 93 Chap. 7. Of the Vnitie of Religion Page 79 Chap. 8. Of the Spirit of Spiritists Page 103 Chap. 9. Of thâ— Spiritists rule of Faâ—th Page 113 Chap. 10. Of the Protestant Church Page 130 Shape 1. Page 132 Shape 2. Page 153 Shape 3. Page 159 Shape 4. Page 173 Shape 5. Page 182 Chap. 11. Of the Roman Church Page 231 Chap. 12. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church Page 272 1. Objection Page 273 2. Objection Page 299 3. Objection Page 321 4. Obâ—ection Page 324 5. â—b ectiâ—n Page 340 6. Objection Page 348 7. Objection Page 363 The Epilogue Page 380 Romes Conviction OR A DISCOVERY OF The unsoundness of the maine grounds of Romes Religion WHen I look upon this book I cannot but remember what that blessed Apostle St. Peter foretold should come to pass There shall be false Teachers amongst you who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their perniciouâ— ways by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make Merchandize of you c. 2 Pet. 1. What feigned words this Author useth whereby to bring in his damnable Heresies and to make Merchandize of souls besides the book it self the Epistles and Epilogue do clearly evince I shall therefore take a view of them as they lye in my way and first for the Epistles one is directed to the Catholikes of England the other to the Reader whether he intends to exclude his Catholiques from reading his Book because he distinguisheth from the Reader or that he mainly designs it for the use of others it may be the Protestants of England whilst he only calls for the Patronage of Catholikes let the Reader judg Certainly there are strong endeavours to enlarge the Popes Chair by the seduction of English Protestants as appears by those many books lately printed in London in the behalf of that Seat The former Epistle is divided betwixt murmuration and adulation There are sad complaints that truth is grown so loathsome and hateful tâ—at whosoever goeth about to tell it indangers displeasure they despise and maligne what ought most of all to be cherisht and loved of whom it is said they preferred darkness before light Joh. 3. Were it the truth indeed that you speak of I should joyn with you in complaining and rather entitle your language to a serious and sad complaint then an unjust murmuration It was once the sad language of the Prophet That truth is fallen in the streets yea truth faileth and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey Isai 59.14.15 And through the privy introduction of Heresies amongst us it hath come to pass that the way of truth is evil spoken of and the language of the Prophet is in the mouths of thousands of Gods Saints But blessed be God for this good news from Rome that Popery is grown so loathsome and hateful that whosoever goeth about to tell it indangers displeasure and let me tell you that I hope that God will raise up Governours in this Land that with other Protestant Princes shall hate the Whore and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Apoc. 17.16 and that as God hath cast it out from being the publikely profest way in this Nation so he will root it out of the hearts of people in this Land more and more though your selves be murmurers c. 2 Pet. â— 2. Your adulation is most palpable Catholikes are renowned Catholikes the best and greatest conquerours brave champions great glorious good conquerours overcoming themselves and what not Their sufferings are many glorious * Such as blessed Saints have passed through for the truth for God and God with them in them and for them God hath just cause to reward them But alas how groundless are all these Titles 1. What great or how many sufferings have your Catholiques undergone in Englâ—nd Have you been burnt at Stakes or drawn into close inquisitions and there tortur'd rackt murdered Have your bodies been mangled and cut in pieces Have you been gathered into Companies and then burnt Have your Wives been ravisht and ript up and their children tost on Pikes Have you been whipt to death Have the
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
by this means being of several Nations Ps 11. different tempers and interests Luk. 24. neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie Which may be reduced to this Syllogism If the Church be composed of men of several Nations different tempers and interests then it 's infallible but it is so composed c. therefore infallible A. To your minor I shall onlie say that if I were not otherwayes perswaded to believe it then by your proofs of it which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey I should doubt of the truth of it Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholiques who you know read not Scripture But what needs all this ado this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men men of several Nations different tempers and interests But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition which is this That society that is framed and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world c. is infallible What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is would assent to this Who knows not that Herod and Pontius Pilate the Jews and Romans men of several Nations of different tempers and interests yet conspired in resisting the Gospel and crucifying of Christ Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations yea more then true Christians possess different tempers and interests yet damnable erroneous What do you think of the 72. Interpreters Oyril Caled 3. pag 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek which they did without any discrepancie eirher in sense or words though kept asunder one from another Do you think they were infallible The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world of different tempers and interests yet most dangerously erroneous Yet further when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose Once more shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications yet damnably err 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests Is it that some are godly some wicked some promoters of Christs interest some advancers of the Devils By your tempers mean you that some are hot others cold and a third sort lukewarm And by your different interests that some promote the Popes interest others the interest of Councils against the Pope This is your Churches composure but proves no infallibilitie 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie which Vane in his late books labours to prove Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world Vane's Lost Sheep p. 16. much more conclude against your infallibility But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient of your Argument and therefore before the end of your Section you flie to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church whereby she becomes infallible But this I have answered before and avoid repetitions CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book and how this Chapter should come in next to the former When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness what rational man but would have thought but that you should have said somthing of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer which you laid down as a second means and not have leapt to the third in such haste I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature the Church of Rome for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error here you free her from sin for if any be free from sin it must be the Roman Church And your next Chapter is about Religion or religious worship But seeing I have begun I will continue to follow you In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web what you say in the first and second Section you clearlie unsay in the third which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions You begin with exceeding confidence wondering that any can make question of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you You urge Scripture examples and arguments The Scriptures you mainly urge are these Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21 1 Deut. 30. They are not above but very neer us in our mouths and in our hearts to do them It s the Argument of your Donatists but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience that which it proves is the perspicuitie of the Law as to the Jews knowledg of it Vatab. Annot in Loc. That word which you render above is by Vatablus rendred Hid non est occultum à te It s not hidden from thee As if he should say to them you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law seeing it s not hid from you but published to you being in your mouths i. e. in ore Levitarum c. in the mouths of the Levites who are of thy people that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good lâ—fe Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note Praeciditur hic c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith Rom. 10.8 i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith Thus Lyranus explains it saying Lyran. Ostenditur c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law Phil. 3.9 Vatablus is verie clear in this point understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith his words at large are these Si de sola lege c. If this were spoken only of the Law his argument were frivolous in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done by being before our eyes then if it were far off Moses therefore in this Chapter as in the fourth doth commend unto the people Gods special good will as appears by that place of Paul Rom. 10 8. in bringing them under his tutorage which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law Nor doth it hinder that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it therefore one is
p. 152. An. 1531. p. 214. that he was non parum doctus not meanly learned The Epitaph this same Author mentions to be written upon Oecolampadius shews him to be a man of great learning the rest of them were men of good parts and indued with a Spirit of zeal for Gods truth besides with those gifts the present necessity did much concurre those who had the key of order neither entring in themselves nor admitting others into it who sought the advancement of Christs Kingdom 2. By meditation of others who received authority from the prime-giver thus the Protestant Bishops and Pastors after the Apostles time received their power from the hands of those whom the Apostles had before invested therewith yea if we speak of the first Protestant Bishops and Pastors they had their authority immediately from the hands of the Apostles The Waldenses who had Bishops and Pastors amongst them are supposed by some of your side to have continued from the Apostles upon this account are judged more pernicious to you than any other Sect. But to omit them Rainer de vit morib Waldens apud Vsher de aeccles Christ success stat p. 151. The first and ancients Fathers of the Church were Protestants in their Doctrines You have been often challenged to shew that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church for many hundred years after Christ were not Protestants but Papists maintaining the articles of your Late Creed It were easy to shew that those Doctrines of Protestants that you anathematize as heresies were with the ancient Fathers received truth thus were communion under both kinds prayer in a known tongue c. by your own confessions It s therefore false that the Apostles were dead and gone long before these had any being So then we have power and authority from Christ by meditation of others succeeding the Apostles But against this I have said you object thus Object By this is implyed a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops and Pastors ever since Christ and the Apostles it is not conceiveable any other way how power could be transmitted from one hand to another as is averred Answ 1. Here is not implyed a continuation of succession c. if thereby you understand such succession as admits of no interruption and that in particular Churches The succession of Pastors in particular Churches may cease through the violence and tyranny of enemies yet the violence being over there may be a reestablishments of the Ministry and that in succession to the former though the means of the new establishment be only the peoples choice which in some cases is most valued 2ly What if there hath been a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops c You answer They must then be visible for as much as it was their parts to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments Rep. I grant it who ever denyed that the Pastors of the Church were visible We hold indeed that sometimes they may lie hid from their enemies but they are visible to their friends though they be not seen in the streets of Rome they are visible in the mountains and woods c. when the Church is in the wilderness her Pastors are not visible in Cities and Courts 2. But what if visible You answer If visible they may be produced they ought to be produced they may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Mat. 5. They ought because Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling Luke 7. as well to settle the wavering as to bend and make supple the stifnesse of stubborn misbeleevers 1 Pet. 3. Rep. 1. They might be visible in their times yet now not producible You know what rigor hath been used against Protestant books you burnt Wicklif's works and have extinguished others You deal with us as Doctor Featly shews as if a theif should steal our purse and make away our money and then demand of us what is become of our money if we had any such summes of money in what bag and where those bags are 2. There are ofâ— our Authors who have produced Protestant Bishops and Pastors i. e. such as have maintained Protestant Doctrine in every age since the Apostles 3. Whereas you say They may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Math. 5. 1. Your reason is a piece of nonsence and having no relation to what it should prove the question is about the power of naming them not the actual naming them if we had granted the power and denyed the act your Say had made somewhat for you as when you say the Commandments may be kept but cannot name one that keeps them it makes against you 2. It s a tautology your word Reducible denotes power not act so that it s as if you had said that power to act is vain and fictitious that is not in power to act 3. Your quotation is impertinent so far as I know I have searched Math. 5. and I find not any thing that may make for your purpose and I 'm sure your axiom is not there Sure you mistook Matthew for Aristotle 4. It s false that there is a necessity of producing Protestant Bishops and Pastors we look more at succession of doctrine then persons and think this sufficient to denominate us the true Church for which we have Tertullian's judgment in that book you even now cite affirming That those Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolical for consent of faith and consanguinity of doctrine When our Authors bring in Catalogues of Protestant Pastors it is to stop the mouths it may be of unreasonable men that demand them of us Your reason to prove this necessity is this Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling For 1. It 's one thing for a Pastor to give an account of his calling and another thing to give an account of his predecessors If you were a Bishop in some City and were demanded of the lawfulness of your calling were the way to give them a beadrol of your predecessors in that City This would come short of giving satisfaction for they might be lawful Shepherds and you who succeed them no better than a ravening wolfe 2ly The Text Luke 7. proves nothing for you if you point at the account our Saviour gives of his calling to Johns Messengers v. 19 20. You shall find no naming or producing of his predecessors but of his Doctrine and works Go tell John saith he what ye have seen and heard So we when you demand how we prove our selves true Pastors send you to what you hear and see our Doctrines and works conformable to the Word of God the Law of Moses and Gospel of Christ 3ly Few that have a desire after truth and regard our Doctrine
be so evident in it self why do not all Papists agree with you but rather oppose you 2. Your reason is most ridiculous 't is this The true Church was before any false one therefore succession is proper to the true Church If you had been speaking of antiquity your argument would have had some force in it but antiquity and succession are different things constituting two distinct notes of your Church Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches succession only at the continuation of them But I think your mind was upon antiquity for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ for you say There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ c. To which I answer 1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive their succession from Christ or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies also But 2. Those Churches that are now or have lately been Heretical may yet derive a personal succession from Christ in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles but have since degenerated Thus it is with the Greek Churches and your Roman Church and probably was with the Arians who though they wanted doctrinal succession yet might have personal there being Bishops of note who maintained that Heresie In the former regard its true which you say that the Arian derivation climbeth no further then Arius there 's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons though you seem to take no notice of it Lastly you return to the Protestant Church and whereas it s said There have been named in several ages the Albigenses the Apostolici Wickliff Hus. You Answer None of these were Protestants c. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants the Albigenses otherwise called Waldenses were Protestants Parsons confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel Pars 3. Con. part 3. Hist of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit an 1595. Id. p. 67. A French Historian writes thus of them Who in spite of all the Potentates in Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day For the further clearing of this take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis 1. Of France about the year 1540. and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father Creator of all things of the Son advâ—cate and Intercessor for mankind of the Holy Ghost Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church which they said to be assembled of all the chosen having Jâ—sus Christ for Head of Ministers of the Maâ—istrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honor but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practice it Of Baptism which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign represeâ—ting unto us the Regenerati n of the Spirit and Mortification of the Members Of the Lords Supper which they hold for a thanksgiving and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ Of Marriage which they say was not forbidden to any by h w much it was Holy and ordained oâ— God Of good work wherâ—in they ought to imploy themselves continually â—f Mans tradition which they ought to shun protesting in Sums that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed This positive Confession I have taken verbatim out of the French Historian to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome was not above other Bishops That prayers for the dead and Purgatory were devised by the Priests for their own gain That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced that confirmation and extream unction were no Sacraments That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven since they cannot help us That auricular confession was a trifling thing That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying was vain That Oyl and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitom Historian page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them and now let the reader judge whether they were Protestants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protestants 1. They hold not in all points with them For this you cite divers Authors But I answer 1. I confesse the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Masse is to be said once only every year Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time and minister to them that require it The same Guido saith they held that the words of consecration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread but Aeneas Sylvius Antonius and Luxemburg say the contrary affirming that they thought it sufficient to speak the Sacramental words only Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme but Reinerus the French Historian and others free them from it 2. Their confessions shew that there is very small difference betwixt them and the Protestants 3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants yet they might be Protestants perfect complyance is not absolutely necessary to constitute a person a member of the Church Many of the members of the Church of Rome Corinth Galatia c. did not agree in all points with those Churches yet were members of them The French Papists go under the name of Catholiques yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council and that the Council of Trent was Oecumenical and Lawfull The books of many named Catholiques have been censured for unsound speeches and because they have not held in all points with your Churh yet are Catholiques still The Apostle supposeth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule yet some may be otherwise minded Phil. 3.15 which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant 2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves Answ 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants the argu-is this They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants The Waldenses hold not
Pastors should be visible after they are dead for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose it not providing the the Church of means to defend aâ—d make good her right in case of opposition c. Answ 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear or a necromancers eye but supposing charitably that you mean that their names should be visible I say 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned It s sufficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ and that the Apostles professed and preached it Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple It s a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ and was professed by the Apostles had professors of it in all ages and these must needs be true Pastors though without exact succession Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles not of men meerly sent but withall professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England though now forgetting what you had before said you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its euident they are true and Catholique but this I have confuted before 3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it do not prove your assertion you say It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince Answ 1. It is unlike if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ You seem to grant pag. 56 that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession How then will you prove the truth of those Churches for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for 2. Supposing them like yet it s not the un-interruptednesse of succession for which they lay claim to the principality for it may have been in the hands of usurpers but discent together with the qualifications required in him who is to inherit which are found in one but not in the other thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth 2. Or to a river whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain the surest way is to trace the river up to the head Answ 1. It may be probably known by other means than this viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river by the ascent of the water of the rivers c. 2. Tracing it is not always a sure way it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain it may run through a dead sea and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head Yet 3. I grant that when the head is near and there is no mixture of impure and different waters your course is very good thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches did make use of derivation of succession But the case is otherwise with us we living many hundreds of years after them and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church Lastly You say The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner if it be found to have no way varied but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles doubtless its Orthodox if not most certainly its new and false Answ 1. The former part is most true but not the later that Doctrine is true which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine 2. Granted is true what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde prayer in an unknown tongue c. are new and false The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a reply SHAPE V. THe fift Shape is this That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture but the Protestant Church doth so therefore c. You answer 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church it being often to be seen among schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church Reply 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions 1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseperable mate p. 40. But it could not be her inseperable mate if it could be seperated from her and brought into society with a schismatical Church 2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth and ordained her keeper and preserver of it and what comes upon any other score than upon the Churches account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account and therefore with you is Apocriphal 3. True Doctrine is Her the Churches Doctrine p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others 4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols no concord with Christ and Belial You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church 5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismaticks that did not either adde to or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture hence 't is that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
its probable his Monk Austin was not free In the life of Austin p. 511 512 and therefore when he came amongst the Brittains who had the Gospel and many Bishops and learned men amongst them he was rejected by them for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismaticks maintaining errors yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholick Church Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox being opposite to those innovations the Bishop of Râ—â—â—e by his Apostles would have brought upon them 2 To your minor Saint Austines Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's time was the same it is at thiâ— present I answer could you prove this it would make much for you but hic labor hâ—c opus est this is too difficult a work for you and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a company of quotations to no purpose There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with that affirms Austins Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed as I can understand him doth not but rather saith the contrary for speaking of the present Church of Rome he saith They hold justification by works of grace they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b dy of Christ in the Mass for the sins of quick and dead they worship images c. Thus then it appears that the old Church of Rome is changed and is now at this day of a Spâ—use of Christ become an Harlot and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed than the carkass of a dead man that wears a living mans garment is a living man though he look never so like him This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton in his above mentioned appeal where he largely shews what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main points of controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists Your mention of all the English Cronicles is but a Popish vaunt be pleased in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregories and their words till then I suspend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last it is the weakest and most evidently false in its propositions as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader CHAP. XII Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered YOu begin your Chapter with a sad complaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words The enemies of the Roman Church have not shewn more pride in contemning her power then malice in raising false and slanderous reports against her good name therefore I will endeauour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objections Answ When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the nature and definition of slander There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation or a charging of such things upon others whereof they are not guilty And this your Aquinas will tell you is true Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty If their accusation be false why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them You affirm that Christs Body may be in divers places at once that the Mass with Altars images and relicks are to be adored that Saints and Angels are Mediatours c. If it be true why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them But let vs examine the Answers to the Objections 1 Objection THe first objection is The Church of Rome teacheth Christs body to be present in many places at once which implyeth contradiction Answ 1. The measure of Gods power is his will and his will is above the reach of our capacitie therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of I reply 1. If you speak of Gods absolute Power it s not measured by his Will God is able to do more then he hath done or will do Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks Math. 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham Thus we grant he is able to make more works and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body he can turn one thing into another of a different kind This Power as it s not measured by Gods Will so it s not the foundation or reason of our faith whereby we believe the existence of any thing But 2 If you speak of Gods executive power which is the power measured by his Will whereof you speak then we affirme this presence is impossible to God because contrary to his will as I shall shew even now 3 Whereas you say Gods Will is above our capacity c. Rom. 11.34 Deutr. 29.29 I answer Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration it s either secret or revealed that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our knowledge so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience but his revealed will is for us to know and obey If then you speak of Gods secret will you shew your self presumptuous intruding into such things as you ought not but if onely of his revealed then you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us Now this I utterly deny for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two volumes of Gods will whereby it s fully expressed unto us viz. Reason and Scripture by the former its expressed more imperfectly and darkly by the latter most fully and clearly The former is subordinate to the latter and the latter is perfective of the former Whatsoever else testifies of Gods Will it s in subordination to these and is to be tryed by them Nor are we to account any mans dictate to be Gods will that doth not agree with one or both of these I shall therefore shew the dissonancy of your Doctrine 1. to Reason then 2. to Scripture 1. It s contrary to Reason Aquin. Suppl 3. part q. 83 Art 3. ad 4m. that one body should be present in many places at once without the destruction of that body Aquinas saith Vnum corpus c. One body cannot be at once locally in two places no not by a miracle and he gives this reason because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum which is to be divided in it self for it would follow that it should be in a distinct posture whence it follows that for the same body to be locally at once in divers places includes contradictiion as for a
and originally in God as Lord paramount of all creatures but not incommunicable for as he hath bestowed the power of governing Kingdomes and Common-wealths on Kings and Magistrates Prov. 8.15 Rom. 13.1 So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successours yet men having these powers by way of gift and participation may not be said to govern or to forgive sins but as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection Reply 1. Gods power as to some of its acts is incommunicable His power of Creation is naturally in him and incommunicable to any creature so is his damning and saving power whereby he makes one a vessell of wrath another of mercy of this nature is his power of remitting sin It is God that justifies and it was a serious question though wrongly applied of the Scribes Who can forgive sins but God only Mark 2.7 others cannot do it and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christs divinitâ— saith he Solus Dâ—us remittit peccata c. Bed apud Lyran ib i.e. God onely remits sins and the Son of man hath power of remiting sin therefore God and the Son of man are the same thus the Son of man by his divinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to dy for sinners For the clearing of this I observe that remission of sins may be considered two wayes viz. 1. As it is a judiciall act and denotes formall pardon Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the crâ—mes are directly committed and his absolution is onely satisfactory to the offender as Soto on Rom. 8.33 very well shewes 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts the judiciall act or formall absolution belongs to the Judge but the declaration of this is in the crier 'T is thus in the Church The Church is the crier but God the Judge his act is an act of power and authority whereby Pardon is formally obtained but so is not theirs This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen Lombard is clear for it Ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus c. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 18. F. The Evangelicall Priest saith he doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legall Priest did on them that had the Leprosie Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean but onely upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean nor is this the judgement of him onely but of many other Schoolmen and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned do in a Pharasaicall pride as Lombard speaks claim to it self a judiciall power which Ambrose calls jus potestatis then it s certainly true that the Romane Church claims a power that belongs onely to God But it s certainly true that this Church claims a power the Trent Councill is clear and full for it Concil Trid sess 14. cap. 6. Can. 9. ap Binnium So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say that is no judiciall act but onely an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner This is that we charge upon your Church as an hereticall opinion What you say in answer to our Objection I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church or in meer opposition to us you have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is You say The successours of the Apostles have power to forgive sins as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferioritie and subjection You should have told us what this suitable power is for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen And if you deny her that you confess with us that she claims a power that belongs onely to God Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestowed power of governing on Kings so hath he given the Apostles and their successours the power of formall remission 4. Objection THe fourth Objection is The Roman Church derogateth from Christs Mediatorship making it common to Saints and Angels Answ 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt Gods power and theirs Psal 81.1.6 The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels a certain likeness to the mediation of Christ they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others may not unfitly call them alike by the name of mediation Reply 1. That things that are like have sometime the same denomination none will question but the ground of this is not alwayes likness or resemblance as you seem to assert different things altogether unlike may have the same denomination whilest those that have some likeness cannot The children of God who have his Image and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods though Magistrates are Psal 82. There are two reasons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures 1. Relation the persons stand in unto God and Christ thus Judges are called Gods and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 because Judges and Moses stood in Gods stead were his Vice-royes his Ambassadours 2. Divine authoritie seconding the relation I have said ye are Gods and all of you the children of the most High c. Psal 82.6.105 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christs Now according as God gives these names to creatures so may we provided that we give them 1. Onely to those to whom he gives them 2. That we give them not to any as properly belonging to them but onely as metaphoricall expressions 3. Nor ordinarily but upon speciall and extraordinary occasions and with allusions to Gods own words Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods Act. 14.1 It s not lawfull for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them nor to say to others ye are Jehovah or Christ or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied The Apostle expresly saith There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5.2 If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtfull what likeness doth it There is nothing in the world but hath some kind of likeness to God yet you may not call every thing God though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbes 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels supposing these to interceed though you prove it not and mediation of Christ is so little that it cannot be thought a sufficient ground for this denomination What ever you can say of the intercession of Saints
this precept Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup 1 Cor. 11.28 And he further tells them That as oft as they did so they did shew forth the Lords death that is they did according to their duty attaine to the end of the Sacrament 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end because 1. Otherwise the passion of Christ is represented Aquinas Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art 2. ad 1 m. saith of the whole Valet ad representandam c. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated and apart from the body therefore in the forme of consecration of the blood there is mention of its effusion It s a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament not as suffering and shedding his blood but under another consideration whereas the end of the Sacrament is to shew forth the Lords death 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received but his body only without his blood and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment It s granted by Popish Schoolmen that although whole Christ be under the form of bread and whole Christ under the form of wine Aquin. Supr yet Ex vi Sacramenti c. i. e. by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread and his blood only under the species of wine Petrus de Palude is full in this saith he There ought to be a two-fold matter of this Sacrament viz. the matter of meat and drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd perfectly and in a manner agreeable to nature because Sacraments work that which they figure but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nourishment of the soul therefore the matter representing ought to be by perfect refection of the body which is not but by meat and drink See more to this purpose in Cassand de Sacr. Com. sulutraque specie p. 1034. c. 4. The primitive Christians yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ did practise according to Christs institution and example The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds or in neither yea Christs institution was the ground of the first Christians practise as Cassander shews and with him Bonaventure Cass de Sacr. Com. c. p. 1019 1020 1021. Bon. apud Cass ibid. who saith the reason of both kinds is dispositively from nature but completively from divine institution which hath ordained these two signes to signifie one perfect refection The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day and that upon this ground Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christs institution then the Popes followers do and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves obliged to duty 3. You say Wherâ—fore thâ— Romane Church believing Christs institution of the Sacramâ—nt to have been under both kinds giveth to it its full due Reply 1. I wonder that you who are sometimes so generous as that you will give God more then you owe him or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more then his due But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signes which Christ hath ordained to be used in it I believe if you took away the bread and gave the people only the cup which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know you would say you gave Christs institution its full due but if you give it its full due when you leave onely one kind what do you think they did who used both did they supererogate or were they superstitious Surely either you give too little or they too much to Christs institution 3. How silly is it to say You believe Christ did institute it under both kinds the Devills believe it so many Turks Pagans Jews yet give not Christs institution its full due They look upon Christs actions as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples but no way obligatory to them or others and you give it no more Lastly I appeal to any rational man whether Christs institution of the Sacrament under both kinds may not probably require from us a conformity of practise withall considering the practise of the Church of God in her purest times and the good or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it It s evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christs institutions that so she may set up her own inventions Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of water and as if that were defective the Roman Church hath added salt spiâ—â—le c. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine and as if these were too many she restraines the people to the use of one only So that probably had Christ instituted bread onely you would have added the cup that the institution might have something of your Lord God's the Pope 4. You say For the Communion under one kind there being no Commandement forbidding the same it is rashness in an high degree and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to condemn Rome of Sacriledg or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacriledge the Manichees the rise of it Non ex constitutione aliqua Cassand supr p. 1035. c. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Councel but only by custom which is oft times the patron of much wickedness 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious c. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us who expresly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio without hainous Sacriledge 3. It is no rashness to condemn her of sacriledge for the Cup is an holy thing having divine Institution Apostolical and primitive Administration It must therefore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less then Sacrilege Aquin. 22 ae q. 99. Art 3. nay according to Aquinas its the highest kind of Sacriledg But it s strange to see what little â—â—gard divine Institution or Apostolical practise hath with Papals â— though sometimes they accuse us of novelty and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine Institutions Apostolical traditions and primitive practice we must be branded with heresie for disceding from them yet here they are in another strain and because we use the Cup according to Christs Institution and primitive practice we are