men which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests against Gods allowance and the practice of former ages The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches who though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants As for the Nations converted Scots French the Martyrs of Africa which he mentions it is not shewed that either they were converted by any from Rome or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years within which he included his Demonstration which were better than the later though not without their corruptions I proceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following SECT IX The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in the sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Ages is shewed H. T. in his catalogue from the year of Christ 500. reckons up thirteen chief Pastors one general Council the second Constantinopolitan Pope Vigilius prefiding Fathers 165. An. Dom 553. against Anthimius and Theodore but Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 1. de concil c. 19. that Eutychius of Constantinople was President there though Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople As for that which Bellarmine cites out of Zonaras in the life of Justinian he cites it maimedly For Zonaras said not that onely Vigilius was Prince of the Bishops who were present but with him Eutychius of Constantinople and Apollinaris of Alexandria What H. T. mentions of the definitions of the council is nothing against the protestants nor for the Papacy That which he allegeth out of the third council of Carthage is disorderly placed in the sixth age it being held as is said in the year 397. and is of doubtfull credit sith it mentions Pope Boniface as then living though he sat not according to Onuphrius till the year 419. but it matters not what it was sith it was but a provincial Synod and of the canons cited by H. T. the first is onely about a point not of Faith concerning the celebrating the Mass Fasting the other which terms the Apocryphal books as canonical may be expounded according to Hierom's distinction that they are canonical to form manners not to inform faith Yet this may be observed by the way that the six and twentieth Canon of the third Council of Carthage which was authorized by the sixth general council holden at Constantinople in Trullo as it is alleged by Gratian in the Decrees dist 99. de primatibus and by Pope Pelagius approved denies to any the title of Chief Priest or Prince of Priests but alows onely this Title Bishop of the first See whereupon the Gloss saith that even the Bishop of Rome was not to be called the Universal Bishop The determination of the Council of Mileris about Childrens Baptism is disorderly placed in the sixth age being said to be held in the year 402. and being no general council about a point not gainsaid by most protestants is impertinent to prove a succession of assertors of the Roman Doctrine opposite to the protestants That which he allegeth out of the Caesar Augustan Council which decreed that Virgins should not be vailed till after forty years probation makes against the Papists who in the Trent council allow it sooner and practise the vasting of them afore they are twenty years old That which he adds of Pope John the first his Decree that Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it because it is written See thou offer not thy holocausts in every place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. shews the Popes ignorance or Judaism who applies this to the Mass which was meant of Jewish sacrificing in the Levitical Law and makes the Mass to be an offering of an holocaust and every place consecrated by a bishop the place that God chooseth and also the vanity of this Scribler who puts in his catalogue such an impertinent testimony to prove a succession of the assertors of the Roman faith which I scarce think any sober papist would make any part of his faith against protestants nor do I think the papists in England would be content to be tied to that Law In that which he adds of Catholick Professors to the year 600. he doth not shew that they acknowledged the bishop of Rome's supremacy or the now Roman faith Yea Columbanus in this age and after Aidanus Colmannus and others lived and died in opposition to the Romans about Easter That Austin the Monk converted England is onely true of some part of it and it is true also that he did in many things pervert them and it is said he was an instigator of the murder of many British Christians better than himself but that either he or Pope Gregory that sent him held the same supremacy of the pope which now popes claim or the now Roman faith opposite to the protestants cannot be shewed On the contrary it is manifest enough that Gregory the great refused the Title of Universal Bishop as profane and sacrilegious and accounted the assumer of it to be a fore-runner of Antichrist lib 4. epist 32 34 36 38 39. lib. 6. epist 30. he allowed not Worship of Images in his Epistle to Serenus bishop of Marseiles he allowed priests wives nor did tie men to follow the order of the Roman church which shews the popes then not to have been altogether so bad as in the next age In which and throughout the rest of his Catalogue he can hardly shew a Pope that lived either the life of a Christian or did the Office of a pastour of the church of God if any sure not many but in stead of Christian pastours a generation of men of an ambitious and luxurious spirit contending with Emperours and Bishops for worldly greatness persecuting godly Christians living in pomp riot and all kinde of wickedness are set down as chief pastours of the universal church In the seventh age he reckons up nineteen Popes whom he terms chief Pastors of them the second is Boniface the third who obtained of Phocas the Emperor who by treason had gotten the Empire slaying his Lord Mauritius and his children the title of universal Bishop detested before by Gregory the great as profane and sacrilegious and Honorius the first is the fifth condemned in the third Constantinopolitan Council in which H. T. saith there were Fathers two hundred eighty nine Pope Agatho presiding Anno Domini 680. against the Monothelites and that in it were condemned Sergius Paulus Petrus Cyrus and Theodore who most impiously taught but one
their usurpations of power The third Lateran Council saith H. T. Fathers three hundred for reformation Pope Alexander the third presiding Anno Domini 1179. condemned Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons who taught the Apostles were lay men that lay men and women might consecrate and preach that clergy men ought to have no possessions or properties that oaths were unlawful in all cases that Priests and Magistrates by mortal sin fell from their dignity and were not to be obeyed c. His tenents were here defined against and he himself anathematized But suppose all this were true that he so taught and that the Pope with his council condemned him what is this to prove H. T. his minor that a council in that age professed the same faith with the now Roman against the Protestants Are the contrary tenents any of the Articles which in his Manual of Controversies H. T. defends against the Protestants do the Protestant churches in their confessions avow the same which he here saith the council ascribed to Waldensis the Merchant of Lyons but to shew the ignorance of this scribler the person who was Merchant of Lyons in France was Petrus Waldus from whom his followers were termed Waldenses whom I find to have been condemned in some council at Rome about that time but in the Lateran council 1179. I find other decrees about Priests continency the number of horses clergy men might have in their visitations and the exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the judgement of Laicks which it seems were the great business of reformation As for the Waldenses there is no cause to believe adversaries in their accusations of them especially such ignorant and malicious men as the Friers and Monks of former and later times have been Besides the experience which after ages yeilded about their belying Wicklef Hus and others our own times yeild many examples of Papists falsly reporting the tenents of Protestants Though Bellarmin be more ingenuous in setting down the Protestants doctrin than many other writers yet there 's scarce a controversie wherein he doth not deal deceitfully in representing the Protestants doctrin or their arguments and answers But the writings professions apologies put forth by Balthasar Lydius in Latin shew that the opinions of the Waldenses were not such as the Papists represent them and the words of Reinerius an inquisitor and enemy to them in his book of inquisition concerning them doth more truely acquaint us what they were which are thus that whereas all other sects by the immanity of their blasphemies against God do make men abhor them this of the Lyonists the same with the Waldenses hath a great shew of godliness because they live justly before men and do believe all things well of God and all the articles which are contained in the Creed only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate And now we have more full knowledge of them by Mr. Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont As for the Catholick professors H. T. adds in this age though Bernardus Abbas commonly called St. Bernard be reckoned as a professor of the new Roman faith and it is not denied that he was superstitious in some points yet he freely noted divers corruptions then arising as the feast of the Virgin Maries conception which tended to uphold the conceit of her freedom from sin Ep. 174. ad can Lugd. the opinion of merits serm 1. de annunt of justification by works cant serm 22. ep 190. of freewill de grat lib. arb of keeping the law cant ser 50 of seven Sacraments ser 1. de Caena Domini of uncertainty of Salvation ep 107. and the Popes greatness in temporalities l. 2. confid ad Eugen. And for Hildegardis the Nunne her speeches and prophecies shewed her dislike of the proceedings of the clergy even of the Popes Noribertus and some others were noted for their superstitious waies of Monkery Thomas Becket of Canterbury for his obstinacy against his Prince Henry the second whom he traiterously opposed to uphold the wickedness of the clergy and others named whether they were of good or bad note it is of little moment sith it s not denied there were too many then infected with the Roman errors and superstitions Nor is it of much advantage that Nicolas the Monke after Pope converted the Pomeranians and Norwegians that Pope being bad enough and the conversion if to Romish superstition rather than Christian faith little crediting the Romish Church SECT XI The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the thirteenth and fourteenth ages is shewed IN the thirteenth century are set down seventeen Popes as chief Pastors of whom the first is Gelasius the second who was first in the former age but I imagin though it be not noted in the Errata for Honorius the third who was a bloody Bishop as others before him setting up Emperor against Emperor cruel Friers against the godly Waldenses besides other wicked acts he did The like were Gregory the ninth in whose time the bloody factions of Guelphs and Gibellius happened and Innocent the fourth whom Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln withstood contemning his excommunication and being dead was such a terror to this wicked Pope as to hasten his death Nicolas the third whom H. T. makes the converter of the Pomeranians and Norwegians raised the quarrel between Peter of Arragon and Charles of France for Sicily whence grew the massacre of the French called the Sicilian Vespers and the last and worst of them Boniface the eighth is said to have entred like a Fox reigned like a Lyon died like a dog H. T. adds two general Councils the fourth Lateran council Fathers 1285. Pope Innocent the third presiding Anno 1215. And tells us that this Council desined that the universal Church of the faithful is one out of which no man is saved Which definition we approve and thereby the doctrin of the Protestants is confirmed who teach that the Catholick Church we believe is the invisible Church of true believers and that the Catholick Church is not only the Roman Church and those who subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome and profess the same faith with the now Roman Church but all the believers who believe the doctrin of the Gospel taught by Christ and his Apostles though they neither know nor own the Roman Church in the things therein held against the Protestants nor acknowledge any superiority of the Bishop of Rome are members of the Catholick Church and that it is not the Church of Rome which is falsly called Catholick out of which none can be saved but the universal Church of the faithful in which who ever is by true faith in Christ he may be saved though he disclaims the Bishop of Rome as Antichrist and the faction or party joyning with him as the Synagogue of Satan and consequently that it is not as H. T. saith in his Epistle to the Reader the most important controversie to know the notion and
which Paul counts himself a Master-builder that built not on Peter 's foundation or any others Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel and consequently the building of the Church Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel 3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows that the building of the Church is by Doctrine and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it not of Rule or Dominion Yea the Council of Trent it self Sess 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and thereby intimates the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine 4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire No where is a Prince said to edifie but Prophets Apostles and other Teachers nor is Excommunication Ordination calling of Councils and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification but teaching and reproving 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church Matth. 16. 18. 5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter but of what Christ would do by him and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power but of singular work 6. The end of the power which the Pope claims is for the exalting of himself and his visible Monarchy but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter but the use of him for setting up his Church The Popes power is as all experience witnesseth for the destruction of the Church not for edification and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18. If any say How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him I answer in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching as Acts 2. 3. 4. 10. appears and seems to be observed by Peter as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other though afterwards he chose Paul who did labour more abundantly than the rest 1 Cor. 15. 10. 2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them is proved 1. From Ephes 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building and it is Christ and not Peter in whom all the Building is fitly framed together 2. From Revel 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations and not one singular one supporting the rest but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles none of whom is the Foundation of the rest 3. That the term Church Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible is proved 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it 2. In that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish 4. That my Church Matth. 16. 18. is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter but that cannot be true sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul and he denies he built on anothers Foundation Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself sith Peter was part of the universal Church and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter which are absurd Which things being evinced it appears 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had and so belongs not to any Successour 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship pag. 75. for that Christ expresly forbade but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel recompensing his readiness to acknowledge Christ And this Christ had elsewhere promised Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of mâ—n Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built we would most gladly it were true that the Pope were such we should then honour him and kiss his Toe but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which the Pope is painted with as having them in his hands and by which he was wont to claim his power But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims sith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution the Keys are in their hands and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope therefore I need not insist on that here sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it SECT IV. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church But he adds And for a Reward of Peter's special dilection for he loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles he said to him Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. a Commission to feed all without exception Answ THe Argument seems to be this He to whom as a Reward of his special dilection by which he loved Christ more thaâ— all the rest of the Apostles Christ said Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. and thereby gave him a Commission to feed all without exception was Pastour of the whole Flock But this was Peter Ergo. Here four things are supposed whereof not one is true 1. That Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles For neither were all the rest of the Apostles there nor doth Christ or Peter say he did love Christ more than they did but onely puts a question which may either have this sense Lovest
universal Church profess that Tradition is against the Papal Monarchy and other Points depending on it they cast Tradition behinde their backs 4. They cry up the Fathers and when we bring their judgements against the substance of Popery they sometime vilifie or accuse them as erroneous and sometime tell us that Fathers as well as Scripture must be no otherwise understood than their Church expoundeth them 5. They plead for and appeal to Councils and though we easily prove that none of them were universal yet such as they were they call them all Reprobate which were not approved by their Pope let the number of Bishops there be never so great And those that were approved if they speak against them they reject also either with lying shifts denying the approbation or saying the acts are not de fide or not conciliariter facta or the sense must be given by their present Church or one such contemptible shift or other 6. At least one would think they should stand to the judgement of the Pope which yet they will not for shame forbids them to own the Doctrine of those Popes that were Hereticks or Infidels and by Councils so judged And others they are forced to disown because they contradict their Predecessours And at Rome the Cardinals are the Pope while he that hath the name is oft made light of And how infallible he is judged by the French and the Venetians how Sixtus the fifth was valued by the Spaniards and by Bellarmine is commonly known 7. But all this is nothing to their renunciation of humanity even of the common senses and reason of the world When the matter is brought to the Decision of their eys and taste and feeling whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine and yet all Italy Spain Austria Bavaria c. cannot resolve it yea generally unless some latent Protestant do pass their judgement against their senses and the senses of all sound men in the World and that not in a matter beyond the reach of sense as whether Christ be there spiritually but in a matter belonging to sense if any thing belong to it as whether Bread be Bread c. Kings and Nobles Prelates and Priests do all give their judgement that all their senses are deceived And is it possible for these men than to know any thing or any controversie between us and them to be decided If we say that the Sun is light or that the Pope is a man and Scripture legible or that there are the Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in the World they may as well concur in a denial of all this or any thing else that sense should judge of If they tell us that Scripture requireth them to contradict all their senses in this point I answer 1. Not that Scripture before mentioned that calleth it Bread after the Consecration thrice in the three next Verses 2. And how know they that there is such a Scripture if all their senses be so fallible If the certainty of sense be not supposed a little Learning or Wit might satisfie them that Faith can have no certainty But is it not a most dreadfull judgement of God that Princes and Nations Learned men and some that in their way are consciencious should be given over to so much inhumanity and to make a Religion of this brutishness and worse and to persecute those with Fire and Sword that are not so far forsaken by God and by their reason and that they should so sollicitously labour the perversion of States and Kingdoms for the promoting of stupidity or stark madness 8. And if we go from their Principles to their Ends or Ways we shall soon see that they are also against the Unity of the Church while they pretend this as their chiefest Argument to draw men to their way They set up a corrupted Faction and condemn the far greater part of the Church and will have no unity with any but those of their own Faction and Subjection and fix this as an essential part of their Religion creating thereby an impossibility of universal concord 9. They also contradict the Experience of many thousand Saints asserting that they are all void of the Love of God and saving Grace till they become subject to the Pope of Rome when as the Souls of these Believers have Experience of the Love of God within them and feel that Grace that proveth their Justification I wonder what kinde of thing it is that is called Love or Holiness in a Papist which Protestants and other Christians have not and what is the difference 10. They are most notorious Enemies to Charity condemning most of the Christian World to Hell for being out of their subjection 11. They are notorious Enemies to Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity and avoiding Heresie They celebrate their Worship in a Language not understood by the vulgar Worshippers They hinder the People from Reading the holy Scriptures which the ancient Fathers exhorted men and women to as an ordinary thing The quality of their Priests and People testifie this 12. They oppose the Purity of divine Worship setting up a multitude of humane Inventions in stead thereof and idolatrously for no less can be said of it adoring a piece of consecrated Bread as their God 13. They are Opposers of Holiness both by the foresaid enmity to Knowledge Charity and purity of Worship and by many unholy Doctrines and by deluding Souls with an outside historical way of Religion never required by the Lord consisting in a multitude of Ceremonies and worshiping of Angels and the Souls of Saints and Images and Crosses c. Let Experience speak how much the Life of Holiness is promoted by them 14. They are Enemies to common Honesty teaching the Doctrines of Equivocations and Mental Reservations and making many hainous sins venial and many of the most odious sins to be Duties as killing Kings that are excommunicated by the Pope taking Oaths with the foresaid Reservations and breaking them c. For the Jesuits Doctrine Montaltus the Jansenist and many of the French Clergy have pretty well opened it and the Pope himself hath lately been fain to publish a condemnation of their Apology And yet the power and interest of the Jesuits and their followers among them is not altogether unknown to the World 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and Government if there be any such in the World as their Doctrine and Practise of killing and deposing excommunicate Princes breaking Oaths c. shews Bellarmine that will go a middle way gives the Pope power in ordine ad spiritualia and indirectly to dispose of Kingdoms and tells us that it is unlawfull to tolerate heretical Kings that propagate their Heresie that is the ancient Faith How well Doctor Heylin hath vindicated their Council of Laterane in this whose Decrees stand as a Monument of the horrid treasonable Doctrine of the Papists I shall if God will hereafter manifest In the mean time let any
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
passage in his Epistle to the Reader in which he saith but not truly It is agreed by all parties that the Church founded in Christs blood was the onely mistris of Divine Faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two For this is not true of the church but of Christ his Apostles and their preaching and writings And therefore it is not true which he thence infers that the controversies of the Church are the most important doubtless of all others or that on the notion and eviction of her authority all other points essentially depend for their knowledge and decision which in effect is as if he had said Were there not a Pope and his council the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God and to decide any controversies in Religion which I count little better than blasphemy nor doth he well to begin with that point were it that he intended to have cleared truth he should first as Bellarmine and some others have done have examined the points of the Scriptures sufficiency and the needlesness of unwritten Traditions and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference that thereby the Reader might have discerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God sith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith which they hold as H. T. himself urgeth p. 45. Succession in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles continued unto this time is it by which the Church is known and therefore we must first know whether the Roman Faith be the same with that which Christ and his Apostles taught before we can know the truth of their succession and of their Church But H. T. after Becanus and others conceives it best for their design to forestall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church which being oncâ— setled in mens minds no marvel if they swallow down such gross Doctrines as Transubstantiation half Communion Invocation and Worship of Saints deceased Angels Reliques Images Crucifixes and the rest of their errors and abuses wherein any that reads the Scriptures may see how far they are gone from the Primitive saith taught by Christ and his Apostles nevertheless having premonished the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice I shall examine his Book in the order he hath chosen SECT III. The Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd ARticle 1. saith H. T. Our Tenet is That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the onely true Church of God Answ By the Sâ—e of Rome he means the Roman Bishop or Pope and the Communion he means is in the same Tenets which they hold according to the Trent Canons and Pius the fourth his Bull with subjection to the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ In which sense the Tenet is so palpably false and so extremely uncharitable that it is a marvel that any that hath the understanding of a man should imbrace it or the charity of a Christian should brook it For 1. If the Church now in communion with the See of Rome be the onely true Church of God then that Church onely hath eternal life for onely the true Church of God hath eternal life Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is their own determination Concil Lateran 4. Can. 2. and elsewhere But that Church which is not in communion with the See of Rome hath eternal life Ergo it is the true Church of God The Minor is proved thus That Church which believes in Jesus Christ hath eternal life But other Churches besides those now in communion with the See of Rome believe in Jesus Christ Ergo. The Major is plain from John 3. 16 18 36. 17. 3. 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11 12. Mark 16. 16. in which it is expresly said that he that believeth on Christ without any mention of Peter or the Pope hath eternal life The Minor is proved by their profession and other evidences of their reality in believing which if any deny to prove true faith in them he may as well deny there are any believers in Christ in the world 2. If there be no true Churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then there is some other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ given among men by which we must be saved and there is salvation in some other besides him for men have salvation in that name by which they are the true church of God and if we be the true church of God by communion with the Pope we have salvation by the Pope But this is most false and Antichristian to ascribe salvation to any other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ as being expresly contradictory to Peter's own words Act. 4. 12. There is no salvation in any other neither is there any name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ not Peter or the Bishop of Rome 3. If no churches be true churches of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ died for no other churches but them For Christ died for his church Ephes 5. 25. it is not said he gave himself for them who are not his church But sure it is very uncharitable to say that Christ died for no other than those that own the Pope and contrary to the Scripture that God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. therefore it is false and uncharitable to exclude all but Romanists out of the church of God 4. If none be the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are members of Christ in Christ the sons of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the true church of God onely are members of Christ in Christ the children of God Ephes 23. But it is false that none are members of Christ in Christ or children of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the Apostle tels the Galatians Gal. 3. 26 27. that they were all the sons of God by â—aith in Christ Jesus that as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ v. 28 that they were all one in Christ Jesus without any requiring of communion with the See of Rome 5. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ is present with none by his Spirit and protection but such as are in that communion For such as are not the true Church of God Christ is not present with them by his Spirit and protection Rom. 8. 9. Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in you If any man have not
in Paul's days in which it is clear from Rom. 14. 2. that one believed he might eat all things another who was weak did eat herbs Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike In after Ages the differences in the Roman church it self if reckoned would make a large catalogue 4. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that the company and their profession be so visible as that they may be discerned as the Roman Senate was or the Venetian Republique and French Kingdom are For then the disciples which were assembled the doors being shut for fear of the Jews John 20. 19. had not been a true church of God nor the woman in the wilderness Revel 12. 14. nor those that wand red in dens and caves of the earth in desarts and mountains Heb. 11. 38. then the Saints in persecution should not be blessed as Christ saith Matth. 5. 10. but cursed as ceasing to be the true church of God 5. It is not necessary to the bring of a true church that there should be in it a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith for then the first company of such professors though called out of the world should not be a true church of God for want of succession 6. Much less is it necessary that there should be a succession in the same place For then when Christ removed the candlestick that is the church out of it's place as he threatens Revel 2. 5. though believers should come to dwell there a thousand years after they should not be a true church because of the interruption of succession in that place the church at Jerusalem after the persecution had not been a true church if the Apostles had been scattered as well as the rest Acts 8. 1 2. Doth a church persecuted and driveâ— out of a place cease to be a church because they and their successors are removed out of their dwellings Suppose the place wasted and destroyed shall that destroy the being of the church which was there before 7. Much less is it necessary that there should be a continuance without any notable interruption in each age For there may be many hinderances of elections of Bishops and ordinations of Priests there may be scatterings of the Laicks as was at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. and yet the being and verity of the church continue 8. If a church must be judged no true church because no Writings or Monuments have kept the catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christ till this time a church shall be condemned as no true church for want of Writings and Monuments or because they are now lost by reason of the inundation of barbarism and barbarous people who spoil Learning and Arts which yet Popish Writers acknowledge to have happened in the ninth Age tearmed by Genebrard Chron. l. 4. the unhappy age for want of learned Writers and H. T. himself p. 25. saith In this tenth Age or Century I find no General Council nor yet provinciaâ— in which any controversie of moment was decided SECT V. None of the Texts alledged by H. T. prove a necessity of such a succession as he imagines to the being of a true Church AS for the Texts he alledgeth they are all so impertinently alledged that it 's likely had he not presumed he should meet with very credulous Readers he would not have mentioned them or at least he would have shewed how he proves his Proposition from them it being necessary to do so if he had a mind to instruct and not impose on his Readers The first Text Isa 59. 21. is no promise of such a succession in any visible church as H. T. speaks of but of a continuance of Gods Word and Spirit with the persons there meant which seem to be peculiarly the Jews by the Apostles alledging Rom. 11. 26. However they are onely the Elect who can be there meant sith the promise is made good to none other none other have the Spirit of God not departing from them not any whole visible church among the Gentiles from whom the Spirit of God may depart In the three next Texts Isa 60. 1 3 11. Isa 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 26. the very words apply the promises to Hieruâ—alem and the people of Israel so that if they speak of any continued succession in any visible church in all Ages it must be the Jewish which it is certain hath had no such succession but is broken off from the true Olive to this day and therefore cannot be meant of them in H. T. his sense till they be reingrassed The next Dan. 7. 13 14. speaks not of the continued succession which H. T. imagines of every true visible church but of the duration of Christs dominion which shall not pass away to another that is there is no kingdom which shall succeed to it as there did to the former Monarchies nor shall it be destroyed as they were but shall be continued to Christ without any succession So that this Text mentions not H. T. his succession but excludes succession of any other to Christs dominion Matth. 28. 20. intimates a succession to the end of the world of teachers and so doth Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. but not in every true visible church nor so conspicuous as that all may know and discern the church as men discern the assembly of the people of Rome nor so apparent as that there may be produced a catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christs time till now Much less doth John 14. 16. prove such a succession it being onely a promise of the Spirits abiding with the Apostles for ever which is no promise to the Bishop of Rome or any other visible church now SECT VI. The succession pretended to be in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary BUâ— H. T. contenting himself to have set down these Texts leaves the Reader to extract what he can out of them and passeth on to the proof of his minor That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time which according to his meaning is as if he had said The Church either in Rome or Italy or Spain or France or Germany or Poland or any other part of the world which hath owned the Pope and his doctrine and been subject to his rule and no other has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith with the now Bishop of Rome so conspicuous as that there may be a catalogue of such produced out of good records and no other can do so So that then if he proves his Minor he must prove 1. That church to have this succession continued 2. That no other hath Which he takes on him to do by a catalogue of the Roman churches
chief Pastors Councils Nations converted and publique Professors of her Faith But his catalogue proves not that which it is brought for For 1. many hundreds of years there hath been no one of the Roman Popes or very few who have been Pastors at all in the church of God they have been Statesmen have meddled with the civil affairs of many kingdoms disturbed the Empire and many Kingdoms advanced their base sons who are tearmed their nephews and their kindred made wars with christian Princes but have not preached the Gospel nor expounded the Scriptures to the people though even the Council of Treâ—t decree Sessâ—â— de reform c. 1. Sess 23. de reform c. 1. that they ought to be resident because they ought to feed their flock with the Word with Sacraments with Prayers and good Works which is the onely feeding which can denominate men pastors of the church of God But the Popes have for a long time shewed themselves neither to have skill nor will thus to feed the flock by preaching the Gospel but use to stay the flock of Christ by their Bulls Excommunications and Inquisitions 2. Of those he reckons up p. 32. from the year 1300. five or six of them cannot be termed the Roman churches Pastors but hireâ—ings which forsook it they being absent from Rome and inhabiting Avignon in France many hundred miles from Rome seventy years together 3. Some of them who are reckoned in the catalogue could not be Pastors at their entry one to wit Benedict the ninth being a boy almost ten years old as Baronius terms him Ann. 1033. num 6. Another John the thirteenth a lad eighteen years old at most as Baronius Ann. 955. num 2. 3. reckons when they first were Popes And if a great many of their own best Writers in their times do not bely them there was one of the Popes a woman and sate some years as Pope 4. Their succession is a very uncertain thing For 1. It is certain that Jesus Christ was never Pastor of the Roman church as Bishop there seated and it is very audaciously if not blasphemously done by H. T. to reckon him as chief Pastor of the Roman church and to make Peter and others as Successors to him in his pastoral Office as if it were ceased in his own Person and transferred to another as his Successor Nor is it likely that Peter was ever at Rome or Bishop there notwithstanding some of the Ancients by uncertain tradition have conceived he was For neither were the Apostles settled any where as Bishops of one place nor were they to be it being against their commission and peculiar work of planting churches in many places And Peter being the Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and his being many years in the parts about Judea of which the Scripture makes express mention it is very improbable that he was at Rome at all certainly not so as to sit there as Bishop so many years as some Writers do write of him And it is more likely if any where he was Bishop of Antioch where it is certain he was Gal. 2. 11. and as good authority there is of his being Bishop there as of his being Bishop of Rome and therefore the succession to Peter was rather to be there than at Rome nor is there any proof of translation of Peter's See from Antioch to Rome 2. Concerning the succession after Peter there is so much uncertainty as may shew how miserable a people they must needs be who have no better proof for their church than such uncertain succession For 1. There is no certainty but difference among their own Writers who was next after whether Linus or Clemens or whether both together and the like concerning the order of Cletus Anacletus Clemens as may be seen in Platina and Onuphrius and others 2. It is manifest that the succession hath been through dissention about the election sometimes a great while interrupted as Baronius confesseth Ann. 853. num 63. It hath fallen out that the See of Rome hath been void above two years and five moneths the election being delayed through contention 3. There have been many Schisms very near thirty in which there have been two or three Popes at once one opposing cursing and condemning the other and no clear certainty who was the right Pope Nations and Princes being divided some adhering to one some to another 4. A great part of their succession even by the confession of their own Writers is of Monsters as they term them more truly to be termed devils incarnate rather than men so abominably wicked that hell hath not worse in it not worthy of the name of Christians much less of Pastors of the church of God not worse surely in any church I think not the like for wickedness any where so that the succession of such Pastors is fitter to prove the Roman party a Synagogue of Satan the very seat of Antichrist than the onely true church of God Methinks no man that thinks well of Christ should imagine he would trust the Government of the Universal church with such men but rather if he intended to commit that care to any one have chosen a better race than the Popes have been to manage it 5. Their succession is also by their own Writers said to be with such wicked practices of poysoning predecessors corrupting Cardinals power of notorious whores dealing with the devil Simony and bribes fightings and bloodshed as proves them Successors to Nero rather than to Peter So that if a man would draw an Argument to prove the Roman church to be the Mother of barlots and abominations of the earth as Rome is stiled Rev. 17. 5. by the confession of their own Writers the story of the succession of the Popes and their lives might convince one that is not bewitched with their sorceries that such hath been for many hundred years together the Church of Rome 6. It is also false that those he calls cheif Pastors have had a continued succession in the profession of the same Faith with the now Roman sith it is not denied that Pope Liberius joyning with the Arians and subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius as Hierom in his Chronicle and Catalogue of writers in that of Fortunatianus testifies did as Bellarmin acknowledgeth l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. by interpretation if not expresly consent to the Arian heresie and Pope Honorius the first in the sixth Synod at Constantinople Act. 12. 13. Pope Agatho being President was condemned as a Monothelite by hundreds of Bishops and after by other Synods besides what is charged on sundry other Popes even by Popish writers as Anastasius John the 22. c. As for H. T. his Catalogue of Councils Nations converted and publick Professors of the Romish Faith it proves much less that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the
same Faith with the now Roman Church from Christ and his Apostles to this time For 1. According to his own allegation the agreement of profession is never in any age entirely the same in points of Faith afore the sixteenth Century and the Trent Council In all the ages before the most he can produce is that after the five or sixth first Centuries some in each age held some of the points now held by the Papists but denied by Protestants the most we can find in the first ages is some agreement in rites and some priviledges of the Roman Bishop taken either from forged writings imposed on the first Popes or some sayings of Fathers misinterpreted 2. He confesseth sundry ages to wit the second and third produced no Councils and that he finds no general council nor yet provincial in the tenth age in which any controversie of moment was decided 3. Of those Councils he doth produce there is no one general Council alleged in the four first Centuries which was held at Rome or did acknowledge subjection to the Bishop of Rome as now they require and they being all or most of them of the Greek Church which did and doth yet deny such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. means it is falsly said that they prove his continued succession in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome 4. For the Nations converted and Christian professors in his Catalogue there were few of them Romans or converted by any from Rome or had any acquaintance with the Roman Church or Bishops and therefore to make them witnesses of a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the profession of the same Faith continued from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is extreme impudence and vanity nevertheless let 's view his Catalogue SECT VII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years IN the first age he alledgeth Christ and St. Peter the Apostle Linus Cletus Clemens and the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem St. Peter presiding Act. 15. as a general Council and then he recites eleven Roman Bishops from the year 100 and having said somewhat for Peters presiding and the translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome he names some Catholick professors to the year 100. and the spreading of the Church over all those Countries to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles and some others as France Spain England and some Catholick professors to the year 200. with a falsly so called Canon of the Apostles approved in the sixâ—h General Synod Answ That all this is little to his purpose appears by considering 1 That it is manifestly false which he supposeth 1. That because Christ is the chief Pastor of the Catholick Church rightly so termed and the Roman Church hath arrogantly usurped the title of the Catholick Church and the Pope is Bishop of that See therefore the Pope must be successour to Christ in such a peculiar manner as no other Bishop or Pastor is and that the title of Vicar of Christ belongs to him peculiarly which is the title blasphemously ascribed to him by flattering Romanists 2. That Christ hath a successor in his Pastoral office though the Scripture ascribe to Christ because of his living for ever an office which passeth not to any other as Aarons did Heb. 7. 24. 3. That Peter is successor to Christ in the Pastoral office he had and no other Apostle or Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though if there were any that could challenge succession to Christ or Peter it should be rather the Bishop of Jerusalem the mother Church if any where Christ Preached and as the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession offered himself being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. and Peter was Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and Paul when he went to see him which Romanists make an acknowledgement of superiority went to Jerusalem Gal. 1. 17. not to Rome and if he were President in the Council Act. 15. as H. T. imagins it was at Hierusalem not at Rome 4. It is false that either Christ or Peter or the Catholick Professors he names in the first and second ages held the same profession of Faith with the now Roman Church in the points wherein the Protestants who hold the Doctrine of the Church of England do dissent from them 2. That if all were granted H. T. which he saith about the succession in the two first ages yet it doth not amount to the proof of so much as one of the twenty eight Articles he holds in his Manual or the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed to have been held by any of them not the Popes supremacy transubstantiation invocation of Saints deceased half communion worshipping of Images c. For Peter might be President at the Council at Jerusalem he might translate his chair from Antioch to Rome it might be decreed lawful to appeal from other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome chief honour might be given to the Bishop of Rome yet neither Peter nor the Bishop of Rome the head visible Monarch or Ruler over the Apostles and the whole Church mention might be made of oblation and sacrifice yet the masse no properly so called sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead There 's not a word in any of Christs or John Baptists or Peters or Pauls or James or Johns or Judes Sermons or writings to prove any of the points of Popery but enough to the contrary Nor is there any of the rest of the Martyrs or Confessors alledged of the two first ages of whom he is able to produce any one sentence of theirs which may demonstrate their acknowledging of any one of the points now held by the Romanists which are by the Protestants forenamed contradicted which will appear by considering the frivolousness of what H. T. here produceth Peter saith he defined Act. 15. 7 8 9 10. That the Jewish ceremonies were not to be imposed on the Gentiles therefore he had the premacy over the Apostles and the whole Church as if the defining in a Council or Colledge did prove superiority By the same reason it might be proved that James had the premacy sith he spake least and according to his sentence was the decree Paphnutius in the Nicene Council as Sozomeâ—â—l 1. hist c. 22. relates when the Council was about to forbid Priests the use of wives defined the contrary and the Nicene Council approved it was he therefore the primate over the other Bishops in the Council as in consequence it is which H. T. adds Hicrom saith Peter was Prince and Author of the decree therefore he had the primacy that is the supreme headship over the Apostles and whole Church though being Prince and Author of the decree imports no more but to give sentence first according to which the decree was
framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
will and operation to be in Christ But this Author deceitfully conceals it that the same Council in the thirteenth action did solemnly condemn Honorius the Pope of old Rome as a Monothelite together with the rest and again in the Greek edition the first Chapter and that Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the sixth Council doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite and Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor inserted in the eighth action of the sixth Synod which was also done in the second Nicene Council termed the seventh synod in the last action As for that which H. T. adds of the definitions of the sixth Council against Priests marriage not giving grapes mingling water and wine adoration of the Crosse consideration in him that binds and looseth invocating Saints it is not worth while to insist on the examination thereof partly because some of the definitions serve not the purpose for though it be granted that there ought to be a particular knowledge of the sin of him that is to be absolved by his confession of it yet is not thereby the necessity of Popish auricular confession proved or the Priests power judicially and authoritatively to absolve and remit sins established partly because they are not all points of faith but either of disciplin as about the marriage of men in orders or of Ceremonies as about the mingling of water and wine in the Eucharist and partly because it is doubtful whether those Canons are truely ascribed to that Council there being some reasons tending to the contrary and partly because if they were their determinations there is little reason to ascribe any authority to them after the first six hundred years barbarism and many corruptions being gotten into the Christian Churches and the simplicity of the Christian profession very much changed into contentions about Bishops Sees Ecclesiastical priviledges humane ceremonies and such like abuses yet were all granted which he allegeth of the councils definitions neither the now Roman supremacy nor faith is proved nor from the Catholick professors as he terms them or Nations converted are either of them avouched in that age In the eighth Century things grew worse In it H. T. reckons thirteen Popes among whom there 's not a man of whom their own writers relate any thing that belongs to the Pastors of the Church of Christ to wit the Preaching of the Gospel but their intermedling with the business of the Empire and Kingdoms making Kings monks contentions about images in Churches enlarging their dominions building walls making decrees about shaven crowns and such like toyes ... Two Popes Zacharias and Stephen the second can hardly be acquitted from being sinfully instrumental in the deposing of Childerick King of France and the traiterous usurpation of Pepin As for the second Nicene Council in which H. T. saith were three hundred and fifty Fathers Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 787. against image breakers in which were decreed for images in Temples and the veneration and worship of the Saints Reliques Images and the Council of Sens about traditions though these things are but a few of the Popish doctrins yet we grant that then the Popes had gotten to such heighth as to justle Emperors and that the Churches in Communion with the Papacy were in that age and the following so corrupt as that traditions of men and decrees of Bishops were more regarded than the written Word and that thereby placing of images in Temples and their worship got into the Christian Churches to the promoting of that Idolatry in the Roman Church which hath made her the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth yet this was not done without opposition not only in the Greek Empire but also in the Western Charles the great calling a Council at Frankford which condemned the second Nicene Council And for the Catholick Professors such as venerable Bede and others though they were tainted with the superstitions of those times about monkery and ceremonies and ecclesiastical dignities and orders yet that they held the now Roman faith cannot be demonstrated nor that the Nations mentioned to be converted were converted to it And for the miracles mentioned there is no credit to be given to them many such tales having been made or such miracles counterfieted in those dayes for deceiving the ignorant people nor were they done in such manner and to such purposes as the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were by which the Gospel was confirmed In the nineteenth age H. T. reckons up eighteen Popes omitting the mention of one of them as a woman though a great number of Popish writers set her down as Pope and relate the story of her sitting in the chair some years till she travailed with child in procession But if that were not true yet the things related by themselves of Formosus Stephanus Romanus shew cruelty and wickedness in the Popes of that age one hating and undoing what another had done and thereby shewing that they were rather of Cadmus than St. Peters race And for the fourth Constantinopolitan Council Fathers one hundred and one Pope Adrian presiding Anno Domini 869. against Photius and for the Pope and images and against temporal Princes medling in the election of Bishops it is an argument that the Roman Bishops were gotten then by many wicked practices to a great heighth of unjust power And the deposition of Photius for reproving the Emperor together with his opposition of the Pope whose works extant do shew him to have been of more worth for learning than any Pope in that age and the Epistle of Ulderick Bishop of Auspurg to Pope Nicolas the first in which he rebukes the wickedness of Popes in denying marriage to the Clergy do prove that the doctrin and tyranny of the Popes of Rome did not freely pass without controul even in that age which by the confession of Genebrard himself Chron. l. 4. was an unhappy age for want of any writer of worth in the Latin Church As for the Catholick professors mentioned by H. T. in this age that they were all of the Roman church or professed her faith is not shewed not that the Nations converted were either converted by the Roman Bishops or owned their now claimed supremacy or professed faith H. T. saith the Russians were converted by a Priest sent by the Emperor Basilius and therefore had their conversion from the Greek church whom they followed and with whom they now hold communion not acknowledging the Bishop of Romes supremacy to this day and therefore that instance is manifestly against H. T. his purpose In the tenth age are reckoned twenty six Popes whereof there 's scarce any that may be termed a Christian much less a chief Pastor of the Christian churches Their own stories tell us of some of them that got the Popedome by means of Mororia a notorious whore others by cruel practises one to wit Sylvester the second by the help of the Devil
their profession adds but little credit to their cause For what advantage is it to prove the truth of the Roman Tridentin Doctrine that it was professed by Catharina a woman or Ignatius Loyola a lame Souldier the hypocritical Deviser of the Order of Jesuits the Incendiaries of the Christian States and corrupters of Christian Nobility and people by their abominable Devices in resolving cases of conscience sutably to the lusts of men rather than the will of God as is shewed in the late book of the Mystery of Jesuitism or by Edmund Campian a bold talkative calumniator and a traiterous zelot for the Popes tyranny or by William Allen an English Fugitive who wrote seditious books to apologize for Stanley's Treachery and to provoke Queen Elizabeth's Subjects to Rebellion against so good a Prince And for the great multitudes converted in Italy Spain Germany India Japonia China by Priests and Religious of the Roman Church and likewise some considerable persons of the English Nation even in the heat of Persecution they are short of that which was undertaken of the conversion of Nations The conversions in the West Indies have been by horrid cruelties of the Spaniards depopulating many countreys in which were millions of people to get their Treasure not to the faith of Christ but to the Roman yoak and superstitions against their will which hath made Christian Religion-odious and the Name of God to be blasphemed Those of China and Japonia are fictions or so obscure as that they are not considerable The conversions in Spain France Germany Polonia have been by fire and faggot the bloody Inquisition persecutions Massacres and such like arguments fetcht from Hell The hot persecution of Papists here in England is as all know that know England a meer fiction some mulcts and restraints have been put on popish persons but none put to death meerly for being Papists but for that which the Law made Treason being forced to it by their incessant traiterous practices and yet these also are executed sparingly The conversions to Popery in England have been by various artifices upon various inducements whereof none of them is evidence from the canonical Scripture of the truth of popish Doctrine they dare not stick to it without help of unwritten tradition and the Popes or his Councils explication which they must receive though contrary to the exposition of their own most learned and judicious Writers in their Commentaries but the devices which they use are calumniating Protestant Writers mis-representing their Doctrine forging Writings of the Ancients purging out of them such passages as make against them which do take effect by the levity of some prejudice discontent or some such like ill affection of others And though Campian after his vain-glorious manner boasted of turning ten thousand in one year to the Popish party and the popish Priests do boast of their success as when Musket was reported to have converted Dr. King Bishop of London and Weston reported to the Earl of Warwick unknown his conversion to Popery when the Earl knew it to be false yet as upon trial there was little cause for Campian's glorying and the reports of Musket's and Fisher's success heretofore so I hope however in the time of the Wars they have mudded the Waters in England and intangled some in their Nets the Waters being settled they will be less able to deceive and souls which are now caught by them will by Gods blessing escape them However there is great cause to say that those who are caught by popish Priests and joyn to the church of Rome as now it is are for want of receiving the love of the truth that they might be saved given over to believe Lyes and are in danger to be damned as the Apostle foretold 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. What he adds of multitudes of provincial Councils omitted all estaâ—lishing the Roman tenets over the whole World it is because they are no where to be found but the emptiness of this his Catalogue is a sure eviction that there is not consent of Nations or Ages on behalf of the Papists SECT XIII In which the Close of H. T. is retorted ANd for his close I thus retort it Now let any rational and disinteressed man be judge whether the Fathers of the first Councils for five or six hundred years were true Protestants or Roman Catholicks that is whether they have taught and defined Protestant or Roman catholick Doctrines and doubtless when he hath well read their Writings he will say not Roman Catholiks but true Protestants and so by consequence all Ages and countreys which have received and approved them for Orthodox by humbly submitting to their Decrees to wit all Ages since Christ's time who with his holy Apostles and the orthodox Fathers and Councils for many hundred years taught Doctrine contrary the now Roman Tridentin faith Therefore let no Papist or Sectary such as H. T. is who like as the Donatists excluded all from the Church who were not of Donatus his party so he â—xcludes all from the Church of God who are not of the Bishop of Rome's party and thereby shews himself a Schismatick divided from the Catholick Church delude himself and his ignorant and credulous followers with a pretence to Council seeing there is no one to be found for them speaking of General and Oecumenical Councils for the first five or six hundred years which were the best which hath defined and taught their positive Doctrines but all have more or less condemned all or some of them according to the occasions then emergent and in particular that which Dr. John Rainold in his Conference with Hart cap. 9. divis 4. said stands yet good that all Christian Churches except the crue of the Italian Faction have and do condemn the Popes usurped Sovereignty over the whole Church of Christ and that no Council did give him that visible Moâ—archy be now usurps and the Jesuited party now ascribe to him till the last Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth 1512. After which it was opposed by the University of Paris and the French church and even in the Trent council there was a party which strugled against it in right of Bishops though they were overborn by the Romish devices and the multitude of Italians Even at this day the Jesuits have not brought all the Papists under the Popes girdle which makes the Pope cautelous how he determins controversies among his own party least the condemned party appeal from him to a council and the oppressed Kingdom set up a Patriarch of its own So that I may say it is an impossible task for this Scribler H. T. or any of his party to make a true catalogue of chief Pastors or Councils or approved Doctors in all ages for the Popes supremacy transubstantiation communion under one kind worshiping of images invocation and worshiping of deceased Saints and their reliques but a better catalogue may be made of more godly persons with whom their Popes
and the souls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull nor that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto nor their Relicks to be worshipped nor that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God always a Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained and that to them honour and veneration is to be given nor that the power of Indulgences such as the Pope grants was left by Christ in the Church nor that the use thereof is most wholesome to Christ's people nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church nor the Mother and Mistress of all Churches nor that true obedience is to be vowed and sworn to the Bishop of Rome nor that he is the Successor of Peter nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the first five hundred years for they held not these points Papists pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years is very idle because were it true as it is most false that those Fathers were Papists yet could not that suffice to prove them a continued Succession of sixteen hundred years Secondly because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed then our modern Papists can now do and they have not protested on their salvation that it was the very same with the now popish Doctrine nor that they received it from them by word of mouth and so from age to age and finally because if our Tenets in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years then it is wholly impossible they should be for Papists and against us But our Doctrines in which we differ from Papists and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years Therefore it is impossible that the Fathers of the first five hundred years should be for Papists and against us The Major is manifest of it self The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of those Fathers as also by what shall be cited out of them in the following dispute 2. By the ingenuous confessions of our Adversaries Cardinal Cusanus in his second Book of Catholick Concord cap. 13. saith The Pope is not the universal Bishop but the first above or among others Cardinal Bessarion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist We reade that these two onely Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel Cardinal Cajetan tract de Indulg cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the beginning of Indulgences there is no authority of the Scripture or ancient Fathers Greek or Latin that brings it to our knowledge Durand in lib. 4. sent dist 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be said of certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Rochester Assert Luth. confes art 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was very little mention or none at all among the ancient as the Greeks to this day believe it not which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine lib. 5. de Just cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteousness and for avoiding of vain-glory it is most sure and safe to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part 2. Th. qu. 80. art 12. qu 3. The custome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church Georg. Cass in his Defence of his Book entituled De officio pii viri saith The use of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the ministring of this Sacrament is both of the institution of Christ and observed by the custome of the whole Church for above a thousand years and unto this day of the Eastern Churches And although the use of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the most learned of those times never taught that it was necessary so to be observed Tonstal Bishop of Durhom de verit corp sanguinis p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist Polydor Virgil. de invent rer l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expurgatorius put them out had these words By the testimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worship of images for fear of Idolatry Cassand consult tit de imag It is verily manifest out of Augustin writing on Psal 113. that in his age the use of Images in Churches was not Claudius Espencaeus a Bishop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apostles by reason of the want of others Priests were married Greg. de Val. tom 4. disp 9. punct 5. sect 9. with others confesseth that in the most ancient times of the Church and after the Apostles death Priests had their wives Harding in his answer to Jewel on the third Article Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary when the faith was in learning And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people for cause of their further instruction who being of late converted to the faith and of Painims made Christians had need in all things to be taught John Hart in his Epistle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower In truth I think that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal yet they are both of God neither doth the one depend of the other Whereupon I gather as a certain conclusion that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes is unreasonable and improbable altogether For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly much less to depose them or give away their Kingdoms that is no part of his commission He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church not a Princehood of the world Christ himself taking no such title on him nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Disciples Bishop Jewels challenge and performance is known Bishop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal besides many other books are extant by which it may be plainly discerned that Papists have not the Fathers of the first five hundred years for them and that even the learned writers of the Popish party have vented so much in their writings as yeilds an apology for Protestants in all or many of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists SECT III. Protestants have had a sufficient succession to aver their doctrin in the Latin Churches BUt I shall add a direct answer to H. T. his argument 1. By denying his syllogism to
and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the pâ—pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God
not fail but be in some place or other more or less conspicuous in greater or smaller numbers yet it is not proved that the church militant definite of this or that place shall not fail nor is there a word in Scripture to prove this the priviledge of the Roman church or those that are in communion with the See of Rome that they cannot fail nor erre in faith nor do the words of Fathers rightly understood prove it But Scripture and experience do plainly refute it What hath been alleged is examined the rest will be in its place I proceed to that which remains in this Article Object The Catholick succession was one succession for the first five centuries Answ You may as well tell me of a white blackmore a Catholick is not a Protestant nor a Catholick succession a Protestant succession Who ever heard of a Protestant Pope The Catholick church was always governed by a Pope in the first five centuries as now it is and hath defined our tenets and condemned yours as you have seen It is the very essence of a Protestant as a Protestant to protest against the Catholick church as Lutherans and you have done To this I reply To an objection of such moment as this is the answer is but meer trifling For he knows that we mean by catholick succession not that which he calls catholick succession to wit of Popes of Rome but that the teachers who are reputed catholick whether of the Greek or Latin churches who have succeeded one after another in the five first centuries of years from Christs incarnation according to the account now used taught not the doctrine now professed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or in the Tridentin canons but that in all or most of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists they taught the doctrine which Protestants now hold which hath been proved by Jewel and many other Protestant writers And in this sense it is no more absurdity to call a Protestant a catholick then to call a spade a sapde a straw a straw Protestants are truely Catholicks Papists are but falsly called Catholicks affecting the name as some that were of the Synagogue of Satan said they were Jews and were not but did lye Revel 3. 9. and impudently claiming that which they have no right to that they may be it as a stalking horse catch ignorant people who are taken with shews and confident talk being unable to sift out truth and discern it from pretences A Catholick succession is in true construction a Protestant succession and the Popes of Rome it self Protestant Popes teaching in such writings as remain not the now Papal doctrine but in the main the Protestant though by some of them excessively magnifying their See and promoting rites of mens invention way was made for the after corruptions of the Papacy The term Pope was in former times given to other Bishops Presbyters yea and Deacons too besides the Bishop of Rome though now the title is appropriated to him who deserves not the name of Papa or Father as it was heretofore used as an honourable title of the reverend and godly teachers and officers in the church of God nor any other way I know except it be in the sense in which an Italian said of Innocent the eighth Octo nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas Hunc merito poteris dicere Roma patrem Many of whose predecessors and successors have made it their work to advance their bastards rather then beget children to God by preaching the Gospel It is a notorious falshood that the catholick church was alwayes governed by a Pope in the first five centuries if he mean by Pope a Bishop of Rome It s manifest by many instances that the African and Asian churches were not governed by him in the second third fourth and fifth centuries sith they did oppose him as appears by the contentions between Victor and Polycrates and others That which we have seen in H. T. or Bellarmin or any other writer of the Popish party hath not yet made it so much as probable that the Catholick church hath now defined the now Roman tenets or condemned the Protestants nor is it of the essence of a Protestant as such to Protest against the Catholick church but against the errors and abominations of the now Roman party Nor hath H. T. or any other proved that the Protestant teachers protest against manifest revealed verities and the very fundamentals of the Christian faith however they do protest against the fundamentals of the new Popish faith the Popes monarchy transubstantiation c. H. T. adds St. Augustin St. Hierom and many others are divided in their opinions whether Linus or Clement immediately succeeded Peter Answ Be it so yet they all agreed in this that the succession was morally continued to which it is a thing indifferent whether Clement immediately succeeded him as he well might being his scholar or first Linus then Cletus and then Clement which is now the more common opinion of the church I reply what he means by morally continued I understand not nor know I any sense of that speech which serves to take away the force of the objection which is that if it be uncertain who succeeded Peter immediately then the tradition of the church unwritten or not written in the Bible is uncertain and that too in a main point which is fundamental with the Romanists the succession of their chief Pastors upon which the truth of their church and the rule of their faith depends and consequently the rule of the Romanists whereby to know what we are to believe hath a meer sandy foundation not being sufficient to build a divine and firm faith upon and the Protestants are no more to be blamed than the Romanists if they do not so exactly set down and prove their succession of Bishops as the Papists require sith the Papists themselves are deficient in their own catalogue and if the Protestants can prove their faith out of Scripture though they prove not such a succession as is demanded they may as well be concluded a true church as the Roman which answers the two first Articles of H. T. his Manual of controversies Besides the most ancient tradition they have to wit Irenaeus l. 3. adver haeres c. 3. saith that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and then delivered the Episcopacy of the church to be administred to Linus which was done in their life time and so Linus did not succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome for he was Bishop while Peter lived and so if Peter died Bishop of Rome there were more Bishops together and Irenaeus makes them successors of Paul as well as Peter nor were they successors to them as having the same office with them For they could not be Bishops of particular places fixed there as now the term is used it stood not with their commission which enjoyned them to go into all the world and to
off from the unity of the Catholick church they own Christ their head and faith in him which is sufficient to save them and even by this Authors next argument enough to make them members of the Catholick church 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels Onuphrius reckons up thirty Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours Antipapes and all that have adhered to them Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception about the superiority of a council above the Pope about Priests marriages election of Popes investiture of Bishops have been so great and frequent and of long continuance as their own histories shew that they far exceed the Protestants divisions The divisions in this last age and some at this day to wit in and since the council of Trent between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius about certainty of salvation Pighius and others about inherent righteousness the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence not deriving their Episcopacy from the Pope the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council nor yet receiving the Trent council the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth about the vulgar translation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse though one in many places contradict the other as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations between Papists in Italy at Venice and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molâ—nists about Gods predeterminations efficacious and sufficient grace and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ the continuance of them the parties differing and their bitterness one to another then the Protestants divisions and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over even to the least article or point of faith is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars though the simple English Papists from whom the truth of these things is concealed are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so Nor doth that which H. T. here saith salve the matter and if it did the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves notwithstanding their divisions in respect of means for unity For 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false or that which Papists reject in Protestants If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope or the Pope with his Cardinals or a council it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church which according to their own Tridentin Catechism contains all believers from Adam to this day or that shall be hereafter and according to this Author p. 59. is coexistent with all times and spread or diffused over all places or if it be understood according to good sense it is most false For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities much less authorized thereto nor do Papists so look on them For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council or their Priests who only are to most the immediate proponents but rest in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church properly understood as in the Creed it is believed for it is invisible they never did together express their determination in all points of faith have varied in many nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had much less to the believers of this age Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities nor fit for such an authority as to be infallible Judge of controversies for to say the Catholick church is such is to say the university of believers is such of whom a great part are women a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. who tells us that God hath set some in the Church first Apostles then Prophets thirdly Teachers not the church to be teachers which is all one with proponents of revealed verities but teachers in the church and these are denied to be all the church when he saith ver 29. Are all teachers And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. where he saith let God he true and every man a lyar surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies yea should this be granted it would bring all confusion into the churches of God Nor can the speech have any good sense that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach that every man is to judge for himself not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears and receives yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes
be such disparities between a natural body and a mystical as are sufficient to shew the weakness of this arguing as namely that there are no parts vital in the mystical body besides the head as the heart liver and lungs are in the natural that some parts of the head it self may be cut off as the ears and nose and yet the being though not the integrity of the body continue that there are some parts that have not life as hair and nayles as some conceive that the parts receive not life from the head but the head and the rest from the soul yet â—ith the conclusion is true and the argument with its proof many wayes against the Popish tenets I grant it and observe 1. That the unity which is proved hence is not of the universal visible church the truth of which Papists and this Author go about to demonstrate by it's unity but of the mystical For in this mystical body the unity is spiritual by faith and the members have spiritual life from the head But in the Catholick church of which the disputes are according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl milit c. 10 c. are many dead members secret infidels so that this argument proves not the Catholick visible by it's unity but the Catholick invisible of true believers 2. This argument is not to prove the unity of the church by subjection to the Roman Bishop by which H. T. would demonstrate the unity of the church but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's spiritual life and motion which sure is Christ only and not the Bishop of Rome 3. This similitude if by head were meant the Pope cannot evince the purpose of this Author For there have been Schisms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party against another and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profession of the â—ame faith continued Whence it follows that Schism doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without heresie but only disorder distemper and disquiet it And therefore though it were granted as it is not that Protestants were Schismaticks in dividing from the See of Rome yet they might be united to the Catholick church and it 's being and conservation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued and until it be proved that Protestants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints which he can never do in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not united to the Catholick church SECT VI. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15 16. for time Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant agrees not to the now Roman church but better to the Protestants BUt H. T. proceeds thus To be universal for time and place is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places But the church of Christ from the time he hath founded it hath been coexistent with all time and shall be to the worlds end and hath and shall be spread over all nations therefore the church of Christ is universal or Catholick for time and place The Major is proved because the definition and the thing defined are convertible The Minor is proved by Scripture for time St. Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. St. John 14. 15 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20. Answ 1. The conclusion should have been the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ and the argument thus That church which is universal for time and place and no other is the church of Christ But the Roman Catholick church and no other is universal for time and place therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ But so the Major had not been true of any church existent in one age nor the Minor true of the present Roman church but it is contrary to all sense and histories which relate the occurrences of the world specially in the churches of Christ 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the conclusion is granted being thus understood that the church of Christ is not confined to Israel only but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation For some nations never were actually the church of Christ nor any church of Christ among them though there was no restraint by Christs command of preaching to them But if it be understood of actual coexistence with all times and all places so the Minor is not true nor the Major as I conceive the meaning of the term Catholick in the Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick church nor is that the definition of the church Catholick that it is actually coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places but it is termed Catholick because it is not confined to one Nation and comprehends all the believers of any Nation Jew or Gentile nor do the texts he brings prove any other universality For Matth. 28. 20. proves not such an universality as that there shall be no interval of time or particular place wherein the church shall not be existent But that Christ would be with them that preach the Gospel all dayes till the end of the world so as that they had liberty to preach the Gospel in every place and should finde his assistance while they did preach not that alwayes in each day there shall be a Church of Christ on earth much lesse that there shall be a church visible conspicuously to all in every Nation of the earth The like is the sense of Ephes 4. 12 13. which is that Christ hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith but this proves not there shall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age much lesse so conspicuously visible as that it may be known to all much more lesse in every place John 14. 15 16. is yet farther from the purpose as containing a peculiar promise to the Apostles if it be meant of any Church it is the invisible of true believers not of every or any meer visible Church wherein many have not the spirit of Christ at all much lesse abiding with them for ever The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there shall be in every age or time a Church on earth but that Christs dominion shall never end The texts Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. are thus meant that not only the Jews but also all Nations that is all other people by faith shall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews now this proves not that there shall be in every place on earth a Church of Christ But H. T. adds I resume the Argument and make it thus 1. That church which is not universal or
Christ If the term Mother Church be from hence that from it the Gospel went forth it can be meant of none but Jerusalem from whence the Gospel went into all the world not from the Roman church Nor is it true that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest no not according to the Papists own opinion which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power and that it belongs to his pastoral office now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office or that they are Pastors if they should they must make Women who are of the Church as well as Men Pastors and all the Believers who are the church Pastors as well as the Bishop aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction who are the Sheep who are to be fed and over whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope when enquiry is made which is the true church and when there is no Pope then there is no church and when the Pope is uncertain it is uncertain which is the church So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick the mother of churches having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches Nor is it true that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power not of right as shall be shewed art 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent and arrogant without any colour of right nor in possession For besides the Protestant churches the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore when unquestionably orthodox were ever subject to the Romish Bishop Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head is this a fit reason to term it catholick Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children Will any man call Julius Caesar because Dictator of Rome or the Roman Senate because Rulers all the Roman people or all the people of that Empire H. T. his instance is frivolous Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General yet not a general man or the universal Army and sutably if it were allowed that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridiculous non-sense or false H. T. adds Object You communicate not with us and many others therefore your communion is not catholick or universal Answ I grant the Antecedent but deny the Consequent For universal communion requires not communion with all particular sects or persons but onely with all true believers no A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Tit. 3. 10 11. Answ To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Christian churches though not with all particular sects And that the Protestant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions which agree with the Scripture Doctrine although Papists do clamorously term them such and destroy them as such and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero not to Peter whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks and greatest Hereticks that ever were I pass on to the next Article ARTIC V. The Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of Controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation but all this is a meer impudent and arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scripture or Antiquity SECT I. The deceit of H. T. is shewed in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of Controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope H. T. entitles his fifth Article thus The churches infallibility demonstrated and saith Our Tenet is that the Roman catholick church is the highest visible Judge of controversies and that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all points of faith having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation And six pages after p. 70. he saith thus Note here for your better understanding this whole Question that when we affirm the Church is infallible in things of faith by the word Church we understand not onely the Church diffused over all the World unanimously teaching whose Doctrine of Faith we hold to be infallible but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly oecumenical that is to say called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope whose Definitions of Faith we hold to be infallible Ans WE have here a most arrogant proud claim like that of the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2 3. I am God I sit in the seat of God there is no secret that they can hide from me For what is this less which is here ascribed to meer men often the worst of men than the prerogative of the Son of God surely it's more than Angels have Job 4. 18 But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet yet in his after note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good and his deceitful mockage of his unwary reader For 1. He deals like a sophister that after his arguments states the question 2. He doth so shift off this infallibility from one to another that he knows not well where to fix it Fain he would fasten it on the Pope as he doth in a manner at last and Hart more plainly confesseth with Rainold ch 7. divis 7. though it behove the Pope to use the advise of his brethren and therefore I spake of Confistories Courts and Councils yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true But then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church not of the Pope had appeared to be impertinent Therefore he doth not in plain words disclaim it's infallibility but saith When we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith by the word church we understand not only the church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible Wherein you may perceive 1. Egregious vanity in making the Roman church Catholick 2. The Church diffused over all the world teaching 3. Teaching unanimously which are all like a sick mans dreams of a golden mountain there having never been any such thing as this in the world nor ever is likely to be 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church infallible Judge of controversies propounding and defining points of faith having power from God to oblige all men under pain of
damnation to believe her which is meerly to delude silly Papists speaking of the churches power which they place in the Pope and so draw them into his net For I would ask this H. T. where or when the Catholick church diffused over the whole world distinct from an oecumenical council did teach much lesse teach unanimously or how they know it he will certainly say it hath been in councils or the Popes determinations Why then doth not this Author say plainly the infallibility and judgement of controversies is not in the Catholick church diffused over the world according to the meaning of the words which were indeed to say all believers were infallible but say he means not only which is as if he had said the Catholick church diffused over the world is infallible but not it only when he means it not to be infallible at all nor doth he deal better in placing it in a council For. 1. He supposeth such a council perfectly Oecumenical called out of the whole world as never was nor is likely ever to be 2. This council he will not have to be infallible without the Popes approbation 3. He placeth the words whose definitions of faith we hold to be infallible so as that a reader may conceive either he means the councils or the Popes definitions However it is certain he makes the council without the Pope not infallible so that the Pope hath the negative voice But indeed this Author or many of his fellows at least hold that if the Pope himself without a council define any point of faith it must be received yea Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Pontifice Romano c. 5. if the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues the church should be bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evil unless she would sin against conscience So that however the church be pretended it is the Pope who is intended who is masked under the name of the church but sometimes termed the Pastor of the Church as if the same person could be relative and correlative too Pastor and Church both And this one person as if all knowledge lay in his breast must be the Judge of all controversies of faith though perhaps an infidel in heart one of the greatest perverters of the faith of Christ in the world and the greatest offender and most justly accused of any in the world being notoriously and horribly vitious and maintain manifest sins not only erre in doubtful matters as Bellarmin would seem to limit his speech in his recognition even these monstrous sins of breaking oaths and leagues killing Kings allowing incestuous marriages making and worshipping of Images Yea though he be so unlearned as it is said of one as not to understand Grammer Pope Gregory the great himself understood not Greek Pope Zachary condemned Bishop Vigilius as an heretick for holding Antipodes though he be seldome a Divine for the most part a meer Canonist whose very decrees Breves and Bulls shew such grosse ignorance and pervertings of Scripture as a graduate in the English Universities would be ashamed of yet he must be Judge of controversies between the most learned Divines in the world and in the most weighty points of faith Surely were not Papists either very silly or very Atheistical or very much bewitched with the Romish sorceries they would never be so sottish as they are to trust to the Popes definitions in points of faith but of any other most suspect them especially considering how much respect to their own gain and greatnesse how little to the good of mens souls is in all their determinations No marvail though different parties appeal to the Pope yet neither stand to his sentence as of old have been seen in sundry points and as at this day in the late controversies between Jansenists and Molinists in France SECT II. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick churches infallibility BUt let us view the proofs that are brought by H. T. for his monstrous assertion of the Roman Catholick as he terms it churches judicature of controversies infallibility in her propositions and definitions of all points of faith and power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation where first he brings four arguments for her infallibility The first is thus No man by hearing or believing Christ can hear an errour in faith But every man by hearing the church hears Christ therefore no man by hearing the church can hear an errour in faith therefore she is infallible The Major must be granted otherwise you charge Christ to be the Author of damning lyes The Minor is proved he that beareth you the church heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me St. Luk. 10 16. The consequences are both unavoidable Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with the tenet which was that the Roman Catholick church is infallible but in the conclusion is no mention of the Roman church more then of any other church to wit the Hierosolymitan or Antiochian and so that which was to be proved is not proved 2. The Minor is denyed and in the proof from Luk. 10. 16. is with a shamelesse fraud foisted in the church it being certain that at that time there was no Catholick church diffused over the world much lesse Roman church at all to whom those words of Christ could be directed but by you are meant either the seventy Disciples or the twelve Apostles as comparing Luk. 10. 16. with Matth. 10. 40. makes it probable Nor doth Christ say he that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me in any case whatsoever for then the high Priests had heard Christ when they heard Judas who was one of the Apostles offer and promise to sell Christ for money and Peter when â—e denied Christ but then when the Apostles or seventy spake the words and message of Christ In which case I grant the church of Rome and Pope yea and Bishop of Jerusalem Corinth or any private Christian though but a woman are to be heard and are infallible So that this place is grossely abused for proof of the Catholick Roman Churches or oecumenical councils or Popes infallibility in their definitions of faith till it be proved that they define what Christ did before deliver SECT III. Matth. 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for H. T. his claim of the Roman church or Popes or oecumenical councils infallibility THe second argument is this No man can be damned for not believing an error in faith But every man shall be damned for not believing the church therefore no man can believe an error in faith by believing the church The Major is proved because otherwise God were a tyrant in damning us for not believing a lye which contradicts himself The Minor is as evident he that will not hear the church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican so Matth. 18. 18.
He that knoweth God heareth us and he that heareth us not is not of God in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures c. He that believeth not shall be condemned St. Mark 16. 16. Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with H. T. his tenet and so the proof is in the same manner faulty as in the first argument 2. The Minor is denied nor doth any one of the texts alleged prove it or any thing like it For 1. The text Matth. 18 17 or 18. is not as this Author cites it be that will not hear the Church as if it were an indefinite speech equipollent to this universal every man that will not hear the Church without which H. T. proves not his Minor but thus but and if he hear not the Church restraining it to the brother finning against his brother And first reproved singly 2. Before two or three witnesses 3. Of whom the Church hath been told 4. And he doth not obey the Church 2. The text speaks not at all of believing the Church in a point of faith but doing right to an injured brother For the phrase of sinning against a brother ver 15. can neither be meant of heresie or error in faith no nor sinfulnesse in life which is termed commonly though for the most part mistakingly a publick scandal or scandalous practise but only of a particular injury such as he against whom the sin was might forgive as is manifest from ver 21. and the parable following whereas to forgive heresies or errors in faith or publick scandalous practises is not in the power of a private brother 3. That by the Church is meant the Christian Church is not certain sith it is not as Matth. 16. 18. my Church but the Church nor if it were can it be understood either of the universal Church diffused over all the world sith it is impossible for every injured brother to tell his injury to it not of a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the world for either there never was such a Church or if ever there were it hath not been in many ages together H. T. confesseth p. 7. 25. the second third and tenth ages produced no councils Nor if there were in every age or every year could every injured brother addresse their complaints to them And the same may be said of the Pope sometimes there hath been none for some years together sometimes it hath been uncertain which was the true Pope sometimes by reason of persecutions and for other causes no accesse could be to him sometimes the wronged brother could not travel to him nor he hear his cause Nor is there any direction to go to his legate or any assurance that he can commit his power to another or that such a legate is infallible Undoubtedly by the Church Matth. 18. 17. must be meant such an assembly whether regularly formed or otherwise occasionally convening which is of near accesse and which is fit to hear the cause and to determin And I must confesse that I cannot deprehend that by the Church is meant the meer Ecclesiastical authority nor is here appointed that disciplin Ecclesiastical which is termed the power of the keyes to excommunicate hereticks and scandalous livers in the Church but a direction to a wronged brother how to deal in case of particular injuries the neglect of which the Apostle Paul blames so much in the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 4. Neither doth let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publican import excommunication out of the Church For it is said let him be to thee not to the Church as a heathen or a Publican nor is any power at all therein given to the Church to excommunicate all that the Church is to do is to injoyn what the injurious brother should do that excommunication which is here mentioned is appointed or permitted to the wronged brother Nor did the being a Publican exclude out of the Jewish assembly or service the Publican went up to the Temple to pray Luke 18. 10. Matthew a Publican was a Jew and had the priviledge of a Jew though a Publican nor was a heathen as such damned there were proselytes as Cornâ—lius who were heathens and yet were accepted with God only the publicans and heathens were such as the Jews would not have familiar arbitrary converse with as Luke 15. 2. 19. 7. Acts 11. 3. appears and therefore the speech can have no other sense but this If thy brother who wrongs thee will neither right thee after private rebuke nor after rebuke before two or three witnesses nor after the monition of the Church that is either that particular assembly of Christians to which ye are joyned or some other competent number of Christian brethren fit to hear such differences then mayst thou shun his society in such a manner as Jews are wont to shun heathens and publicans by not going in to them to eat or inviting them or other unnecessary society that so they may know how evil their dealing is and be ashamed and amended Which is nothing to that Ecclesiastical discipline or juridical excommunication which is at this day arrogantly claimed by Popes even over Emperours and by other Ecclesiastical prelates for breaking their Canons much lesse doth this text infer damnation to him that shall not hear the universal Church or Oecumenical council or Roman Pope The other text 1 John 4. 6. is lesse to H. T. his purpose For it speaks not a word of hearing the Catholick Roman Chuâ—ch or universal diffused over all the world or Oecumenical council or Roman Popâ— but of hearing the Apostles and other teachers of the Gospel opposite to false Prophâ—â—s ver 1. who denyed Jesus Christ to become in the flesh and of hearing them not in every thing but in the doctrine of Christs coming in the flesh And in like sort Marke 16 15 16. is a plain command to the Apostles not to the Bishop of Rome or an Oecumenical council or the universal Church for then the Pope should be â—ound to leave his See and the Bishops in a council to be non resident and go into all the world and the Apostles are bid preach not Popes decrees or councils Canons but the Gospel of Christ and the threatning of damnation is not to him that shall not believe the Popes decrees or the determinations of an Oecumenical council or universal Church but the Gospel of Christ which reacheth not them who deny the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation purgatory humane merits worshipping imagâ—â— not eating flesh in Lent Priests single life and such other innovations as neither Christ nor his Apostles taught but such as believe not the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ and salvation by him alone Whence it is apparent to any that are not resolved to shut their eyes against manifest light that none of these texts
do prove the infallibility of the Roman Church or Oecumenical council or Pope but are impiously wrested to uphold the most cruel tyranny that ever was in the world SECT IV. None of these texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14. 26. John 16. 23. Act. 15. 28. do prove the infallibility in points of faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general council approved by him H. T. adds a third argument for the Churches infallibilâ—ty thus If Christ be alwayes with his Church and have made her the pillar and firmament of truth against which the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and given her the holy Ghost to assist her to all truth so that her definitions in an approved general council are the very dictates of the holy Ghost then is it impossible the Church should erre in faith But all this Christ hath done for his Church therefore it is impossible the Church should erre in faith The sequel of the Major is manifest by the very terms of the supposition the Minor is proved go ye teaching all Nations c. And behold I am with you all daies he is with her teaching St. Matth. 28. 20. The house of God which is the pillar and firmament of truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it St. Matth. 16. 18. He will give you another paraclere that he may abide with you for ever â—c He shall teach you all things and suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you in all points of faith St. John 14. 26. He shall â—â—ach you all truth no errors St. John 16. 13. It hath seemed good say the Apostles in council to the holy Ghost and to us Act. 15. 28. Answ This Author still abuseth his reader by putting his conclusion otherwise then his tenet For whereas his tenet was that the Roman Catholick Church is infallible he puts his conclusion thus the Church is infallible as if the Church and the Catholick Church were all one and the Catholick and the Roman were all one and the Church of Christ and the visible Church militant were the same which are indeed fallacies which easily take with silly or prejudiced Papists that take what is said of the Church to be meant of the visible militant Church and what is said of the visible militant to be said of the Catholick Church and by the Catholick imagin the Roman meant and by the Roman the Pope But to discover the vanity of this argument 1. The sequel of the Major is denied nor is it manifest by the terms of the supposition For Christs presence is with every believer and he hath made every believer a pillar and firmament of truth and against every true believer the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and he hath given the holy Ghost to every true believer to assist him to all truth as well as to the Church and his definitions are the very dictates of the holy Ghost when he defines according to Scripture and yet it is not impossible he should erre in faith Christ hath made promises of his presence and of his spirit and his spirit is said to be in and with every true believer as well as the Church Rom. 8. 1 9 15. 1 Cor. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 1. 22. and 13. 5. Gal. 4 6. Ephes 1. 13. 2 Cor. 6. 16. John 10 16 27 28 29. and yet believers may erre in faith Rom. 14. 2 3 5. 1 Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 1. and 4. â—0 21. And therefore it is not true which this Author supposeth manifest Not is the Minor trâ—e or proved by the texts he brings For the promise Matth. 28 20. is not to the Church but to the Apostles and other teachers who succeed them nor is the promise made to them that they should teach no error in faith but that teaching as H. T. speaks or as long as they teach the true faith he would be with them by assisting and prospering them in their work The words 1 Tim. 3. 15 may be meant of the mystery of godliness mentioned v. 16. thus the Mystery of godliness is the pillar and firmament ground or seat of truth and without controverâ—ie great which I do conceive after Cameron and others to be the truest exposition as the same Apostle in other places gives such elogies to the great points of faith 1 Tim. 1. 15. and 4. 9. and 2 Tim. 2. 11. and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 16. doth make it very probable Nor doth Grotius his reason avoid it For the mystery even according to this exposition is the subject not the predicate Others refer it to Timoâ—hy but then it should be in the accusative case But let it be granted that it is meant of the Church which is said that it is the pillar and firmament of truth yet it is certain from the very words that it is meant of that Church in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself which was the Church of Ephesus as appears 1 Tim. 1. 3. not the Church of Rome and therefore must be understood in such a sense as agrees to it which the Papists themselves will not say was infallible or could not erre in faith And therefore they must yeild it to be meant either of what they were in duty to be or what they were actually thus they were such as by profession and practice did hold forth and maintain and uphold the truth in those parts not that they held nothing but tenets nor so held forth the truth but that they might erre and decay in their holding out the truth For it is certain they did so Rev. 2. 4 5. Act. 20. 29 30. The terms the pillar and firmament or ground or seat of truth are but metaphors and whereas there are these two things signified by hem 1. The upholding of the truth so as that otherwise it should fall 2. The fixing of the truth there so as that it should abide and be permanent there doubtlesse the former sense cannot be true For though God should have no Church on earth or in heaven no Apostle Prophet Bishop yet his truth would be upheld his word is for ever settled in heaven Psal 119. 89. Christ who is the truth John 14. 6. abides for ever and the spirit of truth remains for ever and will uphold his truth If it were as some of the Romanists say the Church only abode in the Virgin Mary at Christs death or as others say in the time of Antichrist there shall be no sacrifice nor ceremonies nor religion yet the Gospel of Christ shall be everlasting as the Angel terms it Revel 14. 6. therefore of necessity it must be understood in that sense in which it notes stability permanency fixednesse or abiding and the sense is the Church is the company among whom the truth abides unshaken in which sense Revel 3. 12. it is said him that overcometh will
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
them later than the time of Gregory the great even in the Roman Church and were opposed more or less at least some of them by a considerable party of the Church of Christ who were far better Christians than the Popes or Roman Clergy which condemned and persecuted them as Hereticks From which crime we are able to acquit our selves other ways than H. T. saith we can chiefly by shewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and first Churches after Christ's Ascension and the Orthodox Teachers in them as will appear in answer to his ninth Article It is a meer frontless impudence in him to charge us with any blasphemous evasion or excluding our selves from all possible assurance of faith or salvation and to arrogate to himself as if he had proved either The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther and after by Zuinglius and others continued hath been blessed by God notwithstanding the Persecutions of the Papal party and the Differences among Protestants And the Reformation sought in England since 1641. hath been blessed notwithstanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popish and Prelatical parties as the Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and first Preachers was notwithstanding the Persecutions Heresies and Schisms that followed it Notwithstanding what H. T. or any other Romanist have said the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible but may be proved and have been false and heretical which is in part proved by the Objections following SECT VII The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers H. T. saith thus Objections from Scripture and Reason solved Object All the Israelites adored the golden â—alf therefore the whole Church erred Answ Moses and the Levites did not who were many thousands Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both those Propositions are false TO which I reply that whereas the Romanists do allege to prove an universal Bishop over the whole Church who by himself or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controversies of faith Gods ordinance of one high Priest in Israel to whose judgement all must stand Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 4. c. doeth this Argument is retorted thus If Aaron and the People of Israel were not infallible then if there were such an universal Bishop over Christians as there was over the Israelites and such a Council as the Jewish Synedrium which were to be Judge of controversies as Romanists would have yet they might be fallible sith the Jewish high Priest and Council who were to be Judge of controversies were not infallible though they were as much privileged by Papists own arguings who infer their sovereign infallible Judicature of controversies which they ascribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewish high Priest and his Council But Aaron and the Jewish Council and Church were not infallible for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre as is manifest by the making the golden Calf and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto Now though Moses and the Levites did not erre yet the high Priest and the People did from whose privilege and not from Moses the civil Magistrate the infallible judicature of the Pope as universal Bishop and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht and therefore the Answer avoids not the Objection H. T. adds Object The Jews Council â—rred in condemning Christ Answ No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical for Christ himself was then Head of the Church on earth and the highest Authority was in him not in the Jews Council and if the Jews Church could erre it doth not follow that the Church of Christ can for it was built as St. Paul saith on better Promises I reply 1. This Answer which makes that Council not perfectly oâ—cumenical and therefore no wonder it erred plainly intimates that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical though it would be otherwise infallible yet in that case it may erre Whence it will follow unless the Papists can prove their Councils which they say are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical that is called out of the whole World they are not infallible Now certain it is that neither the Trent nor the Lateran Councils nor those of Constance Basil Florence nor any other Council for a thousand years last past have been so called yea sometimes one party hath kept a Council in opposition to another and Pope against Pope And from the Trent Council to which they adhere not onely the Greek and Asiatick and African Churches were wholly absent but also the French for a time and the Council consisted in effect of none but Italians and the Popes Hirelings some of whom were onely titular Bishops having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles and these by the plurality of Voices served the Popes ends but in nothing either seriously sought the truth or reformation of corruption as the History of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of Vâ—nice hath cleared to the World By which were it not that Papists are a sort of men that hood-wink themselves they might see how meer a cheat that Council was and how justly it was refused by the French Papists themselves unto this day 2 Though Christ were then Head of the Church yet he did not exercise Jurisdiction among the Jews not act but as Prophet to his Disciples he did not deny subjection to the Priests he was circumcised the eighth day as subject to the Law of Moses presented at the Temple with an Offering went up to the Feasts kept the Passover denied not the Authority of the high Priest yea directed the Leper to offer to the Priest for his cleansing as Moses bade him and John notes that the high Priest in that he was high Priest that year prophesied of Christ's death John 11. 51. which are sufficient proofs that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Priest and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Christ's being on earth But sure then they did erre and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations 3. It follows if the Jews Church could erre notwithstanding those passages in the Old Testament which the Papists bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence 4. St. Paul doth not say The Church of Christ was built on better Promises than the Church of the Jews but that the second Covenant was made a Law on better Promises than the first is said Heb. 8. 6. But those Promises are set down vers 10 11 12. of that Chapter of which there is none concerning any much less a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Bishop on earth oecumenical Council or Church of Christians above the Jewish high Priest and Council and therefore
and infallibility in matters of faith yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith and whatever was taught by any of them was stedfastly believed by all I reply H. T. saith in his Epistle to the reader that it is agreed by all parties that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood which was the onely Mâ—stris of divine faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two which if true then the Apostles were in that age to depend on their decrees But here he eats his words in the Epistle the Church was the sole Mistris of divine faith here the Church was to depend on the Apostles as on the first masters and proposers of faith How these hang together I understand not That which he saith here of the Apostles is very true understanding by masters not Lords but teachers The Church neither now nor in any age was Mistris of faith it is not the Church in right sense that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths but the learner It is the meer sophistry of Papists to term the Pope and Prelates the Church and to call a hundred or two of Bishops some of them meer titulars without any Diocesse such as never knew what the office of a Bishop was nor ever preached the Gospel to any people the Catholick Church The concession that the Apostles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance and infallibility in matters of faith proves that this was not Peters prerogative and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apostle then it descends not to any successors and so by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment Nor is infallibility to be sought from any but Christ and his Apostles doctrin who do still propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apostles then that at Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria or any other which the Apostles founded and therefore Ireneus Tertullian and such of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apostolick Churches for establishment against hereticks direct us to other Churches where the Apostles preached besides the Roman It is further objected the Church hath now no new revelations nor can â—he make now any new points of faith therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions H. T. Answers I grant the antecedent but deny the consequence for though she can make no new points yet she can explicate the old and render that clear which was before obscure and can define against new herefies I reply The grant of the antecedent is sufficient to prove that if the Church as it is termed teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apostles we are not bound to believe her definitions and consequently she must prove her definitions by Apostolical tradition and not only say they are Apostolical ere we are bound to believe them it being still to be heeded which Paul saith Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven or any man preach I may adde or believe any other Gospel then what was preached by Paul and received by the Galatians he is accursed and consequently each person is to examine and judge for himself whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apostles Gospel or no and if the Church can onely explicate the old then an heresie cannot be made by a council which was not before and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Constance were heresie after the council condemned it it was so before contrary to what Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Rom pontif c. 14. and it follows he that can best explicate the old and render it clear which was before obscure hath the best title to infallibility and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations then he must explicate by study and so not by prerogative of his chair but by ability in languages arts and other knowledge in which if he have lesse knowledge as certainly some if not all the Popes for a thousand years have had one of them as Alpâ—onsus a Castro saith not understanding Grammer and one of them being necessitated to substitute another to do divine offices for him by reason of his ignorance in literature there is lesse reason to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein Arias Montanus Vatablus and such other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Bishops if they be such as were in the Trent council of whom it is manifest by Frier Pauls history of that council that there were scarce any of them learned in the Scriptures especially in the main point of the Gospel concerning justification by faith then it is unjust to tye men to follow the Fathers who had lesse skill then others in interpreting Scripture as the learned of the Roman party do often shew in their writings then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining transubstantiation which was but an opinion before as Scotus and Tâ—nstal have asserted then it is monstrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practised to burn to death men women children old and young Bishops and Noblemen for not holding it then are the Popâ—s and Popish party guilty of shedding a sea of blood in England France Belgia Germany Italy Spain Poland and elsewhere for denying transubstantiation the Popes supremacy and such other new tenets as Popes have thrust on the Christian Churches then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in imposing on men a new Creed and Popish Doctors do ill in justifying it and not opposing it But is not this a mockery to say the Church may not do it and yet they do it and H. T. avoucheth it what else are their tenents of receiving the eucharist under one kinde of worshipping images of purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences service in an unknown tongue monastick vows with many more but new points of faith and is it not all one to make new points of faith as by authority onely without any agreeablenesse to the meaning of the words so to explicate the Scriptures as that they shall be wrested to maintain that which is not there taught and that condemned as heresie which is not contrary to them Rightly said Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. num 1. Tyranny may be established as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them and so doth the power of Rome set up the greatest tyranny that ever was in the world by usurping this vast power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their
Heaven preach any other Gospel than that which is written he is to be held accursed Gal. 1. 8 9. And that Miracles are not necessary for proving our calling while we preach the Scripture-doctrine as Bellarmine scribles lib. 4. de not is Eccles cap. 14. But on the other side if Papists do not stick onely to Scripture nor will be tried by it it is necessary they should produce Miracles of their Popes and Prelates to verifie their claim or new Gospel of which they are altogether destiâ—â—te and have nothing to allege but a company of Fables concerning some foolish Friers such as Francis Dominick c. upon the report of silly superstitious Women and doting companions of them or some jugling tricks in corners done by cheating Priests and Jesuits which serve for no other purpose but to prove the Priests to be Knaves and their Popish Proselytes that believe them to be fools And we have cause to press them as in the next Objection Why do not then your Priests do Miracles we would be glad to see some of their doing To which H. T. saith Answ Because of your incredulity as our Saviour told she Jews St. Matth. 17. 19 Yet they do many in Gods appointed time and place as the Records of the Church will testifie though not to satisfie your sinfull curiosity See Francis a Sancta Clara in his Paralipomena who recounts many great and evident Miracles I reply if our incredulity be the onely reason of their not doing them among us yet me thinks they should do them in Italy and Spain where men have â—aith in them But except of a few tales of Philip Nerius Ignatius Loyala Francisca Teresa Isidore of Madrid an Husbandman and some other late canonized Saints long after their death sworn by some admirers of them or credulous receivers of reports concerning things of them not openly done and commonly known as the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were I hear of none The Paralipomena of Franciscus a Sancta Clara or Davenport who endeavoured to reconcile the nine and thirty Articles of the Church of England with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that is Light with Darkness a little afore these Wars I never saw nor do I expect to finde any thing from such a man but fraud and falshood who had the face to endeavour to draw the Articles purposely framed against the Popish Doctrine to a sense consistent with it What Justus Lipsius writ of the Miracles done by the Idol at Halles and Zichem Turselin of the Chapel at Lauretto and such like Relations there is no man that heeds the Scripture will give any credit to them but take them either as fictions or illusions of Satan to confirm men in the idolatrous Worship of the Virgin Mary and to promote the Priests gain which is a great part of the Roman Religion But the frequent Impostures of Papists in this kinde as of the Blood of Christ at the Abby of Hales that of Boxley Abby and the holy Maid of Kent related by Speed in his Chronicle of Henry the eighth at Orleans by Gray Friers related by Sleidan Com. lib. 9. at Bruxels related by Meteran lib. 10. hist Belg. that of the Boy of Bilson near Wolverhampton in Stafford-shire which is related in a Book of that thing and persons yet alive can testifie of the Priests deceit in it with many more give just cause to discredit all such Narrations as meer jugling tricks Nor have the Legends of Saints which this man calls the Records of the Church any better credit with the more ingenuous of their own Church of whom though some mince the matter calling them Pious Frauds as if Piety might be upheld by Lyes yet Ludovicus Vives freely censured those that made them to have had a Brasen forehead and those that believed them a Leaden heart And therefore it is the more necessary for their Priests to let us see their Miracles not to satisfie our curiosity but our consciences if they will have us converted from disbelief in their Lord God the Pope as in the Canon Law be is termed there being nothing in the Scripture to prove the Roman Churches verity or infallibility or the Popes Supremacy as will appear by examining the seventh Article to which I now hasten which is intituled The Popes Supremacy asserted ARTIC VII The Popes Supremacy is an Innovation The Pope or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole Church of God is not proved by H. T. SECT I. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the true Successour of St. Peter and Head of the whole Church of God which hath in part been proved already by our Catalogue of chief Pastours who were all Popes of Rome and by the Councils of all Ages approved by them and owning them for such and is yet farther proved thus Answ THat Peter was Pope of Rome hath been said but never yet proved but by the tradition of the Ancients who might be as easily deceived in that as they were about Christ's age the keeping of Easter and many other things Those very men who relate Peter's sitting at Rome as Bishop do not agree about his immediate Successour whether Linus or Clemens or Cletus as H. T. confesseth here pag. 52. And the relation it self is so inconsistent with that which Paul saith that by consent he and Peter agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and had the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to him his not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans his being at Antioch and according to Luke and Paul in other places so long a time as they mention in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians makes it altogether improbable that he should be Bishop at Rome such a time as they say he was and be put to death in Nero's time as the tradition insisted on bears in hand Nor was it agreeable to Peter's Office appointed by Christ to be as a fixed Pastour in one Place And if he were settled in any place it is more probable it was at Antioch where Paul mentions him to have been than at Rome nor of his translation of his Seat from Antioch to Rome is there any proof but what is by such tradition as in this and other things appears to be very uncertain and unlikely Yet were it yielded that Peter was Bishop or chief Pastour how will it be proved that he was to have a Successour Paul it is certain was at Rome and did while he was there undoubtedly execute the Office of a Pastour yet Popes do not challenge themselves to be Paul's but Peter's Successours however they put Paul's Sword in their Arms with Peter's Keys and in their Writings say the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul and use Paul's name with Peter's in their Sentences
of his own Sheep but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner and therefore though he is to rule and feed them yet he is not to rule them after his own will but the Owners nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep but the Owner is to have it the Shepherd is not to look but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner Now the Flock of Christ were none of Peter's Sheep nor were all the Sheep of Christ universally taken to be fed by Peter for then he should feed that is rule himself who was one of the Flock and so excommunicate himself absolve himself and sith the Pope hath Peter's power if he be one of the Sheep of Christ by this Doctrine he is to rule that is to excommunicate absolve and deprive himself And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like absurdity For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church and the term Foundation imports the ruling of the whole Church Peter who is a part of the Church is the Foundation of himself and the Pope of himself and sith he is the Vicar of Christ he is in stead of Christ to himself and so hath preheminence over himself and the Pope in like manner yea unless they deny the blessed Virgin Mary to have been one of Christ's Sheep they must assert Peter and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary to have had a power to rule excommunicate and absolve her The truth is this the pressing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is used draweth with it many absurdities and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that use of these which the Authour of the Speech intended by them which what it is will be considered by examining the Texts brought for proof And for the Arguments if they did conclude the thing in question they should be thus framed or to this purpose He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Christ hath supreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Christ But such was Peter and by consequence the Pope of Rome Ergo. Again He that is to feed all the Sheep of Christ hath dominion or rule as aforesaid But that was Peter and consequently the Pope of Rome is to do Ergo. In both I should deny the Major understood of the under Foundation Builder and Shepherd though it should be yielded by concession of an impossibility yet he should not have such a supreme unerring Rule thereby and I deny the Minor also and in both as they stand or should stand there are many Propositions in these and his forms expressed or implied which are apparently false As 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it There were some as firm in the Faith as the Apostles and of the Apostles some as firm or more firm than Peter 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion 4. That as applied to Peter they note in him supreme unerring Rule or Dominion 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock 6. That he is above his Flock 7. That the person that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed the whole Flock of Christ universally taken 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much as have supreme dominion be a visible Monarch over them 9. That the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successour in that charge and power which Christ committed to him over his whole Church 10. That what is said of Peter in this point is true of every Bishop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious All which I have distinctly noted that it may appear upon how many suppositions the Popes Supremacy hangs and yet how loose and empty of proof from Scripture or Reason the Disputes of Papists are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion in so much that were it not for the heavy curse that is befallen Papists that sith they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved they should believe Lyes that they might be damned 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. it could not be that understanding persons among them should ever assent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon these Reasons But let us view what is said here The Major is proved because the Foundation supporteth the rest of the Building we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone Ephes 2. 20. and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock Answ The Argument framed hence must be this That which supporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the Building which is founded on it But so doth every Foundation Ergo. But the Major is not true of personal Metaphorical Foundations of which we now speak not of material proper Foundations A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth and support it by his wisdom and example and authority and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it and so in the founding of the Church a man that founds it may fall away and yet the Church stand firm Neither is the Minor true of every personal metaphorical Foundation he may be said to be a Foundation that is begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after support it The Text Ephes 2. 20. proves neither of the Propositions nor do I know to what purpose it is produced except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation But then it proves not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to have been Foundations and so proves no preheminence to Peter above them which is the Assertion of this Authour But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apostles are termed Foundations 1. Because this seems to be appropriated to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Because it is not said Ye are built on the Foundations but the Foundation and therefore seems to have this sense ye are built on that Foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid not which they are and so the genitives are of the efficient not of the subject and the Foundation must be that Doctrine or truth they declared of which Christ that is the Doctrine or Faith of Christ is the chief Corner-stone Nor is this against that which is Revel 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apostles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jerusalem For that may be said because they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation as Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 3.
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
it being in Luke 22. 25. onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have rule over them And that where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth not forbid onely tyrannical dominion but also any dominion at all over one another is apparent from many Arguments in the Text. 1. From the occasion which was the petition and contention in opposition to which this answer being made Christ must be conceived to forbid what they sought for else it had not been apposite to the business but they sought not tyrannical dominion but the higher seat and chief dignity and power or as Christ's answer Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimates they strove for seniority or priority of order and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 24. and Matth. 20. 27. Mark 10. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that the thing they sought was not Supremacy but onely priority therefore our Lord Christ forbids not onely tyrannical dominion but the higher seat chief dignity and power and the affecting seniority or priority over or before one another 2. From the subjects whose dominion is forbidden who are termed not Tyrants but Kings of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that have authority Luke 22. 25. in Matth. 20. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes or Rulers or Leaders of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the great ones in Mark 10 42. yet more diminutively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that seem or are accounted to rule or lead the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their great ones Which terms do plainly shew that these whose dominion was forbidden to the Apostles were the Rulers which were esteemed and accepted by those to whom they were Rulers and had lawfull authority and therefore such rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used among the Nations and not onely tyrannical and meer lording it over one another after their own will 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however it may be sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be meant so sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have absolute lordly arbitrary forcible dominion 4. This is further confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well forbidden as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have authority or power as well as to have dominion and that which is expressed by the compound in Matthew and Mark is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple in Luke which is used still of rule without abuse 5. In Luke it is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word that signifies Benefactours and though to be Benefactours is not forbidden yet it is forbidden to be so called that is to affect that Title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another in bestowing favours granting petitions one to another bestowing preferments or refuse which doth imply superiority in some sort and such a dependence one on another as the Apostles were not to have 6. The additional speech of Christ commanding in stead of dominion Matth. 20. 26. 27. Rather Ministery and service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7. Christ's propounding his own Example Matth. 20 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 22. 27. as that which they were to follow evinceth the same And though it is true he was their Master and Lord John 13. 13. yet both there vers 14 15. and here he propounds himself an Example onely in service 8. He expresseth that which he would have them to be so emphatically that he not onely forbids that which all counted unlawfull to wit tyrannical rule but also requires in those places such a mutual debasement voluntary subjection condescension Ministery yielding to each other as takes away all assuming of so much as was lawfull in others even the taking to themselves priority of order or place precedency seniority affected empire or rule over one another as the words Matth. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. do plainly shew 9 This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Matth. 18. 1. 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33 34 35. Luke 9. 46 47. in which places Christ resolves them that they should be as a little childe that assumes not empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10. It is further evident from Luke 22. 28 29. 30. that Christ having forbidden Supremacy or superiority in any of them among themselves doth promise them a Kingdom afterwards and that then they should be in his Kingdom and eat and drink at his Table and sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel in recompense of their abiding with him in his temptations And in very truth if there were no more than the consideration of the present state of Peter and the Apostles their despised and persecuted condition and the future accidents that Christ foretold should befall Peter in particular John 21. 28. and the rest of the Apostles Matth. 24 9. no man could reasonably imagine that Christ should make Peter a visible Monarch to rule the Apostles and the Church scattered over the World he himself being in prison and they also and in so remote places he unknown to them and they to him they having no access or means of access to him nor knowing where to finde him but all judicious men must conceive that this device of Peter's Supremacy over the Apostles and whole Church given by Christ is a meer impudent forgery as was after Constantine's donation to the Bishop of Rome by which wicked means the Popes have usurped the greatest tyranny that ever was in the World Out of all this I gather that Christ intended 1. That there should be no Kingdom Monarchy or Empire in any of the Apostles over the rest or any part of the Church till he came but that their state should be a state of service in preaching the Gospel and laying the foundation of Christianity till his coming 2. That then he onely would be King and they all equals sitting upon twelve Thrones with him and therefore that he would make none of them supreme Monarch over the rest nor Vicar to himself as the Pope doth blasphemously and arrogantly challenge And for that which H. T. saith that Christ expresly mentions a greater and a lesser a superiour and inferiour among them it is frivolously added sith it is plain that what in Luke is vers 26. he that is greater he that is chief is in Matthew 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43. He that would be great among you he that would be first and that which is in Matth. 20. 26 27. let him be in Mark 10. 43 44. shall be your Minister your servant is in Luke 22. 26. Let him be as the younger as the
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
their Faith and prepossessing them with the Doctrines of the present age which once received very few except men very learned and impartial inquisitours into the truth will be able to examine and in effect that which the Pope and his Council have or shall determine must be taken for unquestionable nor is this reasonable but against all right way of understanding that we should apply our selves to know what Christ and his Apostles taught sixteen hundred years ago rather by the present and precedent ages after the times wherein they lived than by their own Wriâ—ings as if a man might better know what Legacy his great grand-father â—ave an hundred years ago by the testimony of men now living than by his â—wn Will upon record 2. The pretence for this resolution is but imaginary and fictitious and refuted by experience Surely if there were such an impossibility as this Authour speaks of the whole World had not been corrupted as it was in Noaâ—'s and Abraham's days nor the Church of Israel as it was in the days of the Judges of Elias Manasseh our Lord Christ at his coming in the flesh in the time of Athanasius when as Hierom said The whole world groaned that it was become Arian there would not be such a falling away as the Apostle foretold 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2. Thess 2 4 at which time the Rhemists grant in their note on that place that even the service of Christ shall be suppressed And therefore the impossibility here supposed by H. T. is but imaginary out of inadverteney of what the Scripture hath related and foretold and ignorance of the great corruption of man and the power of the old Serpent called the Devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole World Revel 12. 9. 3. But what Church is there that so resolves her Faith none that I know of besides the Roman or rather the Court of Rome For I do not yet think that either the Greek Asiatick or African Churches do so resolve their Faith no nor yet some of those Churches who do hold communion with the Roman See nay I hardly think the Church or Court of Rome it self doth resolve it's Faith such as it is as H. T. here speaks I instance in one main point that the Pope is above a Council For sure if that be their resolution they will be cast sith the precedent age I mean the fifteenth century did deliver by hand to hand from father to son that a general Council is above the Pope as the two so termed general Councils of Basil and Constance did expresly determine And in other points in difference between Protestants and Papists if they go from age to age upwards Papists would finde themselves destitute of Tradition unwritten as well as written in the half communion Papal indulgences worship of Images and many more besides So that however this Authour pretend Tradition of a world of fathers to a world of sons when he and his party are put to it they have not any ancient universal Tradition elder than the sixteenth century for the chief point of the Papacy the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility and therein the Pope and his packed Council of Trent are the great World he means at which were at some determinations of great moment about fifty Bishops such as they were and some of them but titular and in other points there hath been no Tradition but what hath been gainsaid and therefore in fine the Papists faith is resolved into the Popes and Council of Trents determination which is the Catholick Church with Papists as is manifest by the words of this Authour here p. 70. where he makes the Church which he counts infallible A Council called out of the whole World and approved by the Pope which he judgeth the Trent Council to be pag. 76. and if the Catholick Church do resolve its faith into the catholick churches tradition what is this but to resolve its faith into its own tradition at least the catholick church represented in an oecumenical council approved by the Pope must resolve its faith into it self Pius the fourth and the Trent Bishops must resolve their faith into their own tradition and so must believe what they believe in points of Christian Faith because they hold so and judge themselves infallible and if so it would be known whether they did believe the same things before they did determine them in a council if not they defined what they did not believe if they did then it would be known upon what tradition they did believe them if they name the tradition of the foregoing age the same questions will be put and the answer must be either at last to resolve it into Scripture or some fallible men or the process will be endless or it must rest in the determination of the present church catholick properly so called or general council or Pope or else the questions wil return and the arguing will be circular Yet there are these Reasons why Papists make shew of this way of resolving their faith into the churches tradition unwritten 1. Because they would not have their Doctrines and Faith tried by the holy Scriptures alone nor in the first place nor by the Doctours of the first five hundred years 2. Because they know that few either of the learned or unlearned can track them in this way it being impossible for any but men of very great reading and very accurate criticks to discern truth in this way by reason of the multitude of Nations in which the Church hath been whereof some are unknown to some other Churches the impossibility to know what each church throughout the World held in every age the difficulty of travel the variety of Languages the multitude and uncertainty of Authours especially since they have been gelded and altered by the Indices expurgatorii and practises of Monks and other Scribes the foisting in bastard treatises under the names of approved Authours For which reason it is that they decline as much as they can trial of their Doctrine by Scripture pretending difficulties where there are either none or such as might be removed though by their course they cast men into insuperable difficulties and when they are necessitated to let people have the Scripture in the vulgar Language by reason of importunity of adversaries yet they so pervert it by corrupt Translations and notes as in the Rhemist's Testament is manifest that people have much ado without much diligence to finde out their deceits SECT V. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity Yet H. T. hath the face to say But if we refer the whole trial of faith to the arbitrement of Scripture I see nothing more evident than that this one Argument ad hominem gives the cause into our hands since it clearly proves either many controverted Catholick Doctrines are sufficiently contained in
fathers to sons lib. 1. de Decret Concil Niceni sith that delivery was according to him by Scripture Chrysostom on 2 Thess 2. 15. saith The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these are worthy of credit as the others but doth not say there remain still in the Church Traditions unwritten in matters of Faith that are different from the written and that they are to be the Rule of Faith yea Homily in 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. he determines all is to be learned from Scripture and the same answer may serve for the words of Epiphanius Haeresi 61. The words of Augustine lib. 5. de Bapt. cap. 23. are about a point in controversie between Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in which both sides pretended Tradition Cyprian for Rebaptization and here Augustine pretends Tradition for the contrary by which and by Augustine's words lib. 1. de pecc merit remiss cap. 24. in which he makes the giving of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants an ancient and Apostolical tradition which Pope Innocentius Epist 93. among Augustine's Epistles determined to be necessary yet is now condemned in the Trent Council it is apparent how unsafe it is to rely on a Popes determination or Austin's opinion of Apostolical tradition and that gross Errours have been received under the name of Apostolical traditions As for the second Council of Nice Act 7. Anno Dom. 781. it was a late and an impious Council condemned by the Synod of Francford and at Paris for their impious Doctrine of worshipping Images and therefore we count its speech not worthy to be answered but with detestation Nor is there any reason to be moved with the words of the Council at Sens in France which was later and but Provincial SECT VII Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers H. T. proceeds thus Objections solved Object You have made frustrate the Commandments of God for your Tradition St. Matth. cap. 15. v. 4. Beware lest any man deceive you by vain fallacy according to the Traditions of men Col. 2. Answ These Texts are both against the vain Traditions of private men not against Apostolical tradition I Reply they are against the Popish unwritten Traditions which are falsly called Apostolical which are indeed the meer Inventions of men either devised by superstitious Prelates Priests Monks or people or upon uncertain report received by credulous people as from the Apostles as the Traditions about Easter Lent Fast Christ's age and many more shew And in such kinde of mens Inventions doth almost all the Popish Worship and Service consist which causeth breaking the command of God to observe mens Traditions as is manifest in Monkish Vows whereby honouring of Parents is made void and the keeping of the Cup from the people whereby the express command of Christ is evacuated Object There is no better way to decide controversies than by Scripture Answ Than by Scriptures expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical tradition I grant than by Scripture according to the dead Letter or expounded by the private spirit I deny For so as Tertullian says there is no good got by disputing out of the Texts of Scripture but either to make a man sick or mad De praescript cap. 19. I reply it is well this man will grant There is no better way to decide controversies than by the Scriptures expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical tradition then Knot 's Reasons for a living Judge against Dr. Potter come to nothing we desire no other than to have our controversies decided this way rejecting any one infallible Judge that shall take on him as the Pope doth to prescribe to the Church of God how they shall understand the Scripture The Church of God that is the company of believers who are the Church of God by Papists own definition having the help of their godly and learned Guides may expound the Scriptures any where in the World at Geneva London Dort and other places as well and better than the Pope and his Cardinals at Rome or a Council of Canonists titular Bishops sworn vassals of the Pope that never knew what it was to preach the Gospel sophistical School-men at Trent And for the Rule of Apostolical tradition we like it well to expound Scripture by it meaning that which is in the Books of Scripture as Austin taught lib. 1. de doctr Christ cap. 2. 35. 37. 40. lib. 2. cap. 8. 9. 11. lib. 3. cap. 2 3. 5. 10. 17. 18. 27. 28. lib 4. cap. 3. as the words are cited and vindicated from Hart's Replies by Dr. John Rainoll Confer with Hart. chap 2. divis 2. Nor do I know any other Apostolical tradition which is a Rule to expound Scriptures by for deciding controversies but their Epistles and other Writings If H. T. can shews me any such to expound them by let him produce them and I will embrace them Sure I am Popes Expositions and Popish Councils Canons are so far from being Apostolical traditions that they are rather the most ridiculous profane and blaphemous pervertings of Scripture that ever any sober man used as may appear by their Canon Law Yea the very Council of Trent hath absurdly abused Scripture as might be made manifest by going over their Canons and the like may be said of the Roman Catechism What H. T. means by the dead Letter I understand not unless he mean the literal sense which sure Bellarmine and others allow for one sense and that most genuine and if it be not why did the Trent Council decree the vulgar Translation not to be refused Why did Cajetan Arias Montanus the Râ—emists and many more translate and expound according to the Letter Is the Scripture any more a dead Letter than the Popes Breves or Trent Canons Are they any more a living Judge than the Scripture Pope Pius the fourth ties Papists to expound the Scriptures according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers which is except in very few things a meer nullity and if it were a reality impossible to be done yet however could it be done the exposition must be by a dead Letter in H. T. his sense as much as the Scripture But how intolerable is it that such a Wretch as H. T. should thus blasphemously call that a dead Letter which Stephen calls Living Oracles Acts 7. 38. Paul the word of life Phil. 2. 16. It is true for Popes of whom some if Alphonsus a Castâ—â— lib. 1. advers Haeret. cap. 1. say true were so unlearned as not to understand Grammar it is desirable that the Scripture should not be expounded according to the Letter sith they are unable to do it that they may vent their illiterate fopperies under pretence of Apostolical tradition of which sort many of their Decrees are in their Canon Law But me thinks all the learned Romanists even the Jesuits themselves
profession or other act it is which makes Schism Nor is this a definition which doth agree with their own grants For the Councils that deposed Popes separated from the government of the Pope and the French in their pragmatick Sanction and the Venetians that refused to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory deny themselves to be Schismaticks Nor is it shewed how either is damnable or sacrilegious nor how Protestants are Sectaries or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection yet sith by what follows we may ghess his meaning let 's view his dispute SECT II. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation The Argument saith H. T. All such as are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state But most Protestants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church Therefore they are Schismaticks and Hereticks and consequently in a damnable state The Major is manifest out of the very notion and definition of Schism and Heresie The sequel of it proved thus by Scriture Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 2. 1. Jude 13. Rom. 16. 17. Matth. 18. 7 17 18. 2 Thess 3. 14. Answ 1. BY denying his Definition to be good and that any of the Texts prove it 2. By granting the Sequel of them that are truly termed Schismaticks and Hereticks but not of such as he calls such to wit that do wilfully divide from the Doctrine and Discipline of the now Roman Church falsly by him called Catholick There is no need of examining each Text till they are shewed to prove what is denied The Minor saith he is proved because Luther and his fellow Protestants divided themselves from the Communion of all Churches therefore from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that as well in Points of Doctrine as matters of Government as plainly appears by all we have said and is yet confirmed because when they began their Separation Luther in Germany Tyndal in England c. the Catholick Church was in most quiet possession of her Tenets in perfect peace and unity her Doctrine and Government being the same they had been not onely to the time of Gregory the Great as Protestants confess but to the very time of the Apostles as is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages in which no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Discipline then professed by the Roman Catholick Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as you have seen in the Councils Answ 1. The Minor speaks of most Protestants but mentions none but Luther and his fellow Protestants and Tyndal in England now it is no good proof against us that we are Schismaticks because Luther and his fellow Protestants were so and Tyndal began Separation in England It is told them by Câ—illingworth c. 5. p 1. against Knot that there may be an unjust Separation begun and so a Schism in the Leaders and yet no Schism in the Followers in after Ages as in a Common-wealth it may be a Sedition and Rebellion to set up another Government and Governour in the first Authours and yet none in the Posterity to continue them but rather their duty to maintain them in order to the peace and liberty which was unjustly obtained at first 2. It is denied that Luther or Tyndal divided themselves wilfully that is without necessity It is known in the History of Sleidan and others that Luther at first spake honourably of the Pope and was willing to have continued in communion with the Roman Church till Leo the tenth did by his Bull condemn his Doctrine afore he had heard him and he saw plainly as the World found by experience that the Popes and Court of Rome did never by good proofs out of Scripture go about to refute them but by Excommunications Fire and War to which Emperours and Kings were stirred up by them endeavour to root them out And for Tyndal it is manifest by the Book of Acts and Monuments of the Church written by Mr. Fox in the Reign of Henry the eighth that Tyndal was persecuted by the Popish Bishops and his body burnt in Brabant Now sure were the Protestants never so erroneous yet the Law of Nature ties them to run away from such cruel Wolves as in stead of teaching them with love endeavour to destroy them with cruelty 3. It is most false that Luther and his Fellows divided themselvs from the communion of all Churches It is certain that they actually joyned with the remainder of the Hussites in Bohomia and the Waldenses about the Alpes who were true Churches of Christ however the Romanists term them nor did they ever renounce communion with the Greek Eastern or Southern Churches though by reason of distance and the Power they were under they could not have actual communion with them And by their desire of a free Council in Germany not called by the Pope but the Emperour and Christian Princes nor of Bishops sworn to the Pope but of men that were equal Judges by whom their Doctrine might be examined and by their often Colloquies for Reconciliation they plainly shewed that they tried all means they could with a good conscience to have prevented the breach between them and the Popish party who were certainly the cause of the Schism and truly the Schismaticks as may be gathered from their own stories such as Thuanus Frier Paul's History of the Trent Council and others who relate the proceedings of those times and not the Protestants 4. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in point of Doctrine It is most certain that the party from whom the Protestants separated had relinquished the Catholick Doctrine of the Scripture and Primitive times for five hundred years at least and had brought in a new upstart Doctrine of Invocation of Saints worshiping Images Transubstantiation half-communion as sufficient denial of Priest's Marriage Popes universal Monarchy Purgatory-fire Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass Justification by Works and many more which were unknown to the first Christians nor hath the contrary appeared by any thing H. T. hath said before as the Reader of this Answer may perceive 5. It is most false that they separated from the Catholick Church in the point of her Government The Government of the whole Church by one universal Bishop was never the Government of the Catholick Church It is manifest by the first general Councils that the Pope of Rome was not acknowledged superiour to other Patriarchs and the Greek Churches have always resisted his claim of Supremacy and many as Nilus Arch-bishop of Thessalonica Barliam and others have written against it as an unjust claim 6.
drawing of the Net on the shore at the Day of Judgement is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism which surpasseth all other crimes lib. 2. cont Epist Parmen I reply it is a Scolds trick to say we slander and not to prove it We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the Roman Church then held Justification by Faith without Works that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith that the Church of Rome might fail that the Roman church is but a particular Church that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days that it is Idolatry to do as Papists now do worshiping the Creature with such Worship as belongs to the Creatour that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not with sundry more in which the present Roman church hath sweâ—ved from the primitive We prove out of Gregory the Great himself that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope and disavowed the Worship of Images with other things now received at Rome and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious Augustine himself hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon yet his speeches touch not us who do not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours and practising such Idolatry as are damnable We do not say that the church perished but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints We need not allege any Church for our Mother but the Jerusalem which is abovâ— which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsiderate speech to say any visible church is the Mother of Christians it is in my apprehension all one as to say the church is the Mother of the church Christians or believers being all one with the church and therefore count such speeches whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them no better than ridiculous non-sense and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel and allege that we have been begotten by it which way soever it be Were not the â—berians a church of Christians who were converted by â— captive Maid when there was no church there before and the Indians by â—rumentius without a Church to bring them forth May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations but were expelled and peâ—secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome when they endeavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans English and other Nations If Augustine meant simply that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable he wrote that which is not true it being contrary to Paul's practise Acts 18. 9. God's command 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess 3. 8. Revel 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist Pâ—rmen cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have society with them but by doing evil with them But if he meant it of such Separation as the Donatists made as it is likely he doth it toucheth not us who separate not from the Romanists because some evil men are tolerated but because Errour Idolatry and other evils are urged on us by them and such is their tyranny that without yielding to them there is no communion but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning Once more saith H. T. Object We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome Therefore not from the whole Church Answ I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome iâ— universal or Catholick and in what sense she is particular take it in which acception you will your Consequence is false for whosoever separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular he consequently separates from the whole and is an Heretick or Schismatick I reply neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church in either sense is an Heretick or Schismatick And to his proof I say 1. That many Protestants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther separated but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church and they that acknowledge it a true Church in respect of the truth of being yet not of Doctrine and they that say it had the truth of being say it not of the predominant part but of the latent conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them or avouched by them though living among them or if they did yield to them or some of them they had pardon as doing it in ignorance retaining the old Creed of the Apostles And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held who were in it though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance yet they might say to Rome being found uâ—câ—rable as the Jews to Babylon Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon but she is not healed forsake her and let us go every one into his own countrey for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven and is lifted up unto the Skies 2. That it is not universally true that he who separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total privative not positive out of prejudice and passion in heat not in heart as between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius temporary not perpetual in prudence though not out of absolute necessity necessary not voluntary just and not rash without revolt from the Faith or persecution of those from whom it is made In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from
of the Roman Church or Popes or oecumenical Councils Infallibility 88 4. None of these Texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14 26. John 16. 13. Acts 15. 28. do prove the Infallibility in Points of Faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general Council approved by him 90 5. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our Salvation without supposing the Churches Infallibility 93 6. Neither can the Church oblige men under Pain of Damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith nor is there any such Judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her nor do any of the Fathers words cited by H. T. say it is the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. August contr Epist Fundam cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it 97 7. The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the Infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers 106 8. The Objections of Protestants against the Churches Infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 124 ARTICLE VI. THe Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her sanctity and Miracles 131 Sect. 1. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent ibid. 2. The sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church 132 3. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman church 134 4. The Roman church is not proved to be the true church by the holiness of its Doctrine but the contrary is true 136 5. The Devotion of the Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman church it being for the most part will-worship and Pharisaical hypocrisie 139 6. The power of working Miracles is no certain mark of the true church 143 7. The Popish pretended Miracles prove not the truth of their church nor the Miracles related by some of the Fathers 144 8. The Objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman church from the Power of Miracles are not solved by H. T. 147 ARTICLE VII THe Pope's or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole church is not proved by H. T. 151 Sect. 1. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour ibid. 2. From being the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 16 17. neither Peter's nor the Pope's Supremacy is proved 152 3. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles but a Promise of special success in his Preaching 156 4. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole church 159 5. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren Luke 22. 31. and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy 161 6. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter 164 7. The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy 165 8. The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Pope's Supremacy 169 9. Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Pope's Supremacy 176 10. Of the Emperours calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping faith with Hereticks 18◠ARTICLE VIII THe unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith 187 Sect. 1. The Argument for Apostolical tradition as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered ibid. 2. Unwritten traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles 190 3. The obligation of the church not to deliver any thing as a Point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Tradition a Rule of Faith 191 4. Counterfeits even in Points of Faith might and did come into the church under the name of Apostolick tradition without such a force as H. T. imagines necessary thereto 195 5. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity 198 6. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith 202 7. Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 205 8. H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions 212 ARTICLE IX PRotestants in not holding communion with the Roman church as now it is in their worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by ejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks 220 Sect. 1. H. T. his Definitions of Schism and Heresie are not right ibid. 2. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation 221 3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks 224 4. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquitting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists 226 FINIS Ecclesia Christi est quae luscipit à Christo doctrinam seu cujus fides sundatur authoritate Christi Thomas Whitsonus Bucci Tract 1. Sect. 7. Watson quodlib p. 252 260 343.
ROMANISM DISCUSSED OR An Answer to the nine first Articles of H. T. his Manual of CONTROVERSIES Whereby is manifested that H. T. hath not as he pretends clearly demonstrated the Truth of the Roman Religion by him falsly called Catholick by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first five hundred years common sense and experience nor fully answered the principal Objections of Protestants whom he unjustly terms Sectaries By John Tombes B. D. And commended to the World by Mr. Richard Baxter Jer 6. 16. Thus saith the Lord Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall finde rest for your Souls LONDON Printed by H. Hills and are to sold by Jane Underhill and Henry Mourtlock in Paul's Church-yard 1660. TO THE English Romanists Who term themselves CATHOLICKS Specially to those of the Counties of Hereford and Worcester ALthough the prejudice wherewith you are prepossessed against the Truth avouched by me the Ingagements whereby you are linked to the Roman See the Hopes that it 's not unlikely you feed you selves with of seeing your Native Countrey reduced under the obedience of the Roman Papacy besides the long experience which hath been had of the fruitlesness of Attempts to alter your Opinion in Religion how gross soever they have been proved to be might have deterred me from this Writing yet sith I have been instantly urged to it and am loath to imagine all of you tobe of so deplorable a wilfulness of spirit as that you will obstinately persist in your manifest Errours and thereby cast away your Sâ—uls I have adventured to publish this ensuing Treatise that I might not be guilty of betraying the Truth and your Souls by my silence I have been many years a Preacher in England chiefly in the Counties of Hereford and Worcester and though I have not had much acquaintance with any of you yet some Conferences have left me not without hope that you might see your Errour about the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome which is the chief Point on which your Religion rests as it is opposite to Protestantism although formerly and of late the French and some other Churches have strongly opposed the Popes or Roman Churches Superiority above a General Council and their Infallibility in their Determinations Certainly these two Points which are the Pillars of the Religion of the Roman party are so far from being Catholick that to him that shall impartially examine the Proofs it will appear that they have been late Innovations and are yet contradicted by a great part of those Churches which hold communion with the Roman See And for many other Points of your Religion if you would either use your Senses or your understanding in judging by the Scripture translated by your own party what is true or false you could not be so besotted as to believe Transubstantiation Invocation of deceased Saints Justification by your own Works and their Meritoriousness of eternal Life Purgatoryâ—fire Prayer for the Dead another Propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead besides Christ's Communion under one kinde onely Worshipping of Images and Reliques with some other of your Tenets For freeing you from which Errours which are pernicious to your Souls if I could contribute any thing I should count it a part of my happiness of which I should have some hopes were it that I perceived you free from the Imposition of your Leaders on you not to reade such Writings as are against them which must of necessity enslave you to their Opinions and hinder you from an impartial Search after Truth wherein what deceit is used by your imagined Pastour the Pope may appear as by many other things so especially by the late carriage of Pope Innocent the tenth in the Controversies between the Jansenists and Molinists in France who being importuned to give Sentence concerning the five Propositions of Jansenius if we may believe Thomas White one of your chief Disputants and one whose approbation is to this Manual of Controversies of H. T. did in shew condemn Jansenius his words but did allow his meaning And that I may not be thought to misreport him I will set down his words in his Appendicula to his Sonus Buccinae about the Censure of the five Propositions of Jansenius Sect. 9. where after he had shewed that the Propositions of Jansenius might be true in their sense though the words were liable to Exceptions he adds But whereto are all these things said Is it that I might enervate or reprehend the Popes Decree Nothing less I profess that was published by the best Counsel and special guidance of the Holy Spirit which governs the Church The Church was afflicted with Dissentions one part stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture the other being guarded with the multitude of Princes and of the common People circumvented with the sound of words flattering humane weakness took great courage What should the Father of the Church do He allayed the more unquiet part by granting them their words the more obedient part he flatteringly comforted by commending to them their Senses The former part of the Saying was confirmed by a publick Instrument The later if there be any credit to be given to men of tender conscience was done before the Oratour of the most Christian King It is manifest by what hath been said with what rectitude of Faith and Divinity this part shines that that exhibites prudence worthy the Pope thus take it Wherein it may be perceived that however White speak favourably of the Pope yet he sets out his dealing in that business as unworthy an infallible Judge of Controversies which should have decided openly for Jansenius whose Propositions stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture according to their meaning which Innocentius the tenth commended to them that they might hold them still in that meaning in a Conference and yet he condemned their Propositions in their words by his Bull published to quiet the wrangling and potent party of Jesuits that had drawn the Princes and common People to their side by words that flattered humane weakness in stead of Truth glorifying God than which in so weighty a matter what could be done more like a Juggler or man-pleaser than a Servant of God constant in asserting Truth Which shews that the Popes resolve not by the Spirit of God or the holy Scripture but by humane policy as it may be for their advantage to keep their party in obedience to them And that it is not indeed any sincerity in seeking Truth or serious intention to feed the Souls of People with true Doctrine but to accommodate all their Determinations and Negotiations as to uphold their credit authority might be made abundantly appear by the History of the Council of Trent and many other ways which I shall not mention being shewed by many and particularly by Mr. Richard
Baxter in his Key for Catholicks onely this one instance out of Thomas White I minde you of because I think Thomas White is yet alive and in England among you as I conceive by the Edition of the Dispute about Schism between him and Gunning And I beseech you give me leave to tell you that I do much pity your Souls which you do enslave to the most deceitfull of men the Roman Popes and adhere to your Priests which either teach you not at all but feed you with meer shews in your Masses and other Rites or if they preach either preach not the Gospel of Jesus Christ at all or corrupt it with mixture of humane Traditions but keep you from hearing those who teach in your own Language the Doctrine of the holy Scripture without guile the refusing whereof under pretence of your fore-father's example or the Pope's and your Priests restraint or our imagined Heresie or Schism and in stead of it pleasing your selves with Masses in Latin Auricular Confession and Priests Absolution and such like Chaff will never be justified before Christ at his Appearing whose Precept is that you search the Scripture and Promise of Blessing to them that hear the Word of God and keep it the neglect of which is the neglect of that great Salvation which is brought to us by Jesus Christ Unto which if you would attend you would quickly finde the Deceits of your Popes and Priests and deliver your Souls from the Snares of Ignorance of the Gospel and Popish Errours which now destroy your Souls If you yet shut your eys against the Light of the Gospel tender'd to you by Protestant Preachers and persist in your Errour and Superstition you Destruction will be of your selves though thereby there is cause given of mourning for you to all that love the Salvation of your Souls among whom I know my self to be one and desire to be accounted as Your unfeignedly desirous and studious Servant in Christ for your Souls good JOHN TOMBES AN EPISTLE SENT BY Mr. RICHARD BAXTER To the AUTHOUR to be prefixed Readers WEre not the Judgements of God so dreadfull and infatuation so lamentable in matters of everlasting consequence and sin so odious and the calamities of the Church the dishonour of God and the Damnation of Souls such deplorable things as tolerate not a laughter in the standers by it would seem one of the most ridiculous things in the World that a man of seeming wisdom should be a Papist and that so many Princes and learned men with the vulgar multitude should be able so far to renounce or intoxicate their Reason while they are awake And a Papist would be described to be one that sets up his understanding to be the laughing-stock of the sober rational World There are abundance of Controversies among Physicians that concern mens lives and yet I have heard of none so vain as to step forth and challenge the Authority of being the universal Decider of them or to charge God with folly or oversight if he have not appointed some such universal Judge in the World to end all Controversies in matters of such weight But if in Physick's Law or any of the Sciences the Controversies should be never so many or so great if yet you could resolve them into sense it self and bring all to the judgement of mens eys and ears and taste and feeling who would not laugh or hiss at him that would still make them the matter of serious doubts The Papists finding that man is yet imperfect and knoweth but in part and that in the Scripture there are some things are hard to be understood and that Earth hath not so much Light as Heaven imagine that hereby they have a fair advantage to plead for an universal terrestrial Judge and to reproach God if he have appointed none such and next to plead that their Pope or his approved Councils must needs have this Authority And when they come to the Decision they are not ashamed to see after so many hundred years pretensions that the World is but baffled with the empty name of a Judge of Controversies and that Difficulties are no less Difficulties still and Controversies are no where so voluminous as with them But this is a small matter with them Their Judge seems much wiser when he is silent than when he speaks When he comes to a Decision and formeth up thereby the Hodge-podge of Popery they seem not to smile at nor be ashamed of the Picture which they have drawn which is of an Harlot shewing her nakedness and committing her lewdness in the open Assemblies in the sight of the Sun They openly proclaim their shame against the light of all the acknowledged Principles in the World their own or others and in opposition to all or almost all that is commendable among men The charge seems high but in a few words take the proof 1. They confess the Scripture to be the Word of God and yet when we would appeal to that as the Rule of Faith and Life or as a divine Revelation in our Disputes they fly off and tell us of its obscurity and the necessity of a Judge If they meet with a Hoc est corpus meum they seem for a while to be zealous for the Scripture But tell them that Paul in 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. doth call it Bread after the Consecration no less than three times in the three next Verses and then Scripture is non-sense to them till the Pope make sense of it It is one of their principal labours against us to argue against the Scriptures sufficiency to this use By no means can we prevail with them to stand to the Decision of the Scripture 2. They excessively cry up the Church and appeal to its Decision and therefore we might hope that here if any where we might have some hold of them But when it comes to the Point they not onely disown the judgement of the Church but impudently call Christ's Spouse a Strumpet and cut off in their uncharitable imagination two or three parts of the universal Church as Hereticks or Schismaticks The judgements of the Churches in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt Syria the Greeks and many more besides the Reformed Churches in the West is against their Popes universal Vicarship or Sovereignty and many of their Errours that depend thereon And yet their judgement is not regarded by this Faction And if a third or fourth part such as it is of the Universal Church may cry up themselves as the Church to be appealed to and condemn the far greater part why may not a tenth or a twentieth part do the like Why may not the Donatists the Novatians or the Greeks much more do so as well as Papists 3. They cry up Tradition And when we ask them How we shall know it and where it is to be found they tell us principally in the profession and practice of the present Church And yet when two or three parts of the
man reade the words of the Council and judge And now whether a Religion that is at such open enmity with 1. Scripture 2. The Church 3. Tradition 4. Fathers 5. Councils 6. Some Popes 7. The common senses and Reason of all the World even their own 8. Unity of Christians 9. Knowledge 10. Experience of Believers 11. Charity 12. Purity of Worship 13. Holiness 14. Common Honesty 15. And to Civil Government and Peace which might all easily be fully proved though here but touched I say whether such a Religion should be embraced and advanced with such diligence and violence and mens souls laid upon it is the controversie before us And whether it should be tolerated even the propagation of it to the damnation of the peoples souls is now the Question which the juggling Papists have set a foot among those that have made themselves our Rulers and there are found men among us that call themselves Protestants and godly that plead for the said Toleration and consequently for the delivering up of these Nations to Popery if not to Spanish or other foreign Powers which if they effect and after their contrary Professions prove such Traitors to Christ his Gospel and their posterity as they leave the Land of their Nativity in misery they shall leave their stinking names for a reproach and curse to future Generations and on such Pillars shall be written This pride self-seeking uncharitableness and schism hath done If thou marvel Reader that the learned Authour of this Book and I do joyn thus against the common Adversary after our own Differences in the one point of Infant-baptism thou dost but marvel that we are Christians and have not made shipwrack of our Faith and Charity and on the account of our Imperfections and little Differences cast away our salvation and the Churches peace Be it known to you that we are some years elder than when our Differences begun and therefore if we have made no progress in Holiness we are unexcusable And we know that he that is strongest in holy Love is strongest in Grace Marvel not then if we get some little increase by the opportunities and mercies we possess and if we forget not that we are Members of the same Christ and Heirs of the same Kingdome where we hope to live in perfect Love when we draw nearer to it and see that long we cannot be thence and when we see what havock the Devil hath made in the Churches of Christ and the Souls of multitudes seemingly religious by uncharitableness and Schism I am sure the Soul that is most for Unity and Love is likest to those that are in Heaven This also is my Answer to the Papists that I know will make it my Reproach that I hold so much Communion with Anabaptists that is that I am not as uncharitable and schismatical as they that confine the Church to their deluded Faction We own nothing in each other that we discern to be evil but we unanimously practise so far as we are agreed If sin have left England and Europe any hopes the Lord have mercy upon a divided self-destroying Generation and suffer not the sins of men professing godliness to drive away the Gospel and send it to America according to Mr. Herbert's sad conjecture in his Church Militant And O that Professours of Godliness would consider both what they have done and how much of Holiness doth consist in Charity Unity and Peace and leave not to the Papists the temptation or honour of seeming more unanimous and peaceable than we lest they seem to themselves and others more holy than we Experience and Judgements will leave us the most unexcusable people under Heaven if we prevent not our own and the Churches ruine by a speedy diligent return to Charity and Peace As these are the thoughts which I judged most necessary on this occasion to communicate so are they the matter of my daily Prayers Reader the times require thee to be well versed in the Controversies with the Papists If thou love thy Faith and Soul be not lazy but as there are multitudes of excellent Treatises at hand against Popery be not through negligence a stranger to them And among others in this Treatise thou wilt finde the Adversary solidly confuted and the vanity of his Reasonings detected which briefly I did in his most material parts in my Key for Catholicks And among the many excellent Treatises against them with which Shops and Libraries abound I commend to the Countrey Reader that would see much in a little room and know the true grounds of confuting Popery two little Treatises viz. Dr. Challoner's Credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam and Dr. Moulin's Answer to Cotton's Questions with the Questions and Challenges annexed And for Arguments against Toleration of Popery Dr. Sutliffe's Answer to the Lay Papists Petition for Toleration and Powel's Answer to the same Whose side the Scriptures are on reade a little Book called The abatement of Popish Brags by Alexander Cook Reade also their own Catholick Moderatour proving Protestants no Hereticks and the Catholick Judge or Moderatour of the Moderatour by John of the Cross c. Shortly I hope you may have Dr. Moulin's excellent Treatise of the Novelty of Popery translated by his Reverend Son and now going to the Press The Lord grant that mens refusing to receive the Truth in the Love of it to their Salvation and their base subjecting it to their pride and worldly interests provoke not God to give them over to believe such Lyes as are here detected and to withdraw the Gospel from an unworthy Nation Amen Novemb. 11. 1659. RI. BAXTER Errata Page 4. margin reade White or de Albiis sonus p. 5. l. 22. r. Ephes 1. 23. p. 8. l. 2. r. Ezek. 37. p. 9. l. 30. r. being p. 13 l. 20. r. six l. 22. r. he p. 15. l. 3. 5. r. primacy l. 5. r. last l. 9 10. r. inconsequent l. 34. r. removed p. 16. l. 7. r. better l. 9. r. primacy p. 17. l. 6. r. decreed p. 19. l. 33. r. brings p. 21. l. 5. r. Milevis p. 24. l. 24. r. ninth p. 25. l. 9. r. Marozia l. 41. r. Gandavensis Andegavensis p. 26. l. 11. r. ego p. 32. l. 3. r. Ivo p. 36. l. 30. r. to the. l. 35. r. councils p. 39. l. 37. r. the. p. 43. l. 28. r. Armenians p. 50. l. 26. r. rood l. 38. r. second p. 52. l. 12. r. Dr. p. 54. l. 17. r. way of p. 55. l. 1. r. Thuanus p. 58. l. 14. r. commemorative p. 59. l. 41. r. our p. 65. l. 29. r. conspicuity p. 66. l. 14. r. hath said p. 70. l. 20. r. ambiguity p. 73. l. 19. r. palpable p. 80. l. 8. r. by which p. 91. l. 46. r. truth p. 95. l. 12. r. Bannez p. 96. l. 11. r. doth not p. 98. l. 46. r. of p. 110. l. 32. r. conceits p. 111. l. 22. r. according l. 23. r. vealeth l. 40. r. faction
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his
hands the thing that was good that he might have to give to him that needs and how they should be called a holy order who were like to the institutors but never appointed by God I understand not Many learned men in those daies demonstrated them to be no holy orders but a company of men that promoted the Popes usurpations and injuries to the great mischief of the Commonwealths and Churches of Christians Of the Nations converted the Emperour Cassanes with innumerable Tartarians were not converted by the Church of Rome nor owned the Popes supremacy or faith and therefore are no witnesses for the Papacy In the fourteenth age ten Popes are set down of whom most â—â—te at Avignon in France and so could not be Pastors of the Church of Rome one is Clement the fifth who chained Francis Dandalus the Venetian Ambassador under his table to feed with dogs and lost at the pomp of his Coronation out of his mitre a carbuncle valued at six thousand â—â—orens Another John the twenty one by others John the twenty second whom Bellarmin de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 14. confesseth to have thought that the souls should not see God till after the resurrection though he adds a cold excuse as if he might so think then without danger of heresie because no definition of the Church proceded which is not true if he say rightly himself l. 1. de eccl triumph c. 2. that the same that is that the souls see God afore the resurrection teacheth Innocent the third who was one hundred years before John the twenty one by H. T. his account c. Apostolicam extra de Presbytero non Baptizatâ— However if there were no definition it proves a Pope may teach heresie sith John the twenty second did earnestly press this on the Parisians that they should believe as he did Of the rest their unpeaceableness in their contention with the Emperor and among themselves in their Schisms in which one Pope was set up against another divers Popes at the same time one owned by one another by another makes the succession so uncertain that even the Romanists disagree in the succession some putting in Clement the seventh in this age whom H. T. leaves out some standing for one some for others as the right Popes Besides their cruelty and covetousness pâ—ove them rather Butchers than Pastors of the Church of Christ H. T. adds one general Council of Vienna Fathers three hundred Pope Clement the fifth presiding Anno Domini 1311. in which he tells us the Council defined baptism to be necessary for infants condemned the Begards and Beguines who held carnal lust done out of temptation to be no sin and that we ought not to shew reverence at the elevation of the body of Christ which last alone is against Protestants in common But the Council whether provincial or general being swayed by a proud prelate Clement the fifth it s no marvel it should make such decrees as then were made As for the Catholick Professors there is scarce a man of any note but Iro a Canonist whose profession will be of little weight with considerate men That an Emperour of Russia if made a Christian did embrace the Romish Religion and submit to the Pope is not likely The rest of the Nations converted H. T. proves not to have been converted from Rome or to have held communion with the Pope if they did it avails little to prove H. T. his Minor that such rude people did so SECT XII The defect of H. T. his Catalogue in the fiftenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed IN the fifteenth Age he reckons up thirteen Popes as chief Pastours in which number he leaves out Benedict the thirteenth though reckoned by others who with Gregory the twelfth upheld a Schism of three Popes together till they with John 22. or 23. for divers intolerable villanies were deposed as Eugenius the fourth was after at the Council of Basil of the rest scarce any of worth besides Pius the second whose Writings remain under the name of Aeneas Sylvius and the last is Alexander the sixth Roderique Borgia who with his son Caesar Borgia were so infamous for poysonings covetousness and uncleanness of body that Rome though the sink of wickedness yet yielded few or none worse in any Age. H. T. tells us of two general Councils that of Constance Anno 1415. against John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague Pope John the two and twentieth and Martin the fifth presiding but the main end of its calling by Sigismund the Emperour was the composing of the Troubles by three Popes together whom it deposed and decreed the Council to be above the Pope which is against the now Roman faith It is true also that they condemned sundry Articles of John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague whereof some were most falsely ascribed to them as the Works of John Wickliff and other testimonies do shew And notwithstanding the safe conduct given by Sigismund the Emperour to the perpetual infamy of the popish party they judged he was to deliver John Hus to be burned Sess 19. whereupon the Emperours solemn faith was broken and thereupon they were burned and Wickliffs bones as they imagined forty years after his death were digged up and burned in England and a most impious Decree made that notwithstanding Christ 's institution and administring in both kindes and in the primitive Church it were received by the faithfull in both kindes yet the custom was confirmed of receiving in one and the requiring it in both judged an errour and it was forbidden to be given the people in both kindes Sess 13. The other Council H. T. mentions is the Council of Florence Fathers 145. Pope Eugenius presiding Anno 1439. against many Heresies which defined Pugatory the Popes headship Transubstantiation the Apocryphal books canonical the Grecians Jacobites Armenians and Patriarch of Constantinople subscribing this Council and being reconciled to the church of Rome But this Council however it hath a shew of great authority by reason of the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other of the Eastern Christian churches yet indeed it was of no authority it being gotten together by a Factioâ— in opposition to the Council of Basil which was decreed by Pope Martin the fifth to be ten years after the Council of Constance and the end of it was to divert the Fathers of the Council of Basil from deposing Eugenius the fourth from his Popedom which nevertheless they did for his ill Government and chose Amadeus Duke of Savoy who was named Felix the fifth who is omitted therefore by H. T. though by others counted the lawfull Pope but H. T. thought it best to omit him and the Council of Basil which together with the Council of Constance had determined that a general Council was above the Pope and were not bound to obey him but might depose him as the French churches yet to this day do hold so that they who are termed
Catholicks and owned as children of the church yet do not profess the now Roman faith of the Popes supremacy which H T. and the Jesuited party among Papists the Popes flatterers ascribe to him As for the presence of the Greeks in the Council of Florence it was of a few needy ones driven out or brought low by the Turks who yielded to that in the Council for some relief to them in their low estate which the Greek churches after would not own nor do yet to this day And therefore that which H. T. hath done in setting down the Popes and Councils of this Age is done deceitfully concealing the true state of things and so he hath done of Catholick Professors mentioning some of small worth but leaving out Gerson Picus Mirandulanus and some others though in communion with the Roman church and men of more abilities and repute than many of those he sets down because Gerson held that the Church might be without a Pope in his book de auferibilitate Papae and he and others differ'd in some other points from the now Roman tenets As for the Nations converted which he mentions they are names of people said to be in Africa but whether there be such people or are converted or what numbers of them have been converted is known onely by the vain-glorious Writings of some popish Writers of that sort who for the extolling of the Papacy either feign that which is not or it is likely make a Mountain of a Mole-hill such conversions as they boast of being not known to other people though sailing into and trading in all parts of the known world H. T. adds his catalogue of chief Pastors in the sixteenth Age and half the seventeenth to 1654. and sets down two and twenty Popes as chief Pastors of the Church Of them are Julius the second a Warriour Leo the tenth who to maintain his Luxury and for his sister Magdalen's Dowry set Indulgences to sale himself venting his infidelity to Cardinal Bembus as if he counted the Gospel a profitable Fable Paul the third an incestuous father of a Sodomitical son whom he cocker'd full of cruelty and craft sending an Army with Farnesius to destroy the Protestants in Germany Julius the third that created his Ganymede Innocentius a boy Cardinal and had for his Nuntio at Venice John Casa Arch-bishop of Benevent who in a book praised Sodomy Paul the fourth hated by the Romans for his cruelty Pius the fourth that made the new creed of the Roman church Pius the fifth that excommunicated Queen Elizabeth Gregory the thirteenth that set up Stukely to get Ireland for his base son Sixtus the fifth that animated the Spaniard in the Expedition against England 1588. praised James Clement the Frier who murdered Henry the third King of France Gregory the fourteenth who cursed Henry the fourth of France Clement the eighth who afore he absolved him proudly lasheth his Embassadour with a Rod Paul the fifth who had the Title of Vicedeus given him and not disclaimed who interdicted the Venetians for not obeying his Monitory to revoke their Laws about Ecclesiasticks and to release two Ecclesiastick prisoners one a poysoner another that committed uncleanness in a Temple and did forbid the taking the Oath of Allegeance in England by Papists without doing any thing against some of the priests privy to the Gunpowder Treason to shew their detestation of it Among them all there is not one that their own stories do relate to have been a diligent preacher of the Gospel but politicians medling with the affairs of the Kingdoms and Empires of the World and so no Successors to our Lord Christ or Peter the Apostle but their memories are to be abhorred specially by us English as the pests of mankinde H. T. mentions two general Councils the last Lateran Council Pope Julius the second and Leo the tenth presiding 1512. I finde not the certain number of Fathers it was a general Council But Bellarmine lib. 2. de concil auth cap. 13. saith Some doubt whether it were truly general and there was reason sith it was called by a Faction adhering to Julius the second to establish his tyranny in opposition to another party gathered in France to establish the pragmatick Sanction But what did this Council define The soul of man immortal and that there be as many humane souls as bodies anathematizing all such as obstinately defend or hold the contrary in the communion of the Church of Rome Sess 8. A point which a Council of Philosophers might have decided However it intimates there were that did then hold or teach the contrary in the communion of the church of Rome and that Pope John the two and twentieth his Doctrine was not quite extinguished but this Council is of little account among a great party of the Papists themselves It is the other Council the Council of Trent Pope Paul the third and Pius the fourth presiding against Martin Luther and his fellow Protestants Anno 1546. of which he saith The definitions are conformable to those of all precedent general Councils for us and against Sectaries as our Adversaries know and cannot deny But this is most false it being by Bishop Jewel and many other learned Protestants averred and proved that the Decrees of that Council in many points about the Popes power half communion transubstantiation worshiping Images and other points are contrary to the Councils and Fathers for the first five hundred years at least And for this Council not onely Sleidan but also Frier Paul a man greatly honoured by the Venetian Senate for his learning prudence and integrity in his History of the Trent Council hath shewed that it was nothing but a meer packed and fraudulent conventicle of a crue of prelates most of them Italians some meerly titular and the Popes pensioners and parasites few of them who had any knowledge in the Scripture or Divinity but canonists courtiers and school-men who understood not the Protestants Doctrine in the great point of justification by faith carried on by Paul the third Julius the third Pius the fourth and their Legates to cheat the World by innumerable artifices not onely hindring the freedom of speech of the Protestants in the Council but also of some of the popish Bishops when they endeavoured to recover the right of Bishops taken away from them by the Popes in so much that not onely the Protestants have protested against it but also the French Kings by their Embassadours and Parliaments and it is not owned by the French popish churches unto this day and the vanity and impiety of its Decrees hath been detected by Kemnitius Calvin and innumerable learned protestants besides what may be gathered from the contrary Writings of persons who were there as Catharinus Soto Vega and others in so much that if men were not blinded with prejudice and faction they would easily discern that Council to have been a corrupt Synod justly to be detested As for the catholick professours he mentions
for this one thousand years are not to be compared their own writers being Judges who have opposed these doctrins of the now Romanists as hath been shewed by many learned men to the eternal confusion of Popish novelties then this Author hath here or any Popish writer elsewhere hath made to prove a succession of Pastors Councils Professors and Nations avouching the present Roman opinions which were never so avouched or enjoyned as now they are in Pope Pius the fourth his new Creed till about one hundred years ago And to this insolent demand where was your Church before Luther Protestants may reply to Papists where was your church which believed as you now do before Boniface the third Gregory the seventh Innocent the third and Leo the tenth The speeches of the Fathers for the churches continued succession do none of them prove the major of H. T. his Syllogism that is the only true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time meaning it of local personal succession of which H. T. means it but only of succession in holding the same doctrin Nor do any of them prove H. T. his minor that the church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time for they were all dead above a thousand years afore this time All that can be proved is that in case of heresies or Schisms they made use of the succession in the Roman church which was then less tainted then some others to repress them yet so as that they alleged a succession in other churches as well as it but none ever as this Author held it necessary that all churches should own the Bishop of Romes supremacy or the Roman churches communion how corrupt soever they should prove only while they continued uncorrupt in the faith they held communion with them and so should we if they would embrace the primitive purity of doctrine and worship which Peter and Paul and other Apostles first taught in the churches of Christ of which that at Rome though not the first yet was one of the most famous and till their declining of great esteem SECT XIV H. T. hath not solved the Protestants objection H. T. takes upon him to solve objections against the Churches continued succession and saith thus Obj. Elias complained that he was left alone 3 King 19. therefore the church then failed Answ He spake figuratively for God himself told him in the same Chapter ver 18. that he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was who had not howed their knees to Baal and in the Kingdom of Juda there was then publick profession of the true religion in Hierusalem paralip 22. 14 15. so that consequence is false To which I reply this author shews himself deceitful in setting down our tenet and argument and slighty in his answer For the tenet of the Protestants is not that the Church hath failed and that there is no continued succession of men in the visible Church who have held forth the truth against Popish innovations But that sometimes they have been by persecution so obscured as that however they have been discernable among themselves yet not so to adversaries and to others of their brethren at a farther distance nor perhaps have they been so conspicuous as that a catalogue might be made of the succession of Pastors and people in the same place in every age but oft-times they have been so dispersed as to be in one age or time in one Country and another time in another and that the monuments of their being and doctrine have been in part lost and in part obscured by inundations of barbarous nations persecutions of Popes and Popish Princes and their knowledge and profession hath been sometimes larger sometimes less and still misreported by adversaries Nevertheless that is though they have been in such obscurity they have been true Churches of Christ and notwithstanding we cannot prove such a succession in any one City or Country of Pastors and people in every thing agreeing with us yet we may be a true Church as long as we hold the true faith once delivered to the Saints and now upon record in the holy Scriptures though we submit not to the Pope as chief Pastor nor own the now Roman doctrin in the articles required in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth to be professed over and above the ancient Creeds In a word this we assert that the defect of a catalogue such as H. T. requires and the obscurity of professors nullifies not the verity of the Protestant Churches And this is proved by the objection thus If there were a true Church in Israel in Elias his days which was so hidden as that Elias knew them not and so could make no catalogue of them then there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned But so it was as appears by Elias his complaint and Gods answer 1 King 19. 10 14 18. Ergo there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned Now what doth he answer that Elias spake figuratively because God said there were seven thousand non-Baalites left in Israel and that there was a Church in Juâ—ah then and therefore the consequence false But to shew the slightiness of this shifter for I cannot term him rightly a respondent 1. He tells us not what figure he used nor in what words nor what sense the speech bears according to that figure nor how it serves for his purpose to avoid the objection I do not conceive what figure of speech he or any man can imagin in that speech I am left alone unless he meant Ironically I am left alone that is not left alone which were a frantick conceit or an Hyperbole or a Synecdoche of a part for the whole one for many but such an Hyperbole or Synecdoche would make the speech non-sense I that is a few or many are left alone For this were non-sense and self contradicting and contrary to the intent of the speech I being in the first person and that doubled few or many in the third to say few or many are left alone when alone excludes few many any more then one to say they seek my life that is of few or many when my notes only him that spake to wit Elias and no other to say I have been jealous that is a few or many have been jealous besides the citation Rom. 11. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the occasion end of the speech and answer of God shew such an exposition would be the conceit of a man extreme shallow or impudent And his reason is as ridiculous God himself told Elias in the same chapter ver 18. that
of Christ should endure for ever de unit Eccles cap. 12. I reply what Protestant hath thus objected I know not The possibility of the militant churches ceasing is sufficiently proved by the holding of the acts of freewill to be undetermined or undeterminable by God Nor doth the answer avoid it For though if the answer be good the futurition of the churches failing follows not from the holding of free-will yet it shews not but that it may be and perhaps it will be hard for him to avoid the objection that if mans will be not determined by Gods decree which is meant by freewill among that sort of writers then the Holy Ghost cannot foresee that the church militant will endure for ever it being in reason impossible that there should be certain foresight of that which is not certain to be afore that act of freewill in man which God himself cannot determine A certain prescience of that which is purely contingent may be or not be before it notwithstanding any purpose in God is according to all principles of reason impossible If this Author hold with many of the Romanists mans freewill not to be determined by Gods decree and influx on the will of man or the Jesuits middle knowledge he hath enough of Papists to oppose him I have sufficiently shewed the futility of his dispute in the first Article of his Manual the second follows ARTIC II. Protestants Succession sufficient Protestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God SECT I. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists demand ART 2. H. T. thus disputes The true Church of God hath had a continued Succession from Christ to this time and shall have from hence to the end of the world as hath been proved But the Protestant Church and so of all other Sectaries hath not a continued Succession from Christ to this time Therefore the Protestant Church is not the true Church of God The Minor which onely remains unproved is cleared by the concession of our most learned Adversaries who freely and unanimously confess that before Luther made his separation from the Church of Rome for nine hundred or a thousand years together the whole world was Catholick and in obedience to the Pope of Rome there being no Protestants any where to be found or heard of Let therefore our Enemies be our Judges Calvin Hospinian White Norton Bancroft Jewel Chamier Brochard Whitaker Bucer Perkins Bale Voyon Bibliander Answ IT hath not been proved that every true Church of God hath had a continued Succession from Christ to this time many true Churches have had no Predecessors and so no Succession the Primitive Churches certainly had not Succession there being none before them they had not been primitive if there had been precedent and sundry Churches have been true Churches who have had none after them in the same place when their Candlestick hath been removed And therefore it is most false which he here vainly saith he hath proved that the true Church of God meaning every true Church of God without which his Major is not universal and so his Syllogism naught hath had a continued succession meaning without interruption of persons which may be named in the same place professing the same Faith with the now Roman Church in every point which is his meaning and is onely for his purpose from Christ to this time he hath not proved it no not in the Roman Church nor in those that are in communion with it under the Pope Nor hath he proved at all that every true visible Church on earth shall have such a continued Succession from hence to the end of the world The prophecies he alleged are shewed not to speak what he averres And for his Minor though it is granted that the Protestant Church under that name as so termed hath not been ancient yet the Protestant Church in respect of that Faith they hold hath been from the beginning and hath continued as the Church of God in persecution sometimes more sometimes less pure sometimes larger sometimes smaller sometimes more obscure sometimes more conspicuous sometimes in one place sometimes in another and in respect of their Protestation against popish Doctrines the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation half-communion propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass prayer in an unknown Tongue Worship and Invocation of Saints and other popish Errours it hath had Churches and persons who have as they have been urged on them opposed them sometime more sometime fewer sometimes in a more open sometimes in a more secret way as persecution permitted and God stirred up their spirits It is most false that the most learned Adversaries of the Romanists do freely and unanimously confess that before Luther made his Separation from the Church of Rome for nine hundred or a thousand years together the whole World was Catholick and in obedience to the Pope of Rome there being no Protestants any where to be found or heard of Sure the Grecians were part of the World and H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 48. there was a Revolt of them from the Roman Church after seven or eight hundred years and they were united again to the Church of Rome in the Council of Florence Sess last which himself saith p. 34 was in the year 1439. so that by his own account their Revolt was six hundred years at least besides what is manifest of the Arminians and others And sure the Hussites Wicklevists Waldenses and those who went before them whom Rainerius saith Some counted to have been from Pope Sylvester 's time some from the Apostles were a part of the whole World and many Protestants Illyricus Fox White with others deny to have obeyed the Pope of Rome afore Luther and averre that they were though not in name yet in truth Protestants in some at least of the chief points against the now popish Doctrine And therefore that which H. T. hath recited in this Speech is manifest untruth Yea Dr. Richard Field a learned man in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church hath proved it notwithstanding Brerely his wonderment that the Western Churches afore Luther were Protestant and the maintainers of the now Roman Faith onely a Faction in it And Mr. Perkins hath demonstrated in his Demonstration of the Probleme this Position No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholik for twelve hundred years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the Principles and Grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Council of Trent Nor do the Speeches of the Protestant Writers amount to that which he produceth them for He himself allegeth p. 41. out of Augustin Epist 48. that even the Canonical Scriptures have this custome that the word seems to be addressed to all when it reaches home onely to some few and thereby he would interpret the complaints that were made of the whole world becoming Arian
be right as having these words added in the minor or tenets c. which were not in the Major whereby there is a fourth term which makes a syllogism naught 2. By denying his Major and as a reason of that denial I say agreement of doctrin with Christ and his Apostles in the main points of faith and worship though there be no Bishops nor Priests is sufficient to a true Church and such succession as H. T. requires is not necessary 3. To the Minor though Protestants have not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same faith or tenets the thirty nine Articles or any other set number of tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points yet they do agree with Christ and his Apostles in the doctrin of the Christian faith and the Christian worship and there hath been a succession in all ages hitherto of Christian professors holding the same points of faith in the fundamentals although sometimes more purely and conspicuously than at other times and they have opposed though not with the like success agreement or largeness in every age the Popish errors now avouched in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and the Trent Canons And for answer to the proofs of the Major I deny that the Major proceeds from the definition to the thing defined a continued number of Bishops Priâ—sts and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time being not the definition of the continued succession necessary to the being of the true Church of God as hath been proved before in the answer to the former Article Sect 4. 5. And to the proof of the Minor I answer that Protestants may have true succession from Christ and his Apostles and may be esteemed Christians and Catholicks though they differ in many material points as long as they hold the same fundamental points and Protestants opposing all or some of the chief points of Popery as they arose and were discovered to them though they did not discern all their errors nor relinquish all their practises or the communion of the Churches subject to the Bishop of Romes rule but they were truely Protestants however otherwise named while they did hold the same fundamental truths we hold and opposed as they appeared to them all or some of the Popish corrupt worship and errors which the Protestants now do And for proof of this we rightly name the Waldenses Hussites Wicklevists Albigenses Puritan Waldenses Beringarians Grecians of whom writers testifie they excepted against the Popes supremacy purgatory half communion transubstantiation setting up and worship of Images propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse for quick and dead invocation and worship of Angels and Saints deceased seven Sacraments with other errors of the now Romanists and yet in the chief points of Christian faith and worship did agree with the now Protestants as may be gathered from the confessions and writings of their own either extant or acknowledged in the histories and writings of their adversaries such as were Rainerius Aeneas Sylvius Cochlaeus and others See Samuel Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont the first book by which their confessions and treatises are brought to light agreeing with Protestants What H. T. brings against this is either falsly ascribed to them by the calumnies of their adversaries whose recitals of their opinions to the worst sense no man hath reason to believe especially considering their works extant do refute them and it hath been often complained of that they have been misinterpreted and misreported or else if true is insufficient to invalidate our allegation of them H. T. tells us the Waldenses held the real presence that the Apostles were lay men that all Magistrates fell from their dignity by any mortal sin that it is not lawful to swear in any case c. Illiricus in Catalog Waldens Confes Bohem. a. 1. and Waldo an unlearned Merchant of Lyons lived but in the year 1160. Answ Sure he was not altogether unlearned of whom it is said by some that have seen his doings yet remaining in old parchment monuments that it appeareth he was both able to declare and to translate the books of Scripture also did collect the Doctors minas upon the same Yet were he unlearned sure he had store of companions among the Romanists Friers Bishops and Popes of those times by one of whom a Bishop was condemned as an heretick for holding that there are Antipodes and Paul the second saith Platina pronounced them hereticks who should from thence forth mention the name of the Academy either in earnest or in jest The very decrees and Epistles of the Popes in their Canon law shew that few of them had any skill in the Scriptures or the original languages competent to divines and who so readeth their writings observingly shall find that the ablest of their schoolmen in those dayes were very ignorant of the Scripture sense and language Nor do I think the Popes and generality of Bishops and Priests and Preachers among the Romanists at this day are men of much learning in the holy Scriptures So that I presume Waldus as unlearned as he was was comparable to the Roman Clergy at that time in learning and for holiness of life by the relation even of Popish writers exceeding them as much as gold exceeds lead and therefore as likely to know the mind of God as any Pope or Bishop or Frier at that time Now clear it is by an ancient manuscript alledged by the Magdeburg cent 12. c. 8. that the Waldenses held that the Scripture is the only rale in the Articles of faith fathers and councils no otherwise to be received then as they agree with the Scriptures that the Scriptures are to be read by all sorts of men that there are two Sacraments of the Church that the Lords supper is appointed by Christ and to be received by all sorts in both kinds that Masses were impious and that it was a madness to say Masses for the dead purgatory to be a figment the invocation and worship of dead Saints to be idolatry the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon that the Pope hath not the supremacy of all the Churches of Christ marriage of Priests to be lawful with sundry more which are agreeable to Protestant tenets against Papists which is confirmed because much to the same purpose Aeneas Sylvius in his Bohemian history writes of their opinions Nor is it likely they held what they are said by H. T. to have held For it appears by the dispute between them and one Dr. Austin set down by Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments at the year 1179. out of Orthuinus de gratiis that their opinion was that Christ is one and the same with his natural body in the Sacrament which he is at the right hand of his Father but not after the same
existence of his body For the existence of his body in heaven is personal and local there to be apprehended by the faith and spirit of men In the Sacrament the existence of his body is not personal or local to be apprehended or received of our bodies after a personal or corporal manner but after a Sacramental manner that is where our bodies receive the sign and our spirit the thing signified And Illyric cat test verit tells us that it is said to be their opinion that the transubstantiation is not made in the hand of the conficient but in the mouth of him that receives it worthily And though he sets down the words of Rainerius as they were yet he conceives the things objected were calumnies As for what is brought out of the Bâ—hemian confession Anno 1535 it speaks of their tenet then but not what those in Gallia held in and about the time of Waldus who from him were termed Waldenses It is probable they might say the Apostles were lay men not ordained or tradesmen as Peter was a fisher Paul a tentmaker not thereby derogating from the Apostles function when they were made Apostles but endeavouring to abate the arrogance of the Bishops and Priests who appropriated to themselves the title of the clergy which Peter 1 Pet. 5. 3. gave to all the flock of Christ and the power only to translate read expound and preach the Scriptures which the Waldenses held to be free to all men By Magistrates falling from their dignity by mortal sin its likely they meant Ecclesiastical whom they held God did suspend from the exercise of their function when they lived wickedly they being not to receive and so not to consecrate as I find it in Illyric catal or perhaps they meant it that Magistrates were not to be obeyed in their wicked commands or as it is most probable they meant it it was just with God they should fall from their dignity and that he by his providence did so order it not that men might depose them as Papists have taught nor that ipso facto they cease to be Magistrates The same thing also H. T. saith of the Wiclesians out of the council of Constance and imputes to them and to the Hussites from the council of Constance that all things came to pass by fatal necessity misunderstanding necessity of event by reason of Gods decree for fatal stoick necessity and that all the works of the predestinate are vertues which arose from their doctrine that they could not fall from the faith as if thereby they must hold that then they could not sin That the Waldenses held it not lawful to swear at all is not so likely as that they held the frequency of swearing unlawful which is made the occasion of their denying swearing to be lawful by Rainerias himself in Illyr catal or perhaps they rejected monkish vows and oaths of canonical obedience and many other oaths imposed on men together with swearing by the Mass Cross Rod on a Book But if they held all swearing unlawful they held what Sixtus Seneâ—siâ— lib. 6. Biblioth Annot. 26. saith is conceived to have been held by many Fathers Origen Athanasius Epiphanius Hilarius Ambrosius Chromatius Hieronimus Chrysostomus Theophylactus Oecumenius Euthymius whom he excuseth and endeavours to acquit from error and so do others the Waldenses Wiclevists c. as Birkbck in cent 14. doth Wicleff out of his Latin exposition of the second Commandment That the Hussites held Mass transubstantiation and seven Sacraments with the now Romanists I find not in Mr. Fox nor doth H. T. tell me where I may find it in him that the Hussites or Wicleff held all the works of the predestinate to be vertues or that all things come to pass by fatal necessity meaning of a concatenation of two causes antecedent to Gods decree and binding him is no more to be believed because the council of Constance condemned them then that Wicleff held that God was to obey the Devil because it was so charged on him from which his learned works yet remaining do free him And it is found that the clamorous Jesuits endeavor to fasten the like odious inferences on the doctrine of predestination taught by Calvin and other Protestants which being rightly understood infers them not What Bernard saith and Roger Hoveden of the Albigenses and Rainerius of the Catharists might be true of some of those that went under their name as the Gnosticks did of Christians and perhaps some Ranters or Quakers may do under the name of Protestants But the errors are contrary to the Waldenses Wiclevists Hussites confessions and writings yet remaining and Rainerius his own words that the Waldenses or Leonists did believe all things well of God and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed do acquit them and they seem to be the errors of some remnant of the Manichees But perhaps Bernard was mistaken in the charge on them as he was in the accusation of Petrus Abailardus and others The tenets that the universal Church meaning the Catholick Church which we believe in the Creed consisteth only of the predestinate that they cannot fall from the faith meaning totally or finally are the opinions of many learned Protestants and therefore the Hussites holding them may notwithstanding those opinions be reckoned for Protestants Nevertheless were it true that the Hussites and Wiclevists and Waldenses taught what H. T. saith of them yet we might alledge them as witnesses against the now Popish errors which they then declared against and a catalogue of Protestant successors continued from the Apostles in the naming them rightly formed SECT IV. The succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding H. T. his exceptions A Catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks in the Greek churches continued in the profession of the same faith with the Protestants against Popish errors is alleged by some learned Protestants Against which H. T. excepts 1. That they rejected the communion of the Protestants censur eccles orientalis Answ This doth not prove they professed not the same faith with Protestants against Papists For they might upon some differences upon which perhaps they disagree with the Romanists reject the communion of the Protestants and yet profess with Protestants the same faith and oppose the same Popish errors 2. Saith he they were at least seven or eight hundred years in the communion of the Roman Church as witness the first eight general councils all held in Greece and approved by the Popes of Rome Answ To speak exactly a general council is a black Swan there having never been any council so general but that there have wanted messengers from many Christian Churches in the world The four first councils of the Bishops of the Empire have gotten a great repute in the Christian Churches and have been accounted as the four Evangelists though the canons extant even of the first Nicene council have no such excellency in them as to deserve so
great an opinion Of the four later surely the two last lesse deserve the name the later Nicene council being affronted by the Carolin council about Images at Frankford and the eighth by another of the same place of better note by Michael the Emperor and Photius the learned Parriarch of Constantinople who sure acknowledged not the Popes Monarchy but lived and died in contest against them But neither the four first nor the four last did ever ascribe to the Pope of Rome the monarchy and supremacy which are now arrogated nor did they ever receive what they professed because they professed it nor doth the desire or acceptance much lesse the having the Popes approbation at all prove any authority over them in him it being a thing usual to seek approbation of men who have no authority over the seekers by reason of their esteem for prudence learning and other qualities and for the more ready receipt of what they seek to have approved But the councils determinations and that with Anathema to the gainsayers shewed that they judged themselves to have decisive power without the Pope though his consent also were added as useful for some purposes 3. Saith H. T. The first revolt was made by the Grecians denying the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Son they were united again to the Church of Rome in the council of Florence sess last Answ 1. The denying of the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son is shewed to be an error only in manner of speaking by Sir Richard Field of the Church third book ch 1. and other learned men 2. The revolt so long shews the Protestants had predecessors for many hundred years together in opposing the usurpations and errors of the Roman Popes and Churches 3. The reconciliation at Florence was but an imperfect thing by persons whose acts were not avowed afterwards nor did the union hold but was quickly dissolved 4. The council of Florence was a council not allowed by that at Basil as being only of a faction to avoid the questioning of Pope Eugenius See Platina in vita Eugenii 4. 4. Saith H. T. they held transubstantiation seven Sacraments unbloody sacrifice prayer to Saints and for the dead cens eccles orientalis c. 7 10 12 13 21. Answ The Grecians hold not any such transubstantiation as whereby the elements are abolished and cease to be that they were but whereby they become what they were not and the transubstantiation they hold is a change of the communicants into the being of Christ that is partakers of the divine nature as the Apostle means when he saith they are the body of Christ as Dr. Field proves out of Dam. scen Cyril and others in his third book of the Church ch 1. Bishop Jewel reply to Hardings answer art 10. Nor are the speeches of transubstantiation transelementation and such like terms used by the Greeks any other than lofty hyperbolical speeches such as the Apostle useth when he saith Christ was crucified among the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. which abound in Chrysostome Pseudo Dionysius Areopagita c. insomuch that Chrysostom sometimes expresseth the presence of Christ in the eucharist as if it were sensible the communicants touching Christs body seeing his blood having their mouths made red by it sucking his blood receiving him into our house with more of the like as may be seen in Chamier Panstr cath tom 4. lib. 11. c. 9. As for seven Sacraments the Greeks do not teach them to be so many and no more nor the unbloody sacrifice any otherwise then by it to mean a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ as Chrysostom in his hom on the tenth to the Hebrew expresseth it It cannot be proved that the Greeks use such prayer to Saints as the Papists do directing their prayers to them as hearers and by vertue of their merits helpers to them that call on them Neither do they pray for the dead shut up in purgatory which as I alleged out of Roffensis the Greeks do this day deny and there enduring punishment of sense for deliverance thence but commemorate the dead even the most holy martyrs and confessors and pray for their happy resurrection and acquittal in the last judgement As for the Egyptian Christians and Armenians what they hold is not so easie to know by reason of their remoteness from Europe nor what Succession they have had But this is manifest enough that they did never submit to the Bishop of Rome as their Head except what was done at Florence for which Michael Paleologus the Greek Emperour was abhorred by the Greeks and denied Burial and Isidor Arch-bishop of Kioâ—ia in Russta deposed and put to death or by some obscure persons whose acts the Churches never owned and yet there doth not appear sufficient reason to exclude them out of the Catholick Church notwithstanding such Errours as are imputed to them nor to question their Succession Nor is the Protestants pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years idle it being not false but most true and so proved by Jewel and others and the Answers of Harding and other Romanists proved insufficient that they were in the most material points Protestants that is held otherwise than the Romanists now do And though it prove not a Succession of sixteen hundred years continued yet it proves a Succession of so long continuance as will make void the popish claim of Succession as peculiar to them and with any considerate person so far take place as to justifie the Protestants opposition against the modern Papist's Errours and Innovations 'T is true those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed than Protestants can now do in those things which they delivered by word of mouth to them if they were heedfull intelligent and mindefull of what they heard But what they left in writing we may know as well as they And experience shews that oft times upon mistakes and sometimes voluntarily the sayings of men spoken yea sometimes their very Writings either by unskilfulness or negligence or fraud are mis-reported and therefore notwithstanding this reason of the acquaintance of those of the sixth Age with those of the fifth yet it may be that Protestants may know the minde of the Fathers in the fifth Age as well as those that lived in the sixth But that those of the sixth Age have protested on their salvation that the Doctrine taught by the Fathers in the fifth Age was the very same with their in every point or the Doctrine now taught by the Romanists was received from them by word of mouth and so from Age to Age is not true yet if they should we have no more cause to credit them than the Church had to believe the Millenaries and Quartodesimans because of Papias and others their report of John with whom they conversed SECT
is not as H. T. renders it be obscured but vanish away as the words following shew which are Who had these things He that preacheth hath founded the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away Whence it is manifest that he there speaks not of the Churches visibility but permanency as the Sun Augustin lib 3. cont Parmen cap. 5. tom 7. against the Donatists saith thus Who therefore would not sit in the assembly of vanâ—â—y let him not become vain in the type of pride seeking the Conventicls separate from the unity of the just of the whole world which he cannot finde But the just are through the whole City which cannot be hid because it is seated on a Mountain that Mountain I say of Daniel in whom that stone cut out without hands grew and filled the whole earth And after There is no security of unity but in the Church declared by the promises of God which being seated as was said on a Mountain cannot be hid and therefore it is necessary that it be known to all parts of the earth By which it is manifest that in opposition to the Donatists appropriating the Church to their party he asserts it to be manifest not by its outward splendour but its extension to all parts The words l. 2. cont Petilian c. 104 are thus Ye are not in the Mountains of Sion because ye are not in the City seated on the Mountain which hath this certain sign that it cannot be hid therefore it is known to all Nations but the part of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore it is not that Church It is evident he spake of the Church at that time which was known or manifestly visible to all Nations not from a potent Monarchy in one City but its diffusion through all parts of the world SECT III. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church H. T. adds Objections solved Object The Church is believed therefore not seen Answ She is believed in the sense of her Doctrines and to be guided to all truths by the Holy Ghost but seen in her Pastours Government and Preaching wherefore I deny the Consequence I Reply Though Protestants deny not the Church militant to be visible in the outward Government and Preaching of the Pastors yet they deny that it is always so conspicuous as that it may be known to every Christian as an Assembly of the People of Rome or Common-wealth of Venice to which all may resort for direction Nor by this Argument do they prove that the Church militant is not visible but that the Church in the Creeds Apostolical and Nicene which is one Catholick and Apostolick as such is not visible but invisible being the Object of Faith not of Sight nevertheless the Answer takes not away the force of the Objection if it had been alleged against the visibility of the Church militant For the Church is believed not as teaching but as being it is the existence of the Church not the Doctrine of it that is believed as even the Trent Catechism expounds it now that being Catholick that is according to the Catechism consisting of all believers from Adam till now in all Nations cannot be the object of sense but of faith and therefore the Catholick Church in the Creeds is the invisible of true Believers not the meer visible now militant H. T. adds Object The Woman the Church fled into the Wilderness Apoc. 12 6. Answ But is followed and persecuted by the Dragon v. 17. therefore visible I reply this Answer is ridiculous For whereas Protestants hence prove that at some times the Church is hid from men this Authour saith It was not hid from the Dragon that is the Devil which is not in question So that it appears he had nothing to answer this Inference from the Womans flying into the Wilderness and being hid that sometimes the Church is so hidden as it were in a Wilderness that though it be yet it is not so visible or conspicuous as that men can discern it so as to repair to it howbeit the Devil knows where they lurk Yet once more H. T. Object The Church of the Predestinate is invisible Answ There is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate Christ's Church is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as predestinate There is in his Floor both Wheat and Chaff St. Matth. c. 3. and in his Field both Corn and Tares which shall grow together till the Harvest the Day of Judgement St. Matth. c. 13. The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate It is true indeed their Predestination is invisible and so is also these mens Reprobation I reply To salve their main Tenet of the Popes being Head of the Church of Christ who is often so wicked as that if the Church of Christ be determined to be of elect persons onely many Popes cannot be termed Members much less Heads of the Church is this audacious Assertion invented that there is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate contrary to express Scripture which mentions the Church of the first-born written in Heaven Heb. 12. 23. and the Church elected together with Peter or those he wrote to 1 Pet. 5. 13. and saith such things of the Church in many places to wit Ephes 5. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. Ephes 1. 22 23 c. as cannot agree to Reprobates who cannot be said to be Christ 's body his fulness to be loved sanctified whom he nourisheth intends to present without spot as he saith there of Christ's Church He that desires more proof may reade Dr. John Rainold his fourth Conclusion where he proves it fully both from Scripture and Fathers that the holy Catholick Church which we believe is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen which hath not been yet answered that I know Nor do I see how the fourth Lateran Council could mean otherwise which determined as H. T. saith here art 1. pag. 30. that the universal Church of the faithfull is one out of which no man can be saved which can be true onely of the Church of the Predestinate As for what H. T. saith here The Church of Christ is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as Predestinate it supposeth true believers may be reprobate but this is false meaning it of the truth of being opposite to feigned counterfeit or in shew onely For our Lord Christ hath said John 5. 24. John 3. 15 16 18 36. that such as believe on him shall not perish come not to condemnation are passed from death to life have everlasting life Nor do the Texts Matth. 3. 12. where the Floor is not Christ's Church but the Jewish people or Matth. 13. 30. where the Field is expresly interpreted vers 38. to be the World not the Church speak to the contrary It is true The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate
but they are not meerly visible believers as some Reprobates are who profess faith which they have not But the true Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. contains onely such believers as have that faith which is true and that Election of God which with their faith are invisible and so are rightly denominated the invisible Church from that which is more excellent and the Reprobate have not ARTIC IV. One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith SECT I. Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality and then saith Unity being essentially presupposed to Universality I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Article Answ IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general that the contrary seems more true that one is not universal Unity not consistent with Universality it being in effect as if iâ— were said One is many or all yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up in respect of which it is certain that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place but is abstracted from it But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine Discipline and Faith by the words following Universality likewise is manifold as Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks shew as there is an universality of predication of essence and existence Now this Authour seems to mean universality of existence for time and place and his meaning is this that unity of Doctrine Discipline and Faith is essentially presupposed to universality of existence for time and place that is that Church which hath not the same Doctrine Faith and Discipline which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had is not the true Church of Christ and that which hath is the true Church of Christ Now these Propositions I grant if meant of Doctrine and Faith in the Fundamentals but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline or Doctrine and Faith in points not fundamental having learned from the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14. that some may build Hay and Stubble that is some errors upon the foundation Christ who yet may be saved which they could not be if they were not of the true Church of Christ or that is no true Church of Christ which consists of such In like manner the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome one did believe he might eat all things and another did eat herbs one esteemed one day above another others esteemed every day alike and yet God received them both and they were Gods servants v. 3 4 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement yea Schism and disorder is apparent from the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. 51. 6. 7. 11. 17 c. 14. 26. 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limitation which this Authour omits his Position is not true But let 's view what he writes SECT II. The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed Now saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated Answ HEre again this Authour deals sophistically putting the Roman church for the true church as if they were the same and not explaining what he means by the Roman church which may eitherâ— signifie the church that is in Rome which is the expression of the Apostle Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be which holds the Roman faith And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop and Priests and People dwelling at Rome hold or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul and some Ages after If it be meant in this this last sense the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian nor so much as the Hierosolymitan whence all churches received the faith if in the former sense the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scripture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers though I conceive it so meant by this Authour To be perfectly one is also ambiguous it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine Discipline and Faith or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main or points fundamental To be universal for time and place may be either meant thus that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place But this is contrary to sense it being known by it that they were born within a certain definite time at certain definite places not in all times and every place existent or that the faith which now the Romanists hold is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue But H. T. looks quite awry from this as will appear by viewing his dispute which is thus SECT III. Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed H. T. saith The argument for unity The church of Christ is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body one sold or flock therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ The Major is proved We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him Christ head over all the Church which is his body Ephes 1. 22 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor John 10. 16. I beseech you that you all speak one thing and that there be no Schisms among you but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement 1 Cor. 1. 10
The multitude of believers had one heart one soul Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church The Nicene Creed Ans 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity was the true church after he changeth it into this that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ By comparing of which it is apparent that this Author supposeth the true church the church of Rome and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or diverse names of the same thing which is supposed but not proved nor yeilded nor can be true as shall be shewed after 2. This Author pretends to demonstrate by this argument the church of Rome to be perfectly one which should have been his conclusion whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor though they belong to the middle term which should be the same in both premises nor is any proof brought for them here to wit that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth the visible or ministerial head of that church which is one body one fold or flock 4. That the Major might be for his purpose it should have been thus that church which is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial and no other is the church of Christ but such is the church of Rome ergo But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives which is against Logick rules and makes the syllogism naught as the very freshmen know But to it as it is now framed I answer If the words and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial be left out the Major is granted in this sense that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals and one flock by unity of one head and supreme Pastor But in H. T. his sense it is most false that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points or without any divisions in rites and disciplin and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth as Christs deputy and the churches visible head Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state but profession and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth or agreement in all points but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it as many as participate of one bread but for we all partake of one bread it being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some copies of the vulgar nam omnes as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin so that the meaning is this we do shew our selves one body one bread forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper The next text Ephes 1. 22 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head to wit Christ as H. T. rightly interprets it And the third text John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock as it should be read not one fold in respect of one Pastor which the very words ver 11. 14 15 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself who gave his life for them and no other and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor The next text 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms not that they are or must be if they be the true church but the text proves the contrary that they may be a true church though there be Schisms and difference of judgement among them The fifth Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so at which time they had also all things common which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times but not that the whole church shall be so still The last John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so and so will be accomplished but by the words ver 21 22 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory or if afore yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing for so Peter and Paul did not agree as Gal. 2. 11 12 13 14. it appears but of such unity in communion with God and aiming at his glory as is only in the elect by vertue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church but not an unity by agreement in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts but not one for his purpose SECT IV. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary H. T. adds The minor is made evident even to the weakest understanding by the present manifold Schisms and divisions which are now among Protestants and all other Sectaries as well in doctrine as government whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine all the world over even to the least Article or point of faith being all united to one supreme invisible head Christ Jesus and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head the Pope his Vicar on earth we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle I believe the holy Catholick church we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies God himself being the prime Author and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith Answ 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church but from the now Roman party who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tridentin council though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them
and councils are ambiguous as they were in the council of Trent and are often in the Decrees Breves and other edicts of Popes as is manifest by the writers on the Canon law and disputes about the councils and Popes meaning in which are so many ambiguities that there is scarce a point in which there are not many opposite opinions If Pappus have overcounted who reckons out of Bellarmin alone two hundred thirty seven contradictions in Popish writers yet he that reads Bellarmins controversies shall finde very few questions in which the Schoolmen and other Papists do not gainsay each other And as for their resolution into the principle I believe the Catholick church They are not agreed what the church is from whom they may have resolution whether the Pope who is with them the church virtual or a general council which is either never or very rare which they call the church representative or the uniform consent of the Fathers according to which only the profession of faith of Pope Pius the fourth requires all Papists to receive and expound the holy Scriptures and yet this uniform consent of Fathers is either a nullity it being scarce found in any point or it is impossible to be known H. T. by his words pag. 108. resolves his faith into the next precedent age and so upwards and here pag. 30. into the church and this church is pag. 70. not the whole church which yet is all one with the Catholick but a council approved by the Pope into whose authority they finally resolve their faith for though they pretend to resolve it into the Scripture yet as it is expounded by the church pag. 109 113. which is the Pope So that whatever pretence they make of resolving their faith into the church as the proponent or God as the Author in conclusion they acquiesce in what the Pope dictates by himself or with a council approved by him As for the Scriptures the Papists are not all agreed which be the Canonical Scriptures which not nor can they set down certain rules to know what are the unwritten traditions of the church which they are to admit and embrace with a like affection of piety as the written Word as the Trent council decreed sess 4. nor can they have any bottom to rest on by their principles sometimes one Pope and one council crossing another some having been condemned in general councils as hereticks nor can they tell but by information of others as Priests or Carriers of their Bulls or Breves which are many of them not only fallible but also false as some of their own have complained what the Popes determin and what fraud is used in procuring Popes Bulls or Breves sometimes is many ways testified as that the Bull of Pius the fifth wherein Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated and deprived was gotten in a fraudulent way by Morton and Webb there is no certainty from the reports of others what the Pope determins except a man hear him preach or pronounce sentence or see him write and seal he must rely on the testimony of those that may and are like enough to deceive Nor if a man see or hear the Pope decree can he be certain whether he spake from Peters chair or determine what is to be believed by the whole church out of which case they say he is fallible or give his opinion as a private Doctor So that it is most false that either Papists agree as H. T. saith or resolve themselves into one safe and most unchangeable principle or have any infallible judge of controversies or have God himself for the prime Author and his authority the formal object and motive of their faith but their faith in what they differ from us rests only on mens sayings for the most part ignorant and wicked for such have been most of the Popes for a thousand years whom they follow against the plain and confessed words of the Scripture as in their communion under one kinde worshipping of Images and ascribe to them power by their authority to declare new Scriptures and Articles of faith and make the Scripture only to be believed because of the churches determination that is the Popes which in respect of us they make of more authority than the Scripture and so make the churches not Gods authority the formal motive and object of their faith So that if unity be a note of the church of all others the Popish church can lay least claim to it and H. T. his argument may be retorted The Catholick church is one the Roman church is not one therefore the Roman church is not the Catholick church On the other side the Protestants have better unity and means of unity than Papists For however they differ in ceremonies and disciplin yet in points of faith they differ little as may appear by the harmony of their confessions which shews agreement in their churches however in explication of points private Doctors differ and they have a more sure principle and safe in owning one Master even Christ and one certain rule to know the minde of God to wit the holy Scripture which the Papists themselves make the object of faith and the translation into the English tongue makes plain in the chief points to be believed so that every ordinary man may be certain what it delivers concerning them and this translation appears to be certain in those things by comparing it even with the Papists own English translation at Rhemes and Dowâ—y which had they left out their corrupt Annotations and permitted it to be read as God requires by all sorts of persons the falshood and errors of Popish Priests would soon appear and be rejected by all that love truth SECT V. The argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him and for Protestants But H. T. adds a second argument for the unity of the Catholick church thus As a natural unity and connexion of the parts among themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a natural body so the spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a mystical body But the church of Christ as I have proved is a mystical body Therefore a spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of the church of Christ The Major is proved by the parity of reason which is between a natural and mystical body for as a natural body must needs dye if all it's parts by which it should subsist be torn and divided one from another so also a mystical body perishes if all it's members be divided from one another and from the head whence it hath it's spiritual life by Schism and heresie Answ THough it be that this argument is only from a similitude which doth only illustrate not prove as Logicians say truely and there
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Maâ—omâ—tan who deny such inâ—allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confesâ—edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal moâ—ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.
39 and never to repair to the Church to be resolved in points of faith if H. T. say true How much doth he abase the credit of the Scripture who makes it to depend on mens for such is the Churches pretended infallibility report and ascribes it to Popes and Councils who do oft contradict themselves and one another which is onely to be had from God and his Word What is this but as in another case Tertullian said of the Roman Senates decreeing who should be worshipped as God God shall not be God unless man will so Gods Word shall not be his Word unless man will Which is so much the worse in H. T. who Art 8. ascribes that assurance to unwritten tradition of which there is no assurance but from men confessedly fallible as shall be shewed Art 8. which he denies to be from Scripture as if the obscure tradition of unknown persons from Age to Age were more certain than the great written tradition received from Apostles by the whole Church Besides how doth he reckon of all other besides Popes and Councils as if they were all idiots and fools that they can understand no Chapter of the Bible without the Pope who hath been sometimes altogether unlearned What Blockheads would he have men think themselves after all their study of Languages and Arts and of the Scripture that yet they cannot be certain what is the true sense and meaning of Matth. 4. Acts 8. or any other Chapter in the Bible unless the Church that is the Pope tell them Why do not all their Commentators and Preachers first ask the Pope of the meâ—ning of the Scripture afore they by writing or preaching take on them to expound it Why doth not the Pope forbid them to expound till they have consulted him Will â—e permiâ— them to teach that of which they have no infallible assurance Why doth he tie men to follow the consent of Fathers as Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull did if the Fathers yield no infallible assurance of the true meaning of any Chapter in the Bible without the Churches that is the Popes or his Councells infallibility How did it come to pass that the Fathers Chrysostome Hiâ—rome c. did so well expound the Scriptures as that their consent must be the Rule of modern Exposition Did they first consult the Church or the Church them Pope Damasus I believe had more help from Hierome to expound Scripture by than Hierome from Dâ—mâ—sus Have the Popes any better means to expound Scripture by than the Fathers or the Fathers than other learned men in these days Wherein did any of the Fathers exceed Cajetan Arias Montaâ—us and such learned Romanists or any of all the Popes after the Apostles days in ability to open Scripture Would not such men as these secretly disdain and smile in scorn if any should prefer any of the best Expoâ—itions of Popes before their own Will the Jansenians or Moliniâ—â—s think either the late Pope Innocent or the present Pope Alexander more infallible in their Eâ—positions than themselves I trow not so little is the pretended infallibility of the Church esteemed when it toucheth themselves however they make a great noise of it against Protestants yea some Papists have well preferred the Expositions of later Writers before the Fathers and Councils and Popes giving this for a Reason that later Writers have had more help in that they have had their own abilities and diligence to boot for finding the meaning of Scripture besides the Fathers Writings and may see farther than they did as a Childe set on a Giants shoulder as Banner did fitly express it Do not at this day the learned Expositors reject the Expositions of Fathers and Popes and Councils Doth not Maldonat the Jesuit expresly reject in his Commentâ—ry on John 6. 53. the Exposition of that Verse by which Pope Innocent Augustine and many of the Fathers following held the giving the Eucharist to Infants necessary to their salvation which the Council of Trenâ— it self doth condemn So sottish a conceit hath H. T. here vented that doubtless none but the ignorant sort of Popish Proselytes can believe him in if they do not resolve not to seem to see what they do see But were it granted that the Church were infallible I would fain know how H. T. can demonstrate who or which is that Church which is infallible or give assurance at this distance from Rome that this or that point of faith is thus determined by that infallible Church Will he make every Priest or Legate or Register of the Pope to be infallible If not let him tell me how he is infallibly assured that Pope Innocent the third or the Latâ—ran Council did define Transubstantiation or Pope Leo the tenth and the last Lateran Council the Popes Supremacy If he say by universal tradition or the Records which are kept and are to be seen and the agreement of opposite parties though in the points named there are none of these means which do give such assurance of those determinations as is given by them of the Scriptures sure me thinks H. T. who makes such determinations to be assuredly theirs upon such or the like Reasons of their credibility should yield that there is more assurance from these without the infallibility of the Church of the holy Scriptures being Gods Word and the true sense and meaning of it Will H. T. be more unbelieving than a Jew who acknowledgeth the Books of Moses the Psalms and Prophets to be Gods Word Will he not allow that to a Christian which the Jew had to wit assurâ—nce infallible from Micah 5. 2. that the Messiasâ—hould â—hould be born at Beâ—hlehem without the Churches infallibility Will H. T. think he can make such men as Arias Montanus or Cardinal Cajâ—tan and other learned Romanists believe that they are not certain of the Gospel of Matthew to be Gods Word or of the true sense and meaning of the third fourth fifth sixth seventh Chapters thereof without the Churches declaration Did they gather their Expositions out of Popes Decrees Canons of Councils or examine them by them Does not he know that in many places those and other learned men have interpreted Texts otherwise than Popes and Councils approved by him have expounded them Do not they know that such an attempt would be but an exposing of Popes and Councils to contempt and make their Canon Law appear â—idiculous What unmercifulness and carelesness of mens souls is there in Popes Councils Churches if they are infallible that in the space of sixteen hundred years they have not given us such a Commentary on the Bible as may take away all doubts from inquiring Christians about the true meaning of the Scripture and determine all controversies in points of faith Sure it 's fitter work than to enrich their kindred advance base sons give audience to Embassadours over-aw Princes and Emperours subdue the holy Land About which Popes and Councils have wasted a world of
blood and treasure when perhaps one Protestant or Popish commentator hath profitably illustrated the whole Bible Why doth H. T. with his collegues if they believe what he saith of the infallibility of the church to be true petition the Pope to do this or call a council and at last together do it To what purpose should any else but Popes and councils study the Scripture compare copies revise Translations examine Interpretation if there be no assurance in points of faith of the meaning of the Scripture without the churches infallibility But alas how far from infallibility Popes are and of all men the unfittest to do any thing in this kinde the shamefull disagreement between Pope Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth their Editions of the vulgar Latin Bible doth abundantly declare as may be seen in Dr. James his Bellum Papale whereby it may be perceived how miserably and perpetually the souls of Christians must fluctuate and be tossed up and down and at last drowned if they have no assurance of the meaning of Scripture but from this pretended infallibility of the church which is no better to stay a Soul than an anchor of cork to stay a ship I abhor therefore justly this blasphemous speech of H. T. whereby the souls of men must be brought to waver in faith if they receive it and not onely sinfull but also the weakest and worst of men for such they confess many of the Popes have been idolized by ascribing that to them which is proper onely to him who cannot be deceived nor deceive And I protest that should the Pope and his Consistory or general Council and all the Churches of the World conspire together to say that the Books of Moses the Prophets the Psalms of the four Evangelists Paul James Peter Jude and John are not the Word of God yet I am assured not onely by tradition of the Jews and Christians but also by the very confessions of Adversaries and chiefly by the matter of them which shews it self to come from God the Spirit of God giving me a discerning understanding thereof that they are the Word of God and that the meaning of them is in the main points of faith as the Articles of the Creed express concerning one God and one Lord his Incarnation Preaching Crucifying Death Resurrection Ascension coming to Judgement the holy Spirit the Church of God forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ Resurrection of the body and life eternal which I know by understanding the meaning of the words and thereby am assured that neither is the Popes Supremacy nor his and his Councils infallibility nor his power of granting Absolutions and Indulgences by his Bull nor the Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Flesh nor the worshipping of Images nor a Purgatory fire after Death in a part of Hell nor communion under one kinde nor Invocation of dead Saints and holy Angels nor Prayer in an unknown Tongue nor Justification by Works nor good Works meriting eternal life of condignity taught in them And if I did think I were to doubt of any of these Assertions I should turn Sceptick and doubt whether there were a Moses or David or Solomon or Mahomet whether I knew the meaning of their words yea whether there be such a City as Rome or Trent such a man as the Pope such a Council as the Tridentin such Canons as are said to be theirs or such a Creed as is said to be by Pope Pius the fourth required to be confessed by Romanists or that the meaning were as H. T. conceives in a word I should begin to doubt whether I hear what I hear should affirm any thing make any Confession of Faith but think my self to be in a Dream when I write talk eat drink hear or do any acts of a living waking man As for assurance of our salvation the denial of which H. T. counts an absurdity I am glad to read it and that thereby he gives some occasion to question whether he believes the Doctrine of the Trent Council Sess 6. chap. 9. That no man can know by certainty of Faith which cannot be false that he hath obtained the grace of God But for my part as I know that the Doctrine of the Romanists is inconsistent with it self when they teach that the Priests Absolution and ministring Sacraments doth give infallibly Grace and Remission of Sins and yet that a man cannot be certain with certainty of faith that he hatâ— obtained Grace So I am infâ—llibly assured without any Popes or Councils or Churches determination of my salvation through faith in Christ Jesus by the Spirit of adoption and hope to please God by faith in Christ though I reject Popes Councils Churches Decrees or Canons which are not from the holy Scripture but unwritten tradition or invention of men many of them being most foolish and ridiculous toys and abuses of Scripture more like Mahomeâ—'s Alcoran than the Oracles of God SECT VI. Neither can the Church oblige men under pain of damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith nor is there any such judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her nor do any of the Fathers cited by H. T. say it is but the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. August conâ— Epist Fund cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it H. T. hath one more Argument for his Delilah the Churches infallibility which is his fourth and last thus The Church hath a power from God to oblige all men under pain of Damnation to believe her in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith But she could not have such a Power from God unless she were infallible in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith Therefore she is infallible in her Proposals and Definitions of Faith The Major is proved by all those Texts above cited in the first and second Arguments as also by the Councils of all Ages which command all men under pain of Damnation to believe and subscribe to her Decrees and Definitions of Faith which hath accordingly been done by the Fathers and all true Believers The Minor is proved by reason because it were not consistent with the justice mercy or veracity of God to give a fallible and erring Judge such a power in things of that high consequence Answ 1. THe conclusion is still different from the tenet 2. The Major is denied and it is denied that the texts cited did prove it noâ— doth the practise of the councils putting anathema to their canons prove it For 1. It is not proved they did well in so doing except when their definitions agree with the holy Scriptures and when they do so they do not more then every believer may do whom they will not say to be infallible 2. Nor have all the Fathers or true believers subscribed to the decrees of councils and their definitions of faith nor do the Papists themselves subscribe to those they call general councils not to
the Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Constanâ—inople equal power with the Roman in his Province and ascribed the Popes dignity not to any grant of Christ to Peter but to custome out of regard to Rome as the imperial city not to the council of Basil or Constance which made the council above the Pope But H. T. adds an argument for the Churches supreme power of judicature That is the supreme Judge in every cause who hath an absolute power to oblige all dissenters to an agreement and from whom there can be no appeal in such a cause But the Catholick Church hath an absolute power to oblige all that disagree in controverted points of faith nor is there any appeal from her decision therefore the Catholick Church is supreme Judge in controverted points of faith The Major is manifest by induction in all courts of judicature the Minor hath been proved above by the first second and fourth arguments Answ It is denied that the Minor hath been proved or that there is any other Judge besides the sentence of God in holy Scripture which can so oblige dissenters in those points Nor do a great part of Papists themselves at this day namely the French Papists make such account of the Roman church oâ— Popes judgement but that they do conceive they may and sometimes have appealed from them to a general council Occham held that the Pope was haereticabilis that is might be an heretick some of them being suspected of heresie have been fain to acquit themselves to Emperours by Apologies some of them have been condemned as hereticks by general councils Fathers universitie of Paris Gerson wrote a book de auferibilitate Papae and the French churches conceive their churches may be without a Pope and well governed by a Patriarch of their own It is but a new and late invented doctrine of Jesuits and other flatterers of Popes that the Roman church or Pope or a general council approved by him are infallible nor is there a word in any of the Fathers cited by H. T. to that purpose The words of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 40. are cited maimedly by H. T. they are entirely thus For where the Church is there is also the spirit and where the spirit of God is there is the Church and all grace but the spirit is truth By which it may appear that truth is ascribed to the Church by reason of the spirit and that by the Church he means not only the Roman but any where the Spirit of God is and in the words before he sets down the truth he means to wit that if one God and salvation by Christ which he terms the constant preaching of the Church on every side and equally persevering having testimony from Prophets and from Apostles and from all Disciples By which it is manifest that he commends no other preaching of the Church then is in the Scriptures not the definitions of any now existent Church or after Church without the Scriptures The next words of Irenaeus are not as here H. T. themâ— 1. c. 49. there being not in my book so many chapters but l. 4. c. 43. and are alleged by H. T. art 4. and answered by me before art 4. sect 7. The other words of Irenaeus The Church shall be under no mans judgement for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect faith of the Father and of all the dispensation of Christ and firme knowledge of the holy Ghost who teacheth all truth I finde not any where as he cites them In l. 1. there are not sixty two chapters and in l. 4. c. 62. which I suspect by his former quotation he would have cited the words are thus After he had said ch 53. such a Disciple meaning who had read diligently the holy Scripture which is with the Presbyters in the Church with whom is the Apostolical doctrine truely spiritual receiving the Spirit of God c. judgeth indeed all men but he himself is judged of none in several following chapters sets down various hereticks whom he shall judge and ch 62. saith he shall judge also all those who are without the truth that is the Church but he himself is judged of none For all things constant are known or manifest to him both the entire faith in one God omnipotent from whom all things are and in the Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord and the dispositions of him by which the Son of God was made man the firm sentence which is in the spirit of God who causeth the acknowledging of truth who hath expounded the dispositions of the Father and Son according to which he was present with mankind as the Father willeth By which any one may perceive that H. T. if these were the words he meant hath corruptly cited them mangling them and perverting them to prove an infallibility and supreme judicature of the Roman Church or Pope for others which are meant of every true spiritual Disciple and his private judgement for himself and in the main points of faith and according to and by means of the Apostolical doctrine of the Scriptures which is the very doctrine of Protestants concerning the judgement which each Christian may have and hath in points of faith and the certainty of it according to the Scriptures which while he follows he is judged of none nor needs any ones judgement Popes or others to define what he shall believe The words of Origen That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagreeth from the tradition of the Church And in our understanding Scripture c. We must not believe otherwise than the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us prefat in lib. periarch Whether they be rightly cited I know not having not the book to examine them by and by his other citations as by his citation of Origen art 4. where the same words as I conceive are cited somewhat otherwise which are answered art 4. sect 7. before the words from the Apostles being here left out and his c. here I suspect fraud Yet if the words be as he cites them they prove not what he brings them for there being no restriction to the Roman Church much lesse to the Pope nor is the tradition of the Church said to be that which is unwritten and other then is in the Scriptures and the faith which by succession the Church is said to deliver is not meant of any of those points which the Pope would obtrude on the Church of God and Protestants reject but in probability the points of faith which were in the Apostles Creed professed at baptism which Irenaeus Origen Tertullian c. were wont to hold forth against the hereticks of their times and Protestants do still avouch The words of Cyprian de unitate Eccles are not meant of the Roman Church but of the Church throughout the whole world as the words precedent shew and the freedom from adultery and the uncorruptednesse and chastity of
not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian nor to take on him to juâ—ge their cause but to remit them to their own Bishops 2. It appears by the fact of Cypriâ—n who opposed Stâ—phen Bishop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks as his Epistle to Pompeius shews and joyned with Firmiâ—â—anus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen and so involved in the same censure in which state he died without repentance for ought is known and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible or his judge or himself subject to him but counted Stephen an usurper over his brethren by reason of his imposing his decree on others and censure of dissenters And for the words in the Epistle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them To Peters chair and the principal Church infidelity or false faith cannot have access But to the Romans meaning not only the Bishop but the rest of the church and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or false faith whatsoever but those perfidious persons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian nor doth he say that perfidiousness could have access at no time but not at that time which he ascribes not to the priviledge of the place but their constancy in the faith heretofore praised by Paul and to the providence of Cornelius their Bishop and their own vigilancy as the words in the end of the Epistle shew Although I know there your fraternity to wit being fenced by your Providence and also wary enough by their own vigilancy cannot be taken with the poysons of hereticks nor deceived and that so much the magisteries and divine precepts prevail with them as the fear of God is in them yet our over abundance of carefulness or charity hath perswaded us to write these things to you being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epistle Marvailing enough when he observed by his letter that he was somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came and therefore doth earnestly press him to take courage and to withstand them Which being rightly understood the speeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman constancy and the inaccessibleness of perfidiousness to them appear only expressions of his confidence and good hopes not of any certainty that it would be so much less of any infallibility of their Bishop or church and this he did to engage them to withstand the schismaticks it being a great argument with persons to be constant to those who express their confiding in them and their expectation thereof And therefore he would have his Epistle read to the most flourishing Clergy there presiding with Cornelius and the most holy and most ample common people or Laity that if any contagion of poysoned speech and pestiferous sowing had crept in it might be all put off from the ears and breasts of the brethren and the entire and sincere love of good men might be cleansed from all filth of heretical detraction which shews that he conceived them liable to such contagion and pollution and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free All these things being considered it will appear that these passages of Cyprian are so far from proving the infallibility and supreme judicature and supremacy of the Pope and church of Rome which H. T. asserts that they prove the contrary The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worship of God this is the well-spring of truth the dwelling place of faith c. are true but nothing to the purpose it being a meer dream that the Româ—n and Catholick church are the same nor if they were do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith or supreme judicature in controversies of faith but the enjoying for themselves the true worship truth and faith The words of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed l. 3. c. 4 in apolog cont Ruffinum we subscribe to who profess our ready reception of what faith the Apostles commanded The words of Vincentius Lyrinensis adv hares c. 41. are thus not as H. T. cites them In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and studiously to be observed unto which they ought altogether to stick who will not be hereticks the first if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an universal council from all the Priests of the Catholick Church which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible much lesse that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible Nor are the words of Augustin which I finde not l. 4. de bapt c. 4 I know by Divine revelation that the spirit of truth teacheth it all truth if they be as H. T. cites them for his purpose For if by it he means the church it follows not he means the Roman church and if the spirit teach it all truth it cannot be meant of all truth simply nor at all times But I finde these words l. 4. de bapt contra Donat. c. 5. In vain some when they are overcome by reason object to us custome as if custome were greater then truth or that were not to be followed in spirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit This is plainly true that reason and truth is to be put before custome The words of Augustin epist 118. c. 5. are not fully set down by H. T. They are thus If the authority of divine Scripture prescribe which of these speaking about offering and fasting is to be donâ— it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read In like manner also if any of these things the whole Church through the world doth frequent For to dispute whether we are so to do is of most insolent madness Where 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture not in points of faith 2. Neither doth he count it madness to dispute against the use of the Roman church yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambrose to fast as they did at Millan when he was there and as they did at Rome when he was there Epist 86. ad Casul no nor to dispute against the whole church of one age but against the whole church in every age Other words of August cont epist fundam c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romanists for the asserting the authority of the church above the Scripture thus And I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it But the words are not thus rightly alleged For 1. The word Catholick is left out which shews he meant it not of the Roman onely and some words following seem to extend it to the church comprehending
the Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
in his days of which he warns Christians and our Lord Christ commands Revel 2. 2. the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in that he had tried some that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them Liars As for some of those things which Ancients have called Apostolical tradition the Papists themselves do reject them as the opinion of the Millenaries the keeping of Easter as the Quartodeciman held the giving the communion to Infants and many more and therefore all Apostolical traditions so termed cannot be the Rule of trial nor can they give us any sure Notes by which we may distinguish genuine Apostolical tradition unwritten from them that are supposititious It is true the oral tradition of the Apostles while they lived and there was access to them might be fit to be a means to try spirits by but the relation of Irenaeus lib. 2. adv haeres cap. 39. about Christ's age and the censure given of Papias in Eusebius plainly shew how quickly such traditions came to be mistakes and the very reason of John 1 Epist 4. 1. doth take us off from trying by such tradition because of the multitude of deceivers and therefore requires that such spirits as pretended tradition should be tried by an unerring Rule which is the holy Scripture But H. T. takes up the blasphemous reproach which some impudent railing Papists have heretofore given to the holy Scripture when it bids us not try by the dead letter by which he means the Scripture in contradistinction to unwritten tradition Which sure is not the language of the holy Ghost but of such impure mouths as in love to their Romish Idols endeavour to disgrace the holy Scripture 'T is true the Law ingraven in stone is termed 2 Cor. 3. 6. the killing letter yet not of it self for elsewhere Act. 7. 38. the law of Moses is termed the living Oracles but by accident in that it could not give life Gal 3. 21. in that it was weak through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. it did kill that is condemn men as guilty of sin and so accursed by it Gal. 3. 10. But on the contrary the Word of God is termed living Heb. 4. 12. the word of life Phil. 2. 16. And our Lord Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they did think they had eternal life John 5. 39. and John 20. 31. These things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and believing ye might have life through his name So that justly may H. T. with such other as before him have done the like be charged with impiety in his disparagingly terming the holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament the dead letter which Paul calls the word of life But it 's likely he meant that the Scriptures cannot hear both parties and so pronounce sentence in a point of controversie If this be his meaning he might term the churches sentence printed or written in parchment and Apostolical tradition unwritten the dead letters as well as the holy Scriptures For surely the authority of the church in an Oecumenical council approved by the Pope suppose the Trent council approved by Pope Pius the fourth and the Apostolical tradition doth no more hear or speak then the Scripture And it sure discovers an extream perversness and malignity of spirit in Papists that refuse to be tried by Scripture as being dead and require a living Judge to end controversies when the council and Pope and Apostolical tradition they would try by are as much dead as the Scripture which there is reason to conceive they do as foreseeing that if their proselytes would try their doctrines by the Scripture they could not stand As for humane reason no Protestant that I know makes that the rule by which he is to try the spirits nor his own private spirit if by it be meant his own councils But we say that every man is to make use of his own reason or judgement of discretion and the ability of his own intelligent spirit as the instrument or means by which he is to try whether that doctrine which is propounded to him be according to holy Scripture and in this he doth no more then Christ requires Luke 12. 57. yea and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right without the use of which it is impossible for men to make trial as men And this the Papists themselves must allow men to do according to their own principles For how else can they hear and believe the church if they do not use their reason to know the church and what it saith they must make men blocks or brutes if they allow them not the use of reason to try by When H. T. brings arguments from texts of Scripture Councils Fathers common sense and experience as his title page pretends would he not have men to use their reason to try whether he do it rightly would he have us go to a council approved by the Pope to know whether his arguments be good what a meer mockery is this of men to write books to teach people and yet not permit people to use humane reason to try their tenets whether they be according to Scripture Council Fathers common sense and experience as if we must not only take an Oâ—cumenical council approved by the Pope but also H. T. and every Popish writer whose book is licensed to be infallible If he write is it not that we may read and will he have us read and not judge and can we judge without humane reason But it is the fashion of these men to write and speak in points of controversie but not to permit their Disciples unless they judge them firm to them whatever they meet with to the contrary to examine their adversaries tenents arguments and answers by reading the Scripture and such impartial writers as would discover their deceit but either by some device or plain prohibition to deter them from searching after the truth that they may rest on the Popes and prelates determinations without examining H. T. further adds Obj. The Church may erre at least in points not fundamental Answ All that God hath revealed is fundamental at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the Divine authority revealing though not always for the matter and if it be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church as so revealed we are then bound to believe it so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals is idle Besides if the Church be infallible in fundamentals then Protestants are Schismaticks at least in revelting from her in points not fundamental or necessary to salvation and sin against charity by accusing us of Idolatry I reply 1. Sure this exception is idle to argue the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith which the users of it take from the matter according to which he confesseth all is not fundamental that God revealeth to be idle because all
is fundamental which God revealeth at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the divine authority revealing in respect of which the Authors who use the distinction acknowledge all fundamental likewise as Dr. Potter Chillingworth and others who make those articles of faith fundamental which in respect of the matter are necessary to salvation to be explicitly known and believed by all nor is it by them denied but if it be sufficiently proposed to us by the church as so revealed all that is revealed by God we are then bound to believe otherwise we should deny Gods infallibility and veracity But we deny the bare determination of the church that is a Pope Oâ—cumenical council or prelates to be a sufficient proposal without proof from Scripture or other demonstration that the revelation is divine 2. It is an idle inference which he makes that because Protestants grant the church doth not erre in fundamentals therefore the Roman church doth not erre or is infallible in fundamentals For that which we grant of the church is meant of other churches besides the Roman 3. It is idle that he chargeth Protestants with schism at least in revolting from the church for points not fundamental For he cannot prove the Protestants did or do revolt from the church but from the Roman court fashion nor that they revolted till they were driven out by excommunication and cruel persecution and could not enjoy communion without yeilding to sin nor that they revolted at all for those errors which are about points not fundamental but for the errors about points fundamental to wit one Mediator salvation by faith in him not by our own works c. 4. It is idle that he imputes to the Protestants uncharitableness for accusing Papists of Idolatry when their profession and worship is openly Idolatrous in their adoration of bread Images wooden crosses invocation of Saints deceased of Angels with other innumerable practises used and maintained by them about crosses reliques feasts of Saints Temples dedicated to them vows swearing Priests of them of which their own Liturgies Canons writers are undoubted witnesses 5. The framing of the Protestants objection by H. T. against the infallibility of the Pope or his council is idle sith it is urged by Protestants against them by shewing its errors even in fundamentals that Popes and councils approved by them have been heretical 6. His answer is much more idle in that it is not at all to the argument by him brought which in form is this That church which may erre in non-â—â—ndamentals is no infallible judge of controversies But the Roman church whether Pope or council by him approved may erre in non-fundamentals Ergo the Roman church is no infallible Judge of controversies Now in his answer there is neither denial of Major Minor nor conclusion but only a denial of the fit use of one term in the premises against which his own exception is but idle as hath been shewed yea and if there be no such distinction of fundamentals and non-fundamentals in points of faith the objection is more strong against them For then if it be proved that the Roman church errs in points of faith it errs in fundamentals if all points of faith be fundamental which will prove not only the fallibility but also the nullity of the Roman church and so H. T. will pull down what he endeavours to build up But H. T. goes on thus Ob. Those things only are fundamental which are absolutely necessary to salvation and every man is bound expliciâ—ly to know and believe Answ If this were true the Bible or written Word which you will have to be the onely rule of faith and Judge of controversies were not a fundamental for faith depends not essentially on writing but on hearing many were good Christians and saved before any of the new Scripture was written or received among them the first Gospel being not written till seven or eight years after the death of Christ I reply 1. This scribling is idle also in which that is brought in as Protestants objection against the infallible and supreme judicature of the Roman church in controversies of faith which is only an explication of one term they use in their dispute against the assertors of it 2. It is idle that he saith they will have the Bible or written Word to be the only Judge of controversies when some of them as Chillingworth whom he after names Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. p. 114. deny it properly to be the Judge of controversies but make it only the rule of faith or the rule to judge by yea p. 75. H. T. himself chargeth this on Chillingworth as if he had forgotten what he said p. 73. that right reason is the only Judge of controversies and others who term the Bible the Judge of controversies do not make it the only Judge but the Spirit of God by it and the teachers of the church and each believer for himself by it 3 It is idle again that he makes that an absurdity which they will not own when Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. p. 114. and some others do grant that the Bible or written Word is not a fundamental point of faith in their sence because if the matter of the Bible should be believed by one that never saw or heard of a Bible yet he should have a true faith to salvation And yet they make it necessary to be believed by all to whom it is made known 4. It is yet more idle that he gives that for a reason why it should be absurd to say the written Word is not fundamental to wit for faith depends not essentially on writing but on hearing which concludes it is not absurd For if faith depend not essentially on writing but on hearing which concludes it is not absurd For if faith depend not essentially on writing then is the written Word not fundamental for that is not fundamental without which faith may be 5. It is idle which he saith in opposing writing to hearing whereas faith may be by both and if he had spoken accurately he should have said not by seeing but by hearing or not by writing but by speaking 6. It is idle also and false that faith depends essentially on hearing For then it could never be that deaf men should believe for want of hearing 7. That which he adds to confirm it is as idle For though there were good Christians afore the Gospel was written yet it being written upon supposition there were no other means but writing to beget faith it would depend essentially on writing 8. This discourse of H. T. overthrows himself and his party For if faith depend essentially on hearing not on writing then they have not faith who read except they hear the infallible Judge whether Pope or council approved by him nor is the point of faith sufficiently proposed unlesse it be delivered viva voce and if so there is no Papist hath
faith but he onely who hears the Pope speak by word of mouth from his chair or a council approved by him speak with audible voyce the reading of the Trent canons or the Popes Bull is not sufficient to beget faith much less the hearing a Priest or Prelate tell us their determination By which it may appear that if H. T. his dictates hold then there is neither church nor faith among the greatest part of Papists 9. All this discourse is idle because Papists themselves do grant in effect the distinction he excepts against and his own words do in a manner confesse it is right as the objectors explain it and therefore in this is but a meer humour of quarrelling as having a minde to say somewhat against Mr. Chillingworth and Dr. Potter the Lord Falkland and Dr. Hammond who have fully beaten them out of this their last hold of the infallibility of the Roman church which they would fain have fortified being unable to keep the field in the several points of controversie between us and them H. T. goes on thus Ob. In Gregory the greats time the discipline and doctrine of the Church was altered and corrupted Ans That cannot be for from Gregory the greats time to this day even the least substantial part of either hath not been lost or changed as is visible in all the councils liturgies and constitutions of the Church I reply this is so notoriouslly false and the contrary so fully demonstrated even out of the confessions of Popish writers themselves and in the points of the Popes supremacy out of Gregory himself l. 4. Epist 32 34 38 39. in the point of worshipping of Images in his Epistle to Serenus and in other points by Bishop Morton in his first book of the Protestants appeal against Brerely his Apology that were not this Author resolved to out-face the most manifest verities against the now Roman tenents he would never have vented so grosse a falshood The very confessions of Popes the decrees of reformation even in the Trent council prove the contrary to what H. T. saith Claudius Espentaeus com in 2 Tim. c. 4. digres 21. confesseth that toyes and lyes were in almost all their portesses And if there were no more to prove this Author an egregious lyar yet this is enough which is apparent to all the world that they have had councils opposing councils about the superiority of a Pope above a council since the time of Gregory the great and even in their Miffals and Bibles many things have been changed and purged Clemens the eighth hath altered many things in Sixtus the fifth his Bible and thereby shewed how corruptions have crept into their own authentick translation H. T. adds Object That which may happen to any one particular man or Church may happen to all but it may happen to any one particular man or Church to erre in faith therefore to all Answ I distinguish the first proposition that which may happen to one may happen to all in a divisive sense I grant in a collective I deny and granting the second proposition I deny the consequence for it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense and is as equivocal as this That which may happen to any one egge in the Parish may happen to all But it may happen to any one egge in the Parish to go into your mouth at once therefore it may happen to all the eggs in the Parish to go into your mouth at once I reply I know not whose argument this is Dr. Rainold in his Thesis saith thus but it may happen to every Church which may happen to any certainly what happened to the Church of Jerusalem which had much more ample promises then ever the Church of any City As it is formed by this Author I think the Major is not universally true but being formed thus that error which may be in each man and church singly and it 's not assured shall be removed from them met together may happen to them so met But error in faith may be in each man and Church singly and it 's not assured to be removed from them met together therefore error in faith may happen to them so met The Major is I conceive without question The Minor consists of two parts 1. That all men and Churches singly or severally may erre in faith I think will not be denied That the Popes as private Doctors may erre in faith it 's not denyed by the stiffest assertors of the Popes infallibility That any particular Church also even the Roman may erre it 's not denied the infallibility which H. T. would have to belong to it is as Catholick and this must be when the whole Church diffused over the world unanimously teach a point of faith or it 's representative in a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope 2. That to none of these is such infallibility assured which is proved in that there is no promise of such infallibility to any of them The texts urged by H. T. in this article yeild not that promise nor that text Mat. 18. 20. For 1. Christ may be in the midst of men and yet they not infallible He walks in the midst of the Churches Revel 2. 1. yet they might and did erre in faith So God hath promised inhabitation to every true believer and walking with them 2 Cor. 6. 16. and yet they were not infallible 2. If infallibility were there promised it was promised to two or three gathered in Christs name and so to a Church neither collectively nor representatively Catholick 3. The promise is but conditional upon supposition of being gathered together in Christs name which whether any council be it is uncertain to us As for H. T. his distinction and application they seem to me to savour of unskilfulnesse in the meaning of Logick terms A proposition is true in a divided sense which is not true in a compound when the predicate agrees to the subject considered as at different times upon an alteration as when it is said the blind see the deaf hear the dumb speak this is not true in a compound sense that at the same time that persons are blind deaf dumb they see hear speak but in a divided sense But the Major proposition as set down in the objection is understood of the same time without alteration And so it is not true that it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense Nor is there any consequence in the proposition as he unskilfully speaks but the proposition is a simple or categorical proposition As for his similitude of eating eggs they may be kept for his breakfast as now being unseasonable But he proceeds Object The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the Church Answ True the Church was to depend on them as on the first masters and proposers of faith who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance
missals and the vulgar Latin translations of the Bible they confesse they used the help of learned men and one Pope alter what a former did and Judge of controversies from whom none may appeal and all are bound in conscience to stand to his definitions H. T. saith further Object The spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 15. Answ By the Rule of Apostolical tradition I grant by humane reason or the private spirit I deny and such a spiritual man is in the Church as a part in the whole not out of it with Sectaries I reply It is true the spiritual man judgeth all things by the Rule of Apostolical tradition I mean that which is truly and confessedly Apostolical in the holy Scriptures not by that unwritten tradition which Papists falsly call Apostolical And it is true also that the spiritual man judgeth all things by humane reason not as the rule of faith but as the Organ or means of discerning as the buyer judgeth whether he hath measure by the Ell as the rule and by the eye as the Organ by which he compareth the thing bought and the Ell together And if by private spirit be meant nothing but his own ability to discern the spiritual man judgeth by his private spirit and so doth a Papist that judgeth by the rule of the Councils definition and Popes approbation judge what his Priest suggests to him to be such by humane reason and his private spirit Nor can it be otherwise if the judging be his act but it should be by humane reason unless we imagine a man as a man to act without reason However this is clear by his confession that a spiritual man is not onely the Pope or the Catholick Church but a part in the whole and that he not onely receives all that the Church propounds but judgeth and therefore doth not rest on the judgement of the Church with a blinde assent and that he is in the Church nevertheless and this supposeth that a spiritual man is not to presuppose the Church or Pope or Prelate or Priest infallible but to examine what they say and to judge for himself whether they speak right or not H. T. proceeds thus Object Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies therefore every mans private reason must be Judge for himself Answ The Antecedent I have sufficiently refuted and I also deny the Consequence as the most gross and unreasonable Assertion of all others though Mr. Chillingsworth's chief ground which appears thus I reply No Protestant that I know saith Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies and therefore there was no need of refuting it Nevertheless in what he hath said before about this point he hath refuted nothing except it be a sufficient Refutation to say without any reason or proof for it that we must not try all things by humane reason or the private spirit which is a way of reâ—uting fit enough for this Scribler though unfit for a Disputer 2. Nor do I think any Protestant makes that consequence which is here set down whereas he aâ—cribes it to Master Chillingworth he had dealt honestly if he had quoted the place that we might without reading a whole Book have found it If I mistake not Master Chillingworth chap. 2. part 1. Sect. 104. of his Answer to Charity maintained against Knot asserting a necessity of a personal Judge in points of controversie concerning the Christian faith that the Scripture was not and therefore the church must be it saith Scripture is not a Judge of controversies but a Rule to judge them by being understood of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture that it is not necessary that all controversies should be decided that in doubtfull things there is no necessity they should be determined but that each should bear with other and he is safe that useth means to finde the truth though he miss it that fundamentals are plainly delivered in Scripture that the mâ—st unlearned may understand these by the translations of places on no side gainsaid that each mans own reason is Judge for himself that there is no such personal Judge appointed by God as Knot would have that his Reasons from the necessity of a personal Judge in civil controversies hold not in this matter that every mans particular reason is that by which he is to judge whether this or that Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture that even according to the way of the Papists the giving of the Office of Judicature to the Church comes to confer it upon every particular man For 1. Before any man believes the Church infallible he must have reason to induce him to believe it so else why do they set down Arguments to prove it 2. Supposing they are to be guided by the Church they must use their own particular reason to finde out which is the Church and to that end Popish Doctors give notes and marks whereby to discern it which are to no end if a Christian must not use his reason to judge whether they be right or no. So that in effect this is Mr. Chillingworth 's Argument as I conceive it There is neither a necessity of an infallible personal Judge among men to determine all controversies in Religion among Christians nor is any such appointed by God but each is to try for himself what is taught and even by Popish Writers own way he must use his particular reason to discern the validity of their proofs for the Churches infallibility and which is the Church which must be his guide by the marks of iâ— therefore it must of necessity be yielded that every mans particular reason must be Judge for himself Now this which H. T. unskilfully calls the consequence it being the consequent onely is no unreasonable much less gross Assertion and may very well be Mr. Chillingworth 's ground in answering Knot notwithstanding that which here H. T. produceth to the contrary First saith H. T. As contradicting the Word of God wherein we are taught that the things which are of God no man knows but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 11. No man can say Our Lord Jesus with true faith but in the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. By which grace we are saved through faith and that not of our selves for it is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. We are not sufficient to think any good thing our selves as of selves but our sufficiency is from God 2 Cor. 3. 5. We must captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith I reply Mr. Chillingworth's tenet being rightly understood contradicts none of these Texts For 1. when he saith Every mans private reason is to judge for himself he means whether this or that be the meaning of the Scriptures and whether that which some say is revealed in Scripture be so or not so that the judging which he asserts is of things revealed by the words
to discover the truth And though it be that Councils may be and have been usefull when good choice hath been made of persons and undue practises to mis-lead and over-aw them have been removed yet as Nazianzen in his five and fiftieth Epistle ad Procopium complained that he knew no good issue of them so he that shall examine the cariage of things in Councils even the best of them since the Apostles days will finde reason not to take any thing from them on trust meerly by reason of their authority and for the Councils which have been above a thousand years by reason of the activity and prevalency of Factions and the unlearnedness of most of the Bishops in them will find more reason to be jealous of what Councils have determined them to acquiesce in them Nor will it follow that if this judgement be allowed to every private man then all or any Heresies whatsoever have been good and sound Doctrine but that those who have pretended Reason and Scripture have abused both Nor is H. T. his Reason of force because Hereticks pretend to reason and Scripture therefore every one is not to judge for himself and all Heresies were sound Doctrine any more than than this cavillers pretend Law and Reason therefore Judges that use their knowledge in the Law and their Reason in passing Sentence do justifie cavillers or determin no better then cavillers Were the Churches authority infallible hereticks might and did pretend to it's authority and Apostolick tradition and therefore notwithstanding these yet heresie may be taken for sound doctrine as well as if private reason be made a Judge for each ones self yea many heresies have alledged unwritten tradition and have had some council or other perhaps more and more numerous to patronize them then the Orthodox so that I may say setting aside the holy Scripture which is now the rule by which to determine what is error what not neither the Churches authority nor unwritten tradition can prove a point to be heresie or extirpate it but rather propagate and establish error as by experience is manifest there being never more heresies established and propagated by any one or more private mens following their reason then have been by the Popes and Councils supposed to be Oecumenical and infallible nor is there any greater cause of erring then the confidence of infallibility nor any error so fast rooted as that which is decreed by men that will confesse no error As for those heresies which he reckons as unanswerable by humane reason if he mean they are unanswerable by humane reason how or in what manner the things opposed by them are it is granted but of this Mr. Chillingworth doth not make humane reason Judge if any humane reason cannot comprehend how a thing should be nor can answer all objections yet if it judge that God hath revealed it is so it is to believe it even as Mary was to believe her having a son though she knew not how Luk. 1. 34. That which each mans reason is to judge is not how a thing can be which God hath revealed is or shall be but whether it be so revealed and this he is to do not by a blind assent to what the Church or his teachers say but by searching as the Beraeans did Act. 17. 11. with Gods approbation even when Paul preached to them the Scriptures whether they say right And if the Scripture say the contrary to what those named hereticks say then are their tenents to be rejected of which each persons reason is to judge for himself he being to be saved or damned according to his own faith if not the determination of councils against it is not to be received And this manner of judging by reason will neither promote herefie nor Atheism but on the contrary if the Popes Councils Churches determination be counted infallible it will perpetuate an error if once received as too much woful experience shews in the Roman Papacy wherein the error of transubstantiation though it be such as is so contrary to Scripture reason sense Fathers that a man unprejudiced would think them meer mad men or phrenetick persons who hold it yet it is by Papists maintained I dare hardly say by the learned believed most obstinately and furiously to this day Finally saith H. T. because if private reason were the onely Judge of controversies it would evidently follow the general councils of all former ages which have commanded all persons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions and submit to their decrees were the most tyrannical and unjust assemblies that ever were in usurping such a power over mens consciences and consequently that there neither is nor ever was any such thing on earth as a Church or obliging guide in matters of faith and Church Government I reply though Mr. Chillingworth say not private reason to be the onely Judge of controversies nor denies the Church or Council to be Judge of controversies but only the infallibility of them yet if he did say either neither of these things would follow which H. T. makes consequent thereon For notwithstanding such saying he might deem councils to have followed Scripture and therefore not unjust in those commands and that there was a Church and Church government obliging men in matters of faith though not by vertue of their own authority yet by vertue of Gods revelation in the holy Scriptures Neverthelesse if I may be allowed to speak my judgement freely I do think that if not all yet most of the Councils termed general have been for more then one hundred years too unjust and tyrannical in their commands usurping the words of the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. 28. too arrogantly as if their authority were equal to the Apostles and imposing on mens consciences burdens too intolerable and that this hath been a most pernicious engine of Satan to cause divisions and mischiefs in the Church of Christ And certainly if any have followed humane reason and a private spirit in deciding controversies of faith and judging matters of religion they have been Popes and the Councils approved by Popes who do almost in every thing in some things expressely forsake the Scripture and adhere to their own reason in their Canons and Decrees and Papists who receive their determinations do forsake the guidance of Gods Spirit and follow humane reason and a private spirit H. T saith further Ob. Your therefore believe the Church to be infallible and whatever else you believe because you judge it reasonable to believe it and your very act of faith it self is an act of reason therefore reason is the only Judge of controversies Answ The discourse and approbation of reason is alwayes a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason not discoursing but simply assenting All this I grant yes I deny your consequence because our acts of faith are not ultimately resolved into
private reason which faith often is inforced to captivate but into the authority of God revealing and the Church proposing I believe it saith Tertullian because it is impossible viz. to humane reason I reply 1. Chillingworth makes not reason the only Judge of controversies nor any Protestant therefore the conclusion is ill fathered on them 2. The reason of H. T. his denial of the consequence is insufficient For it supposeth the consequence to imply that our acts of faith are ultimately resolved into private reason and this private reason judging that onely to be true of which it conceives how it is possible But the truth is they that make reason the Judge of controversies neither resolve ultimately their acts of faith into private reason neither do they conceive they have reason to believe onely what they conceive how it is possible to humane reason but resolve their faith into Gods authority as the formal and ultimate reason of their believing and make their reason onely the means or instrument by which they finde that God hath revealed that which they believe not excluding their teachers credit and Churches example as a fit motive to hearken to it as a thing credible Which opinion is confirmed by this authors own words making faith an act of reason and discourse and approbation of reason alwayes a previous and necessary condition to it and therefore in all acts of faith even when it rests on the Churches Authority yet eachmans private reason is the Judge for himself discerning in controversies why he is to believe one and not another all the difference is the Papist thinks he hath reason to believe transubstantiation Popes supremacy c. because he takes the Church of Rome or Pope to be infallible The Protestant doth not believe them because the Scripture doth not say thus which alone he takes for an infallible rule to judge by in such controversies Whether Papists faith be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God revealing hath been before considered a little and will more in that which follows To Tertullians words I can return no answer till I know where to finde them As they are here cited they seem nor right Yet again saith H. T. Ob. There is no Apostolical tradition for the Churches infallibility Answ Yes a more universal one then for the Canon of the Scripture it self which notwithstanding you believe on that score if at all For there is not any one book either of the old or new Testament which hath not been rejected by some heretick or other if therefore it be a sufficient proof of an universal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture that some one or two general Councils have set down the number and names of all the books of Scripture though not without some variety and that the Fathers have given testimony to them some to some books some to others but few to all and that the Church in after ages hath accepted them for such how much more universal is the tradition for the Churches infallibility which is virtually decided and attested by the Anathema's and definitions of all the general Councils that ever were condemning all who did not humbly obey and subscribe to them every decision being attested by all the Fathers no one contradicting or condemning the stile and most unanimously accepted by the whole Church of after ages I reply the speech of H. T. here that there is a more universal Apostolical tradition for the Churches that is not only the Church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly Oecumenical that is to say call'd out of the whole world and approved by the Pope it's infallibility in definitions of faith then for the Canon of the Scriptures it self is so monstrously false and so pernicious as tending to the undermining of the fabrick of Christian Religion that it shews an impudent face and an impious heart in the assertor For 1. The tradition of the Canon of the old Testament is by the whole Nation of the Jews from Moses to Christ and from Christ and his Apostles who have testified that to them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 1 2. and this witnessed by the Jews unto the death and by the complement and events verifying it And though it be that some hereticks have been adversaries to the Law and Prophets yet scarce any but such as have been little better then phrenetick have denied it to be divine however they have conceived them not binding And for the Canon of the new Testament though some parts have been a little while somewhat doubted of in the second and third ages by some few yet the rest have had universal and undoubted tradition from the Apostles and Evangelists and primitive teachers who witnessed the truth of the doctrine by many evident undeniable divine miracles and by their martyrdome by which also in after ages many of the Fathers and other Christians gave testimony to it and since the Churches Greek and Latin Protestant and Popish Heretical and Orthodox in Asia Africa Europe have attested it as divine But for the Churches infalibility in that sense in which this Author means it how little hath been brought appears by the answer here made and that much may be said against it will appear by that which follows Yea I dare bodly say that as H. T. holds it no one Council or Father of esteeme held the Churches infallibility in the first thousand years from Christs incarnation and I think I may say for half a thousand more but many not onely of those who are reckoned for hereticks by Romanists but also such as have been judged Catholicks have opposed it in the second and third ages yea whole Nations Emperors Kings and states have opposed the definitions which the so termed Generals Councils approved by the Pope have made and many learned men have written against it none died for it in that time nor were any miracles wrought to confirme it Nor hath the questioning of some few of the books of Scripture either by some hereticks or a few Fathers for a while abated the credit of those parcels questioned in the Churches of Christ throughout the world So that if it were true that we believed the Canon as I know nothing but uncharitablenesse can make this Author question whether we do onely on that score as we do not yet we have far more abundant tradition for it then is for the Churches imagined infallibility 2. I say the Anathema's and definitions are neither formal nor virtual proofs of an universal tradition or attestation to the Churches infallibility For 1. p. 7. He confesseth in the second and third ages were no councils nor in the tenth in which any controversies of moment were decided p. 25. and therefore here this universal tradition fails 2. Those that were not approved by the Popes but rejected by them and those which were not Oecumenical have not used such Anathema's
and yet H. T. thinks not his infallibility proved thereby 3. That they did well in using such Anathema's or the Church in submitting to them may be doubted 4. But if that be yeilded that they did well yet surely they did not set their Anathema's to their decisions because they took themselves to be infallible either by their own authority or the Popes approbation yea it is certain the Councils did set to their Anathema's when they opposed the Popes and deposed them and defined themselves above him And even the Council of Trent put their Anathema's to their definitions afore they were tendred to the Pope or Pius the fourth had approved them but they took it they might set their Anathema to their definitions because they thought them right though not themselves infallible in them And thus may any particular person pronounce Anathema as Paul did Gal. 1. 8 9. and yet not be thereby demonstrated infallible So vain is this no better then blasphemous speech of H. T. which will further appear by examining what follows SECT VIII The objections of Protestants against the Churches infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from the answers of H. T. He saith Objections from Fathers and Councils resolved Ob. The Council of Fanckford condemned the second Nicene Council for giving soveraign honour to images as you may see in the Preface to the Carolin books Answ The second Nicene Council allows no such honour to images but onely a salutation or honorary worship not true Latria or soveraign honour which it defines to be due to God onely Act. 1. 7. The Carolin books are of no authority they say that Council was not approved by the Pope which is false and that it was held at Constantinople in Bythinia whereas Constantinople is in Thracia I Reply That honour to Images which Papists will not have to be termed Latria or soveraign honour proper to God the Scripture makes soveraign honour to be given to God onely in a religious respect to wit bowing down the body to them kissing burning incense offering gifts holding up the hands lifting up the eyes praying to them which the Scripture appropriates to God and denies to images Matth. 4. 10. Revel 19. 10. 1 Kings 19. 18. Exod. 20. 4 5. Nor doth the Scripture make such distinction of Latria and Dulia but that it forbids such worship to be given to any image of an invisible being which shews subjection to them or dependence on them for such worship is religious and is an acknowledgement of a Deity in them The Scripture doth no where appropriate Latriam or the soveraign honour or worship due to God onely to offering of sacrifice but that it also condemns as idolatrous the other acts named if they be not given to Magistrates or superiors out of civil respects but to Images Angels or Saints alive or deceased in a religious respect as superiors to us to whom we are subject and on whom we depend for help and succour And therefore this plaister of H. T. is too narrow to cover the foul ulcer that came from the false Synod called the second Nicene For what is that salutation or honorary worship H. T. saith the second council of Nice allows to Images Is it not bowing down to them which Papists themselves call adoration and difference from veneration which consists onely in a decent usage without defiling defacing or such usage as shews hatred and contempt of the thing or person represented such as is done to monuments or treasure laid up to be kept but not as things set up higher then our selves to be worshipped for that is plain Idolatry and the very same with the Gentiles adoration of their Idols now this did the second Nicene Council require to be given to Images ut erigerentur adorarentur c. yea if Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagin Sanct. c. 21. say true that Council would have them adored not only by accident that is because joyned with the thing adored but also of themselves as that in which is the reason of veneration nor onely improperly that is in the place of another so as that the proper term of the adoration should not be the Image but Christ himself but properly so as that the Image be honoured ratione sui ipsius in respect of it self as he explains his distinctions ch 20. And this adoration it was conceived by Charles the Great and the Synod of Francfurt that Nicene Council intended to give to Images and was refuted by the four books set forth by Charles the Greats authority yet to be seen and condemned by the authority of the Synod of Francfurt Anno 794. at which were present the Popes legats and did approve of the Synods determination or dissembled the Popes opinion I finde not that the Carolin books say that the second Nicene Council was not approved by the Pope if they did and that they were deprived it makes the more against the infallibility of Councils approved by the Pope which those three hundred Fathers acknowledged not who met at Francfurt The mistake of the Country wherein Nice was is not such as Bellarmin or Baronius conceive derogates from the truth of the thing testified by so many authors of credit all the ancient historians nearest that time besides Hinâ—marus Agobardus and after some English writers as Hoveden c. Bellarmin himself l. 2. de concil auth c. 7. confesseth it condemned the seventh Synod and Platina in the life of Hadrian the first saith that two worthy Bishops Theophylact and Stephan held a Synod in the name of Hadrian of German and French Bishops in which the Synod which the Greeks call the seventh was abrogated H. T. adds Ob. The Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth Sess 11. defined a Pope to be above a Council and the Council of Constance Sess 4. defined a Council to be above a Pope Answ Neither part was ever yet owned by the Church for an Oecumenical decree or definition and if it were it would be answered that the Lateran Council defined onely a Pope to be above a Council taken without a Pope or not approved and that the Council of Constance onely defined a Council approved by a Pope to be above a Pope without a Council which definitions are not contradictory no more than to say one part of any thing is bigger then another and the whole bigger then both so that from hence it cannot be inferred that either Council erred nor was either decree approved by the Pope I reply this is impudent outfacing with shifts the truth in things manifest to all that enquire into them He cannot deny that these contrary definitions were of two Councils which he himself p. 33 36. terms general Councils and makes Popes president in both and both he sets down in his Catalogue made to prove a succession in the Church of Rome and yet here he denies their definitions to be Oecumenical what is an Oecumenical definition if that an Oecumenical
Council be not How is it an Oecumenical definition when it determins against John Hus or against Christs own expresse command for communion under one kinde and nor Oecumenical when it decrees the supremacy of the Council above the Pope This is meer jugling of hâ—â—us pocus which shews that when it likes them the Council shall be approved when not rejected and thereby take upon them to be above Pope and Council But if this be the fashion of their Councils who can tell when one decree is contrary to another if these were not or who can tell when a decree is approved by a Pope if neither of these were where 's the agreement where 's the infallibility they so vainly arrogate to their Church Martin the fifth expressely confirmed the acts of the Council of Constance in the 45. Session of which one was in the fourth Session that every one though of Papal dignity was bound to obey a general Council in the things pertaining to faith That which Bellarm. l. 2. de Concil aut c. 19. saith that he onely approved some things not others because he said sic conciliariter facta is but a shift for that expression is not set down by way of limitation and distinction but explication noting the reason of approving all because they were done conciliariter as the word sic shews which implies his acknowledgment that they were all so done Besides he not excepting it expressely could not be interpreted to except that from his confirmation more then any thing else there acted it might as well be said he excepted the decree about half communion yea if he had excepted that decree of the Councils being above the Pope he had meerly deluded the Council that decree being their principal decree and for which it was called Add hereto that the words of his Bull thereupon do more fully manifest that he did not except it and the decree of the Council of Basil called after by vertue of his Bull shews that they understood it to confirm that decree proceeding against Pope Eugenius conformably to it And for the other Council that Pope Leo the tenth did not confirm the decree of the Popes being above a Council is contrary to Bellarmin l. 2. de Concil aut c. 18. who recites the decree as a proof and c. 5. reckons it among the general Councils approved by the Pope as appears saith he in that he was president in person And for the other answer of H. T. it is ridiculous sith the Councils words are expresse that any person though of Papal dignity was to obey the general Council and the decree was made of purpose to justifie their fact in putting down a Pope And there was no question nor need be who is above other when both joyn but all the question is and so the definition must be construed when they are severed Yea it would be trifling to say the Pope should obey the Council when the Pope concurred for it 's all one as to say be should obey himself and to say the Council is above the Pope when the Council and Pope are one is frivolous for in all such comparisons the words expresse what each is severally as they stand in competition according to their several authorities and therefore the similitude of H. T. is frivolous as being not to the purpose Lastly with what face can this man say that neither Council err'd when Bellarmin saith c. 7. that in the Florentin and last Lateran the Council of Constance was rejected in respect of the first Sessions wherein it defined a Council to be above a Pope so that all the wit of man is not able to avoid this objection but that according to the suppositions of Popish Doctors either a general Council approved by a Pope may erre in a point of faith or else there is no error in a main point of their faith when one general Council approved by a Pope contradicts a former general Council approved by a former Pope of greater freedome and celebrity by reason of the Emperours presence and for other causes which was seconded by another Council not long after as appears by the next objection which is thus set down by H. T. Ob. The Council of Basil defined that a Council was above a Pope Answ The decree was not approved nor any other of that Council but onely such as concerned Church benefices See Eugenius with Terrecremata l. 2. c. 100. I reply I finde no such distinction in Pope Nicolas the fifth his Bull but that it is confirmed altogether But it seems when it pleaseth these men the Council shall be approved when not rejected So that it is not either the calling of a Council by a Pope or the universality of the Fathers or the approbation of the Pope can confirm it if another Pope reject it which they will do when it 's against their power and profit And hereby is proved that Popes are vertiginous that Popery is as mutable as the weathercock that there is so little shew of agreement unity and infallibility in Popes and Councils approved by him that scarce any states are more full of changes in matters civil then they are in matters Ecclesiastical and of faith nor in any part of the world more disagreement then among Papists Further saith H. T. Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianism Answ It did not and that equivocal decree that was there made was never approved by the Pope and the Fathers themselves who were deluded by the Arians with words that bare a double sense when they perceived the fraud lamented and renounced the fact I reply H. T. his own words confirm the objection For 1. If the Fathers were deluded by the Arians then they were not infallible and so a general Council approved by the Pope may erre in a main point of faith 2. If that Council did not define Arianism how were they deluded wherein was the fraud but in that the words being of double sense yet indeed decreed Arian doctrine what need they lament or renounce the fact if it were not so why doth Austin l. 3. contra Maximinum c. 14. oppose that council to that of Nice and Maximinus allege it for himself if it did not decree Arianism why did Ruffinus Socrates Basil cited by Bellarm l. 1. de concil c. 6. reject it and Bellarmin reckon it among the reprobate councils if it were not Arian and that Pope Liberius did subscribe to it is related by Hierom in his catalogue of writers in Fortunatianus in his Chronicle by Hillary sundry times and others Yet saith H. T. Ob. The council of Trent erred by adding to the Canon of Scripture Answ It did not the third council of Carthage approved all the same books by name excepting Baruch whom they compared with the Prophet Hieremy whose Secretary he was and this twelve hundred years ago I reply if the council of Trent did not erre Pope Gregory the great did who expressely denied the books of
the privilege of the person not the sanctity of the church 4. The sanctity of the now Roman Church is not proved by the holiness of persons in former Ages whereof many never were of Rome nor is it likely ever heard of it some of them opposed the Roman Church and some lived and died in a state of disclaiming of it and some kinde of excommunication from it and had they lived to see its pride and wickedness as now it is would no doubt have abhorred it with greatest detestation much less is it proved by the holiness of men dead one thousand or four hundred years especially when the holiness of those few is obscured by the almost universal ungodliness of their chief Bishops whom they account their visible Heads and essential parts of their Church and Clergy and Laity in Rome it self for a thousand years past which hath been so notorious as almost all their Historians and Preachers and Poets have described it so as that it may be conceived justly that Rome is and hath been a sink of all uncleanness There are verily saith Bellarm. lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 13. in the Catholick Church very many evil persons and some of their own Popes as Adrian the sixth have confessed by Cheregatus his Legate that abominations were committed in that holy See the infâ—â—â—ity passed from the Head to the Members from the Popes to the inferiour Prelates in so much that there hath been none that hath done good no not one Innumerable have been the complaints made by all sorts and sometimes by the Princes of the German Empire of their Grievances by the Popes and Court of Rome Nor do Travellers tell us of any Reformation considerable since the Trent Council their own Writers tell us there is no Excommunication for the common vices but onely some Penance which effects no change in the apprehension of Sir Edwin Sandys if it were not for a little formal abstinence in Lent there would be an universal Deluge of vice in Italy so that he who denieth the Roman Clergy and Church to be a most unholy and filthy People hath gotten a Whores forehead that cannot blush There are sins among Protestants but I never yet met with Writer or Traveller but would prefer London and other Protestant Towns as more free from impurity of body blasphemy cruelty treachery injustice Atheism and such other sins as are not to be named than Rome is where hath been permission of Whore-houses for Money by the Pope and the Whores and Bastards of Popes and Cardinals so notoriously domineer SECT III. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman Church BUt let us see what H. T. saith for their Holiness St. Augustine and his fellows who converted England when they were received into Canterbury saith Hollingshead part 1. pag. 100. began to follow the trade of the Apostles exercising themselves in continual prayer fasting watching and preaching despising all worldly things and living in all points according to the Doctrine which they taught St. Francis St. Benet and St. Dominick were all eminent for sanctity of life as the Magdeburgian Centurists confes cent 13. Col. 11. 79. But I never yet heard of any Protestant Saints in the World Answ What a foolish proof is this of his Minor that the Roman Church and no other is eminent for sanctity of life because Benedict and Austin the Monk a thousand years since Francis and Dominick five hundred years ago were suâ—h in his esteem and he hath heard of no Saints among Protestants As if there might be no Saints in the Greek church though he hear of no Protestant Saints or as if the Greek church now judged schismatick might not be as well proved or rather better to be eminent for sanctity of life for the holiness of Chrysostome Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen as the now Roman for the reputed holiness of Austin Benet Francis and Dominick But might there not be Protestant Saints which he hears not of Protestants are the same with Primitive Christians in their Religion or Articles of Faith and Worship and as such all the holy Apostles Martyrs Confessours which have been true Christians have been Protestant Saints as protesting against the Popish corruptions in Doctrine Discipline and Worship so all the holy men who have protested against them in all Ages have been Protestant Saints Thus Cyprian and Augustin who protested against the Popes usurpation about receiving Appeals from Africa Gregory the Great who protested against the usurpation of the Title and Power of an universal Bishop the Synod of Frankford which protested against Image-worship were Protestant Saints And for Waldus and the Waldenses that they were Protestants is manifest and Saints too their own Works shewed See Morland's History of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont even Rainerius their Adversary being Judge And for Wickliff Reginald Peacock Robert Grosthead Richardus Armachanus and many more their Lives were so exemplary as shamed their Adversaries and yet they were Protestants more or less against Popish Errours and Abuses It is true Protestants are not canonized Saints by Popes who use to canonize for Money or other respects some ignorant superstitious persons or else active Instruments for their party but the holiness of Protestants since Luther began the Reformation hath been such as hath caused even their Enemies to ascribe much excellency to their eminent Leaders Notwithstanding Bolseâ—k's Lye of which the wiser Papists are ashamed yet Florimundus Raymundus Papyrius Massonius and others acknowledged Calvin to have been a man eminent for strictness of life and industry in his pastoral work beyond any Papist they could name Melancthon is commended even by Papists for his holy peaceable and painfull conversation in the work of the Lord. The Lives of the chief Reformers shewed them to be such as had the Spirit of God dwelling in them Hooper and Bradford in England Patrick Hammilton and George Wiseheart in Scotland were men of exemplary godliness that I name not late men such as John Fox John Dod Richard Grenham and many more whose Lives and Works shewed them to have been men of holy conversation and of much acquaintance with God whom this Scribler and such like superstitious Papists who place holiness in observance of humane inventions rather than in Gods commands obeying the Pope rather than Christ and believing the lying Legends of Friers before the true reports of godly Preachers of the Gospel having prejudice against them condemn as Hereticks Yethet they that place holiness in following the Rules of Christ and not humane traditions do judge them to have been holy and blessed men such as have had not onely a form but also the power of godliness As for what H. T. saith out of Hollingshead of Austin and his followers it speaks only what they did at the beginning but it is certain that Austin did not so persevere but that he shewed much pride towards the British Bishops and
when God calls for it in time of affliction and for more advantage in prayer but they reject Popish set fasts and their mock-fasts in forbearing flesh of beasts eggs milk butter yet eating and drinking other food and drink perhaps more delicious in fulness as a meer delusion Protestants teach praying much in spirit with understanding of what they ask with faith and trust to be heard through the Name of Christ for such good things as God hath promised but they deride justly Popish praying in Latin by those who understand not what they say their saying Ave Maries and the Creed for Prayers their superstitious saying Prayers with Beads by tale their tying themselves to canonical hours as more holy than other times their Prayers for Souls in Purgatory which is a meer figment serving onely to affright silly people that they may draw money from them for saying Masses they detest that most abominable invocating of the Virgin Mary wherein she is extolled as Authour of Grace Mother of Mercy having authority over or upon Christ with abundance of wicked Superstitions which are used in Popish devotion to canonized Saints Crucifixes a piece of Bread imagined Relicks of Saints Protestants press on men true mortification of the sins of the flesh or deeds of the body by the spirit working hatred of the inward lusts and forsaking the evil practises of them but they reject the foolish practises of whipping themselves tearing the flesh with lying on Briars as they say Benedict did tumbling in the Snow as they say Francis of Assisium did girding the body with Iron and lying on the ground as they say Dominick did which neither subdue lust nor the Devils temptations but are like the acts of Bedlams and may be and perhaps are done out of vain-glory and proud conceit of meriting by them Protestants exhort to good works but deny the building of Monasteries to be such for idle Monks that in stead of working with their hands that they might give to him that needs eat the bread to the full which belongs to the needy poor under pretence of praying which is no special function Protestants teach men to be poor in spirit to bear patiently poverty when Gods providence allots it but the voluntary poverty of Monks and Friers they reject as being a curse or else a meer hypocritical counterfeiting of poverty when they enjoy greatest plenty and live in fulness as Monks and Friers usually do or else a meer madness as in Anchorites and Eâ—â—mites Protestants teach true chastity in Marriage and single life but they detest Popish vows of single life in Priests Friers and Nuns as superstitious snares when few of them have the power of continence and they abhor the terming of the use of the Marriage-bed in Presbyters unchast and unholy and most of all the hellish Doctrine of those that teach it to be better for Priests to use Concubines than Wives and tolerate fornication and other unclean lusts when they forbid Marriage and excommunicate and deprive and imprison and persecute Priests and Bishops for it We Protestants teach obedience to Parents and Magistrates and all that are over us in the Lord but abhor the Vow of blinde obedience to Superiours never appointed by God as slavish and oft-times mischievous and destructive of the necessary obedience due to Parents and Governours whom God hath established All which things being considered we are fully assured that the Protestants Doctrine in these things is most holy and the Popish impure though to men that know not the Scripture it have a shew of wisdom and holiness Yea we avouch that there is scarce a Church in the World that is more unholy than the Roman in their maintaining the Worship of Images which hardens the Jews from Christianity in their adoration of the Bread they eat as their Maker which moved Averroes a Mahometan to prefer Philosophers afore Christians the infallible Power of the Pope though a most wicked man by himself or in a Council of his liking to set down what is to be held in point of Faith to dissolve Leagues and break Oaths upbraided by Amurath the great Turk to Christians to dispense with incestuous Marriages deny Marriage to Priests which Pius the second a Pope thought fitter to be restored forbidding some Meats as unclean at some times the Cup at the Eucharist and the ordinary reading of the Bible in their own Language to the Lay-people directing men to invocate Saints teaching them to ascribe salvation to their own Merits making the man of sin the Vicar of Christ besides what some have taught about deposing and destroying Princes giving equivocating Answers to Magistrates upon Oath exempting Priests from subjection to Princes allowing the breach of faith to those they judge Hereticks making cursing Parents in passion and other horrid evils venial sins allowing great crimes upon the probable opinion of one Doctor killing a man to vindicate honour and such other most odious resolutions of cases of conscience of the late Jesuits which the more sober and honest Jansenist in his late Book of the Mystery of Jesuitisme hath discovered in which there may be found such a Nest of most stinking Doctrines vented by Jesuits as honest moral Infidels by the light of nature did detest and from their Doctrines we may truly infer that Rome as now it is is indeed the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth On the other side though Protestants are not without Errours yet in the main matters especially in the Doctrines of the Gospel and holiness and righteousness of life their Doctrine shines more bright than ever it did in any Church since the Age following the Apostles unto this day SECT V. The devotion of Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman Church it being for the most part will-worship and pharisaical hypocrisie H. T. goes on thus Her Churches are open and Divine Service said not onely on all Sundays and Holy-days but every day in the week and that the greatest part in the forenoon There is five times more preaching and catechizing and ten times more fasting and praying in the Catholick Church than in the Protestant her Sacraments are more and more frequented and in stead of an innumerable multitude of religious men and women that are in the Catholick Church who have freely forsaken all things to follow Christ and totally relinquished the riches pleasures and preferments of this life to serve him in the remainder of their days in vows and practises of holy poverty obedience and chastity Protestants have an innumerable company of Sects and Sect-masters that daily spring out of their stock such as are continually broaching new Heresies and always at defiance one with another Answ THe Popish devotion is so far from proving the holiness of the Roman Church falsly and most impudently termed the Catholick Church that it rather proves them a Synagogue of Satan than a Church of Christ Their Churches as they term them stand open but that which
any thing it is not to follow Christ but Bennet Francis Dominick Bruno Ignatius and such like hypocrites by following whom there is more reason to judge they forsake Christ then by adhering to their rules to adhere to Christ there being none more malicious and bitter and cruel enemies to the sincere preaching and profession of the Gospel then Friers Monks Nunnes and especially the damned crew of Jesuits who have been within one hundred years and somewhat more authors of more bloody warrs massacres cruel persecutions treasons murthers and other hellish villanies then ever such a number of men besides were guilty of since the world stood Is any man of such a sottish spirit as to believe that these men have relinquished the riches pleasures and preferments of this life to serve Christ the remainder of their lives who knows what goodly structures they live in what full tables they have what great revenues they are inriched with will any man that views the very ruins of Abbys Nunneries Priories and other houses which they termed religious here in England that reads the catalogue of their revenues at the end of Speeds Chronicle judge these relinquished the riches of this life Are the Monastery of St. Laurence in Castile the Colledge of La Flech in France with innumerable more in those countries and in Germany Italy c. Cottages for poor Almesmen what an arrant gullery and cheat is this of this frontlesse scribler to perswade English people that their votaries have relinquished all riches when they possesse revenues in some countries equal to Kings and Princes fair Palaces full tables good cloathing great attendance large command of tenants with furniture and provision of all sorts of things commodious for this life in their convents And to say they serve Christ when all the world knows the Monks serve none but their own bellies and the Jesuits are true to none but the Catholick Bishop and Catholick King who may perhaps in time finde them as pernicious to themselves as they are to other Princes and States what a monstrous fiction is it their vows and practises are not of true but counterfeit poverty and if it were voluntary poverty indeed which they make shew of it would be the more sinful God no where directing men to cast away their estates but to use them John 10 41. Yea Christ himself at some time was restrained from doing miracles Matth. 13 58. and the Disciples were defective therein Luk. 9. 40 41. 6. That there are some wonders which are lying wonders 7 That these are so like true miracles that they are very apt to deceive a great part of men 8. That the Lord permits these to be for trial of men 9. That he keeps his elect from being seduced by them 10. That they are bound to heed whereto these miracles tend and not to follow them that make shew of them if they tend to Idolatry and to draw us away from Gods expresse commands and truths revealed in the Scripture Out of all which I infer that without examination of the doctrine by the Scripture we are not meerly upon the pretence of miracles to judge men to be true teachers and true Churches except they should be so many great frequent open as Christ and his Apostles were for I count that speech of Bellarm. lib. 4. de notis Eccles c. 14. impious that before the approbation of the Church it is not certain with the certainty of faith whether any miracle be true which if true till the Church approved them there had been no certainty of faith that Christs or his Apostles miracles were true and therefore miracles are not a sufficient note of a true Church SECT VII The Popish pretended miracles prove not the truth of their Church nor the miracles related by some of the Fathers But H. T. taking his Major as to the power of miracles sufficiently proved proceeds thus The Minor is proved by these ensuing undeniable testimonies First Protestants and other Sectaries pretend that miracles have ceased ever since Christ and his Apostles time because they and their Sectmasters have never yet been able to do any a sure conviction that they want this mark Answ 1. PRotestants do not pretend that all working of miracles is ceased since the Apostles time but such frequent working of miracles as was in the Apostles time 2. That they do not for the reason which this author allegeth say so but because the truth is so and if they have not been able to do any no more have the Papists if they could they would do them to convince the Sectaries as he terms us sith signs are not for them to believe but for them that believe not 1 Cor. 14. 22. And therefore if Papists could do any miracles surely they would do them openly to convince the hereticks who deny their Popes and Churches infallibility of which surely we are all such infidels as that without miracles done by Popes and the Preachers of his vicarship we shall never be brought to believe it But they choose rather to cheat foolish Papists with counterfeit tricks as of the boy of Bilson Garnets straw and such like devices then to let any understanding Protestants have any sight of them who would discover their knavery But H. T. tells us Secondly histories as well of enemies as friends have recorded many famous miracles in all ages wrought by the Catholick Church The Magdeburgian Centurists although Protestants such is evidence and force of truth have recorded many great miracles done by Catholicks in their 13. c. of every century for one thousand three hundred years together after Christ St. Francis of Assisium fifteen dayes before his death had wounds freshly bleeding in his hands feet and side such as Christ had on the Cross and this by miracle Mat. Paris p. 319. One Paul Form having stoln two consâ—crated hosts out of a Church sold one of them to the Jews who out of malice and contempt stab'd it saying If thou be the God of Christians manifest thy self whereupon blood issued out of the host for which fact thirty eight of them were burnt at Knoblock in Brandenburg and all the rest of the Jews were banished out of that Marquisate This is recorded by Pontianus in his fifth book of memorable things and by John Mandevil a Protestant in his book de locis communibus p. 87. as also by Osiander Epist 116. p. 28. Answ 1. The Magdeburgian Centurists have indeed in their several centuries one chapter of marvellous things but many of them are such as were wrought immediately by divine providence and are liable to various constructions few of them done by men in testimony of the truth of any religion doctrine or Church and fewer yet of any certain credit 2. There 's no relation of any of them that are said to be done as wrought by the Catholick Church either Roman or properly so called however there be some related as done by persons of the Catholick Church
who are more justly to be accounted Protestants in respect of the doctrine they taught then Papists whom they falsly call Catholicks 3. It is not denied that Socrates l. 7. hist c. 17. mentions a miracle of Paul a Novatian Bishop and Augustin tract 13. on John and de unit Eccles c. 16. denies not that the Donatists alleged miracles and he calls them by contempt Mirabiliarios and judged that the Church was to be judged by Scripture and the miracles by the Church as Bellarm confesseth de notis Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. 4. Those that are said to be done by persons of the Catholick Church for the first five hundred years were not done by persons that held the now Romish doctrine or in confirmation of it or the verity of the now Roman Church 5. All the rest in all the ages following are of none or very small credit Gregory the great is himself judged by Romanists to have been too credulous of tales those Dialogues which are said to be his in which are related some of the miracles which the Papists rely on being either none of his or shewing too much credulity in him the rest of the miracles in the legends are so ridiculous fopperies as even discreet Papists themselves have discredited Dr. Rainold Conf. with Hart ch 8. divis 2. allegeth Canus as in general excepting against the reports of miracles even by grave ancient learned holy Fathers loc Theol. l. 11. c. 6. and particularly against Gregories Dialogues and Bedes history and the very Portesse as having uncertain forged false and frivolous things in them about Francis and Dominick and he shews that Pope Gelasius and a council of seventy Bishops with him condemned many false stories which were rehearsed in the Roman Portesses if Espencaeus Comment in 2. Epist ad Tim. c. 4. digress 21. be to be believed The two pretended miracles which this Author hath chosen for instance have nothing like divine miracles or truth The miracles of Christ and his Apostles were such as were done openly in the sight of all so as they could not be denied but even adversaries confessed them these were things only in private so as that there might be some device used to delude the sight or might be fancied to be so by some doating persons or might be by the illusion of Satan which is not improbable to have been used in them there being great cause to conceive that in those dayes of darknesse by seeming wonders apparitions visions prophecies Satan promoted the worship of Saints especially of the Virgin Mary the opinion of purgatory prayer for the dead worship of reliques by which Idolatry and superstition grew among Christians about and after the time of the second Nicenâ— Synod Nor is there any likelihood that the wounds of Francis should appear fifteen dayes afore death in which time he was likely covered and not after his death in which his body being naked they might have been more visible were not the time afore death more convenient for the imposture And the like may be said of the other tale What likelihood is there that a man should venture his life to steale two pieces of bread or little water cakes or that a Jew should buy one or do such an act before witnesses which would bring so much evil on him the thing seems more likely to have been a devised tale to pick a quarrel with the Jews as it was in those dayes usual for a pretence to get their goods as it had been done to the Templars Sure there was no justice to burn thirty eight for the fact of one much lesse to banish all Jews thence And why was nothing done to Paul Form either it was therefore a meeâ— fiction like one of those in Sir John Mandevils travailes or else a device to stiâ— up rage against the Jews that they might prey on their goods 6. Were it yeilded as it is not that there was truth in these relations yet the most that can be collected is that God would vindicate Francis from some ill opinions or reports of him not that he might be extolled as Horatius Turselin in his blasphemous Epigram did as if he were comparable with Christ or that either the Popes supremacy or the order of Friers or the verity of the doctrine of the Roman Church then much lesse the truth of the present Roman Church should be confirmed Nor if the other accident were true doth it follow that God would thereby confirm the opinion of transubstantiation but the verity of Christs being the Son of God and we may more justly answer concerning iâ— then Bellarmin doth concerning the miracle of the Novatian Bishop that it was done not to confirm the Novatian faith but Catholick baptism so the other was done not to confirm the Popish opinion of transubstantiation but the Christian doctrine of the man Christ his being the Son of God H. T. adds notwithstanding this confession of adversaries I will also all some Fathers of whose relations of miracles it is not worth while to consider whether they were true or not there being not one of them that proves this point that the Church which wants miracles is not the true Church or that the present Roman doctrine or Church are the true doctrine or Church That which Cyprian and Optatus relate if true did only vindicate the Lords Supper from contempt that of Gregory Thaumaturgus whether it were so or onely a report of which good men were sometimes too credulous it proves not the truth of the Roman Church but rather if any of the Greek Church which owned not the Popes supremacy nor their doctrines in that age Much less is that which he brings out of Chrysostom concerning the reliques of Babylas for his purpose sith it is expresly said to have proved against infidels that Christ was the Son of God and the Idols of the Gentiles were vain things which no more proves the truth of the Roman then of the Protestant Churches nor so much as of the Greek Churches who hold the same That of Ambrose concerning his brother Satyrus proves not transubstantiation but rather the contrary sith Satyrus adored not the Eucharist when he kept it and that he did keep him from drowning was but a conjecture nor is it proved that God by that accident approved his superstition though he might reward his faith and love of which that was a sign What Augustin l. 22. de civit Dei c. 8. writes of things done in his time are not undoubted sith some of them are related upon the report of one or more not very judicious who might enlarge things beyond truth espâ—cially when the custome was of reading the relations to the people and they were pressed in conscience to divulge them as there Augustin saith was done by him and it seemed so much for advantage of Christian Religion some of them might be by medicines working beyond expectation though attributed as the fashion is to that which was last
used some of them perhaps fell out according to the course of such diseases as are said to be cured that of the healing of two Cappadocians hath too much suspicion of counterfeiting and Augustin himself though he relates somethings of his own knowledge yet makes none of them like the miracles of Christ and his Apostles which were more frequent and open and manifest in the presence of the adversaries as the raising of Lazarus and many more were and therefore he allegeth them for the stopping of their mouths who called for miracles rather then for any evident proof of religion using this very preface in the beginning of the Chapter Why say they are not those miracles now done which ye say have been done I may say indeed they were necessary before the world should believe for this that the world might believe Whosoever as yet seeks after prodigies that he may believe is himself a great prodigy who the world believing believes not But whatever be to be thought of the relations of Augustin in that place certain it is that Augustin ch 9 10. useth them not to give testimony to the confirmation either of the truth of the Roman Church or any of their doctrines nor for the worshipping of Stephen the Martyr or any other of the Saints but only to prove the resurrection of Christ to which they in their death gave testimony and therefore are all impertinent to the purpose of H. T. to prove the verity of the Roman Church by them SECT VIII The objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman Church from the power of miracles are not solved by H. T. But H. T. takes on him to answer objections thus Ob. Miracles have ceased ever since Christ and his Apostles Answ You contradict the plain promises of Christ made to his Church without limitation as also the histories and records of all Christendom I Reply 1. The objection is not as H. T. frameth it but that so frequent and manifest working of miracles as was in the days of Christ and his Apostles and which may be a note of the true Church or doctrine without consonancy to the Scripture hath ceased and therefore by this mark of it self the Roman Church is not proved to be the true Church 2. The contradictory to this is not proved by Christs promises or the Churches records For 1. The Promises John 14. 10. Mark 16. 17. are indefinite in respect of persons and time and an indefinite proposition is true in a contingent matter if verified but of some at some times and therefore these promises may be true of some believers onely and of the time wherein the Apostles lived and consequently by the promises it cannot be proved that there must be a power of working miracles in the Church in every age 2. That they cannot be understood of any age after the Apostles unto this day is manifest because they are not true of any age after that For however some miracles have been done yet not greater then Christ did which is promised John 14. 10. nor was the speaking with new tongues which is promised Mark 16. 17. in any age but that in which the Apostles lived 3. These promises are as much made to believers in other Churches as the Roman but now they grant there 's no power of Miracles in any other Church and therefore they must yield to understand the words with such a limitation as may make the Proposition true though there be no power of Miracles in the Roman Church 4. There 's no promise of the power of Miracles to confirm the truth of the Roman Church nor of any other point but the Christian faith and therefore none of the Miracles done by virtue of those promises prove the truth of the now Roman Church or Doctrine but onely the true faith which is believed by Protestants who believe the Creed as well as Papists As for the Records there are very few of them of any certainty after the Apostles days and Popish Writers themselves do confess that not onely in their Legends but also in their Liturgies fabulous things have crept so that by saying Miracles are altogether now ceased or else are very rare and are unfit to demonstrate the verity of any present Church is no contradicting Christ's promises or any good Records of Christendom H. T. adds Object Signs and Miracles were given to Unbelievers not to Believers therefore they are now unnecessary Answ No they are not for they very much confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his Church they excellently demonstrate his omnipotence and there be many disbelievers still the more is the pity I reply that Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not is the Apostles saying 1 Cor. 14. 22. not for them that believe and there is the same reason of other Miracles and therefore is this justly urged by Protestants that to believers to prove the truth of Christian Doctrine or of the Christian Church Miracles are unnecessary Now the Answer of H. T. is quite from the point when he tells us that they are necessary for other ends And yet it is not true that Signs and Miracles are necessary to confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his Church sith God doth by his ordinary provision either of Teachers or Christian Princes shew his immediate care and providence over his Church and by his daily works of the motion of the Sun and other acts of governing the World demonstrates his omnipotence nor by his Miracles and Signs hath he shewed so much his immediate care and providence over his Church for the guiding and protecting of them as his care of unbelievers by bringing them into his Church And it is true that there are many dis-believers still the more 's the pity and if God did see it good it would be a blessed hing if he did vouchsafe the gift of doing Miracles to convert the Indians Moors Tartars to the faith of Christ and we wish it were true which the Jesuits boast of Francis Xavier his Miracles in the East Indies though Franciscus a victoria relect 5. Sect. 2. and Josephus Acosta lib. 4. de Indorum salute cap. 4. 12 Blab out that which gives us cause to think that the Relations are but feigned things tending to magnifie the Pope and the Jesuits there being no such evidence of those things from any persons of credit who have traded or travelled into those parts But be they what they will it is certain God never intended Miracles to prove the Popes Supremacy or the verity of the Roman Church but the Christian faith and therefore till both or either of them be proved from Scripture if we be disbelievers we must be disbelievers still knowing this that if there should be never so great Miracles in shew done by Popes or Friers yet we are bound not to believe them without proof of their Doctrine from Scripture and that if any though an Angel from
Nor can indeed in any true sense the Pope of Rome be termed Peter's Successour For if he be his Successour he is Successour in his Work or in his Power The Work of the Apostle Peter was by preaching the Gospel to found Churches to Christ and to that end was to go to several places but the Pope of Rome succeeds not in this he neither goes up and down unless in a pompous Procession or to a worse end nor preacheth the Gospel nor founds any Churches thereby nor doth think it his business but to stay at Rome and there to live in pomp and wealth and luxury and to lord it tyrannously over the Flock of God Nor is he Successour in his power Peter had power to give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. to strike Ananias and Sapphira dead Acts 5. But the Pope cannot do these things Nor in the Government of the whole Church For this Peter onely had not nor above other Apostles but together with the rest Nor was Peter's or the Apostles power any such visible Monarchy as the Pope claims to receive Appeals from all Churches to appoint Legates to hear parties in all controversies of faith to be an infallible Judge of such controversies an infallible Expounder of the Scriptures determining what is Heresie and what of Faith calling general Councils crowning Emperours deposing Princes dispensing with Oaths Marriages of persons in near degrees otherwise prohibited impose Laws about Fasting and many other things which God never appointed Such an Headship of the whole Church as the Pope claims Peter never had Nor is any such thing proved or so much as offer'd to be proved by H. T. his Catalogue which how insufficient it is hath been alread shewed I go on to his Arguments here SECT II. From being the Foundation Matth 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 15 16 17. neither Peter's nor Popes Supremacy is proved The first Argument saith H. T. is this The foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep But St. Peter next after Christ himself was the Foundation of the whole Church and Pastour of the whole Flock therefore St. Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church and was Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep of which number were the rest of the Apostles Answ THe Headship and pastoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onely by teaching but a princely dominion so as that all may appeal to him none from him his sentence must be obeyed by all under pain of damnation in matters of faith and must be judged infallible and 't is likely he holds with Bellarmine lib. 4. de Rom. pont cap. 5. that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices or forbidding virtues the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil unless it would sin against conscience and if he dissent herein from Bellarmine yet in the Canon Law distinct 40. such an absolute dominion is given him that though he should draw innumerable souls with him to Hell no man must say to him Why dost thou so and some Flatterers of the Pope have given him all power in Heaven and Earth yea and more than Christ had in Purgatory also allowing no Appeal from the Pope to God as having one Consistory with God calling him our Lord God the Pope nor did I ever read or hear that any Pope hath by any Censure corrected such blasphemous Titles but they have by their commands contrary to Gods dispensing with his Laws deposing Emperours and innumerable other practises shewed that they owned such power as theirs Now sure this power was never given to Peter nor any such like power under the term of a Foundation which is for the ruine not for the establishing of the Church nor under the charge of feeding especially of anothers Sheep of whom he is no Owner or Lord. Is this to feed Christ's Sheep to do what he will with them appoint what Penance he will put what Laws he please on the Sheep to excommunicate deprive of Civil and Ecclesiastical Dignity and Office at pleasure such a Supremacy is indeed so like that which Paul foretold concerning the man of sin 2 Thess 2. 4. that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God that till I meet with some more likely than the Popes to be there meant I shall take it be a part of my Creed that the Pope of Rome is the very Man of sin there meant And for this H. T. who gives such a supreme Headship to Peter and the Pope over the other Apostles so as to make him a Shepherd to rule excommunicate deprive John James Paul as his Sheep it is so monstrously false an Assertion as none but he that hath sold himself to teach Lyes would ever assert it As for his Syllogism it is most grosly naught as having four terms at least The term hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it being different from this in the Conclusion had a preheminence over the whole Church and so likewise are these the Foundation and the Foundation of the whole Church and therefore the Major should have been the Foundation of the whole Church hath a preheminence over the whole Church the Minor thus Peter next after Christ is the Foundation of the whole Church and the Conclusion thus Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church or else thus The Foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church But Peter next after Christ is the Foundation therefore Peter had a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church now neither of these Conclusions had been the point to be proved but might have been granted and the Assertion not gained And in the other Metaphor the Syllogism hath the same fault For in the Major it is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep in the Minor it is Pastour of the whole Flock and in the Conclusion not Head of his Flock and above his Sheep but Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep and there is added too this tail of which there is no offer of proof of which number were the rest of the Apostles Now to discover besides the fallacy in the form the deceit in the matter of this Argument it is to be considered 1. That the Metaphor of a Foundation doth not at all import Rule or Government but inchoation and support and therefore is unfit to prove that Rule and Power of Government which H. T. derives from it 2. That he that is a Shepherd is Head or Lord
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it
Minister which shews the meaning to be this If any affect to be as the elder greater or superiour to the rest be so far from ascribing or yielding to him such precedency greatness or superiority that my will is that you should account of him as the younger Servant and Minister to the rest and so it shall be ye shall be all equal none above another This is the very drift and purport of Christ's determination that there should be no superiority or inferiority among them but an equality and that which H. T. speaks of the mention of superiority and inferiority is meant of superiority that might be affected but not of any superiority allowed by Christ it being plainly forbidden And for what Bellarmine urgeth from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Christ had appointed one Ruler or Prince in the College of the Apostles though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Leader is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Ruler yet if it did note Princedom it is manifested that Christ speaks of a Prince among them not by due constitution but by inordinate usurpation and therefore to infer from thence as if Christ would have one superiour over the rest when he determines there should be equality is the act of a man that is resolved to be lustily impudent By this whole discourse the Objection is fully vindicated against the shifts of H. T. and other Romanists and stands thus That Supremacy is not to be yielded to have been granted to Peter which Christ forbade to every one of the Apostles But to be a supreme Ruler over the rest Christ forbad to every one of the Apostles therefore Christ forbad Peter to be a supreme Ruler over the rest of the Apostles I yet add that were it granted that Christ did onely forbid spiritual Superiours to lord it over Inferiours this very grant would prove the Papal Supremacy which Popes claim and exercise to be certainly forbidden For if ever there were a Superiour that did lord it over Inferiours the Pope is such a one yea I may aver and easily prove it that let all the tyranny and lording which any Tyrants or Princes have exercised from the beginning of the World to this day be considered they will be found incomparable to the Papal tyranny and lording over the Church of God If this be not the highest lording to impose on mens consciences such Laws as Christ never imposed to enjoyn the holy as they term it inquisition with rigour to excommunicate deprive burn men and women old and young who yield not to the Popes Laws though contrary to Christ's to take on him to dispense with Gods Laws to challenge the defining of all controversies supremacy over all Councils power to depose and destroy Emperours and Kings if they acknowledge not his immense power yea if they be not his Butchers to kill their best and most peaceable Subjects if he once term them Hereticks to interdict a whole State for limiting by Law Donations to Ecclesiasticks and imprisoning notorious malefactours who were Ecclesiasticks the use of divine service to subject a King to whipping on the Bare for the death of an Ecclesiastick not by him killed to depose Emperours for investing Bishops to canonize Saints whom he will to be invocated even such an one whose holiness was disobedience to his lawfull Prince and to have a Feast proper to him besides innumerable other acts done against the Laws of God and Man I do utterly despair ever to know what it is to lord or tyrannize over others Surely it is easier to praise Busiris or to justifie Dionysius of Syracuse or Nero of Rome and to acquit them from lording than the Bishop of Rome for many hundreds years last past if we stand to the Relations of Writers of their own Church who speak too favourably of them H. T. proceeds Object Christ is the foundation of the church and other foundation can no man lay 1 Cor. 3. 11. Answ Other principal foundation can no man lay I grant other subordinate I deny for that he himself hath laid Peter thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my church St. Matth. 16. 18. and the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all although not equally Ephes 2. 20. I reply when it is said Christ is the Foundation of the Church and other Foundation can no man lay it is meant of a principal Foundation not excluding a subordinate But sith the term Foundation as hath been proved before in this Article Sect. 2 3. as applied to the Apostles doth not note settling or upholding by rule or dominion but by teaching the Papists who ascribe to the Pope such a Supremacy and Infallibility in teaching as is proper to Christ do lay another principal Foundation besides Jesus Christ not subordinate but coordinate to him Which that they do is proved by two things which are ascribed by them to the Pope either by himself or with his Council 1. That they can alter the plain express precepts of Christ as namely in determining that it is not necessary that other faithfull people besides the sacrificing Priest should drink the Wine in the Eucharist though the precept of Christ is as express for all the faithfull drinking of it as it is for their eating of the Bread and that it is not lawfull for a Priest to marry though the Scripture expresly saith Marriage is honourable in all men Heb. 13. 4. 2. In enjoyning under pain of Heresie Excommunication and Damnation things to be believed and practised which Christ never enjoyned to be believed or practised as namely Transubstantiation the unbloody Propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called in the Mass Purgatory Fire confession of all a persons known sins into the ears of a Priest the keeping of the Vow of a Monastick profession when the person cannot contain and to live an idle begging life when the person is able to work and hath no other imployment nor pretends to any which is usefull to men besides praying which is the common duty of all Christians Now surely he that takes on him to alter Christ's commands and to put his own in stead thereof doth make himself the principal Foundation equal to Christ which is contrary to Paul 1 Cor. 3. 11. and to Christ Matth. 23. 8 11. and so makes himself a Foundation co-ordinate as indeed more than Christ however he pretend himself the Vicar of Christ or the authority of the Church for his Warrant As for that which is said of Peter here it was answered before Sect. 2 3. that it doth not import any Rule or Dominion but some peculiar success in his preaching besides what others had which was but a personal preheminence derivable to no Successour much less to the rank of Roman Bishops in these last Ages who never build the Church by preaching but pull down Princes and oppress those that would build up Christ's Church Yet it is observable
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
not to do so still why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy c. and tells us here pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy and consequently the Popes without the Scripture and therefore allege it yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith and so make void their own proof and the very Rule of Faith which they would fain establish SECT II. Unwritten Traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles But let us view what he adds A second Argument is That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of these things But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and by no other means Therefore Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith The Major is manifest because in the Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith The Minor is proved because a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether infallible since sensible evidence in a world of Witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars and such a report such an evidence is Apostolical Tradition for all the Doctrinos Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible Answ THe Popish Tenet is that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith that so what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome being Bishop there Purgatory-fire Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host mixing Water with Wine in the Eucharist and many more which Popes and Popish Councils obtrude on the Church of God as Apostolical Traditions may be received as Objects of Faith But here H. T. concludes Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith and proves it of no other Apostolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apostles which I might grant and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpose sith Apostolical Tradition may be the true Rule of Faith and yet not Apostolical Tradition unwritten much less that which Popes and Councils call Apostolical Tradition which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church and this Apostolical Tradition infallible that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whose names they bear and that the things in them related are certain and yet other Traditions of other things not so But to his Argument I say the Major is not true nor is it proved by his reason which in form is this That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith The Conclusion which followeth from these premises is not his Major that is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things nor the Conclusion set down therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith for these terms that by which we may be assured of the Doctrines or Books the infallible means of knowing them are not the same with the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith and therefore the Major is not proved but indeed the very Protestant Doctrine which he gainsays is proved unawares thus That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are the true Rule of Faith Which proves directly what H. T. denies that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith and shews that he mistook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith between which there is manifest difference the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient principal or instrumental by which a person comes to believe the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe the same means may be the means of believing contrary things Caiaphas and Balaam may prophesie right things of Israel and be a means of expectation of the Messiab and yet also be a means of laying a stumbling-block to overthrow them A messenger that brings a grant wherein a Prince grants a thing is the means of belief and so is the Seal but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant Thomas his seeing and feeling were the means of his believing Christ's Resurrection but the Rule was Christ's words 2. I deny his Minor For though I grant such a full report as he speaks of is infallible nor do I deny that there is such a a report or such an evidence for all the Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote yet I say 1. That this is not the Apostolical Tradition which Papists assert for with them any thing used in their Church a long time and approved by a Pope or a Council confirmed by him is an Apostolical Tradition though it have not such report or evidence 2. That there are other means by which we may be assured what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote besides this full report as 1. The inward testimony of the holy Spirit 2. The innate characters of the Doctrine and Books themselves foretelling things to come opening the Mysteries of God advancing Gods glory enlightning and converting the soul with many more which shew whos 's the Doctrine and Books were Yet by the way I observe 1. That notwithstanding he makes here such an Infallibility in the report and evidence of sense yet pag. 205. he denies evidence of sense infallible in the Sacrament and thereby overthrows his Position here 2. From his words here I argue against his opinion of Transubstantiation thus A full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether
infallible since sensible evidence in a world of ey-witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars But there are worlds of ey-witnesses and hand-witnesses and tongue-witnesses and nose-witnesses and ear-witnesses of fathers and sons who all unanimously concurring discern and say of what they have seen felt heard tasted smelled that there is no flesh nor blood but Bread and Wine in the consecrated Host therefore the report that there is no flesh and blood but Bread and Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration or consecrated Host and consequently no Transubstantiation is altogether infallible So inconsistent are this Authours sayings in one place with that he saith in another as indeed Popish Doctrine being a Lie must of necessity be self-repugnant SECT III. The obligation of the Church not to deliver any thing as a point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. proceeds thus A third Argument If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they had received from them as such then is was impossible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second Age but what they had received from them as such and so from Age to Age to this time But Christ and his Apostles did give to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they received from them as such Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first Age should deliver any thing to the Church of the second Age for Faith but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles or consequently that they should erre in Faith The Major is proved because to make her deliver more for Faith than she had received in this supposition the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in matters of Salvation and Damnation which is impossible in a world of ear and ey-witnesses as hath been shewed or else the whole Church must have so far broken with Reason which is the very nature of man as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn her self and posterity by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith which in her own conscience she knew she had not received and this is more impossible than the former even as impossible as for men not to be men as shall be shewed in the next Argument The Minor is proved by these positive Texts of Scripture Therefore brethren stand ye fast and hold the Traditions which ye have learned whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thess 2. 15. Those things which ye have been taught and heard and seen in me these do ye Phil. 4. So we have preached and so ye have believed 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses the same commend thou to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received let him be Anathema Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you besides that which we have preached to you be he Anathema Gal. 1. 8. Answ 1. THe Conclusion were it granted is not the Position to be proved that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical oral Tradition not Books nor is it included in it sith some in the Church although not the whole Church of the first Age might deliver to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son that for Faith which was not received from Christ or his Apostles and it be after received as from the Apostles as is manifest in the reports of keeping Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon of the Millenary opinion as from John and in points of Faith the whole Church might mistake or forget not deliver all truth yea might erre and so not be fit to be a Rule of Faith 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the first Age to the second were a Rule of Faith yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith unless they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the first Age to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son without alteration which they cannot prove Nevertheless sith this Argument tends to the asserting of an Infallibility in the Church of the first Age distinctly taken from the Apostles and their Writings I grant the Minor and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it though some of them yield a good Argument against unwritten Tradition But I deny the Major as being contrary to experience both in the Jewish Church to whom it was forbidden to add to or diminish from Gods commands Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Christian Church as is most evident in the Traditions of the Chiliasts about Easter and sundry other things And though the whole Church of the first Age did not deliver points of Faith to the second Age yet in the second and after-ages corruptions did come in which were taken for universal Traditions as in giving Infants the Eucharist which Augustine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apostolical Tradition though the Trent Council condemn it And many things there are now taken for Apostolical Traditions as Worship of Images praying to Saints not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants which yet are manifestly repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine As for the proof of H. T. I say 1. The eye and ear-witnesses of all the points of Faith are not a whole World 2. Errours may be traduced as from the whole Church of the first Age and from the Apostles which were not from them 3. The Church delivers not Doctrines but the Teachers in them whereof many sometimes are Hypocrites sometimes weak in understanding all of them being men are liable to mistakes passion forgetfulness inadvertency and those that are not sincere may against their conscience deliver errours Sure if Polycarpus an Auditour of John the Evangelist and Anicetus Bishop of Rome in the second Age Polycrates and Pope Victor in the same Age Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in the next contradicted each other about Traditions no marvel later and inferiour Teachers such as Papias a credulous man and others mistook about them and the after Churches follow them in their mistakes 4. The Churches were in the Apostles days easily drawn away from the Doctrine which Paul had evidently taught them by hearkening to Seducers as the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. though the
Scripture or many Protestant ones are not and thus I frame my discourse All Protestant Tenets say you are sufficiently contained in Scripture but many Catholick Doctrines say I denied by Protestants are as evident in Scripture as divers Protestant Tenets therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture He that has hardiness enough to deny this Conclusion let him compare the Texts that recommend the Churches authority in deciding controversies and expounding Articles of Faith with these that support the Protestant private spirit or particular judgement of discretion let him compare the places that favour priestly Absolution with those on which they ground their necessity not to stand upon the lawfulness of Infant-baptism let him compare the passages of the Bible for the real presence of our Saviours body in the Eucharist for the primacy of St. Peter for the authority of Apostolical Traditions though unwritten with what ever he can cite to prove the three distinct persons in the blessed Trinity the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father the procession of the holy Ghost from both the obligation of the Sunday in stead of the Sabbath so expresly commanded in the Moral Law and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleases I shall offer him onely this request either to admit the Argument or teach me to answer it Answ H. T. sure hath a singular eyesight which sees such an evidence in this Argument as that he sees nothing more evident What is not this more evident that the whole is bigger than a part that God made the World that the Word was made Flesh Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonstration specially when what the man holds at one time upon second and better thoughts he relinquisheth nor is an argument ad hominem fit to establish any truth but somewhat to lessen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconsistencies and therefore the cause is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith or that Popish Doctrine is grounded on Scripture because some Protestant tenets have no better proof thence than some Popish tenets denied to be contained in the Scripture But that I may gratifie H. T. as much as in me lieth in his request I tell him The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know nor if I would examine the form of it do I doubt but that I should finde four terms in it at least and then H. T. it is likely knows his Syâ—logism is naught Nor do I know how to form it better unless it be formed dis-junctively but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him To it as I finde it I say that if he mean that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scripture who ever he be that saith so yet I dare not say so But this I think that all or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship which are controverted between them are sufficiently contained in the Scripture and all of them ought to be or else they may be rejected And for his Minor I deny it if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith which are held by all or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions excepting some about Discipline Ceremonies and Sacraments And for his instances to the first I say I am willing any Reader who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controversies or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is propounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope general Council or Prelates who are never called the Church in Scripture And for the second I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet that Infant-baptism is necessary and for the lawfulness I grant there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it that is none at all for either And for the third there are Protestants that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist as the Lutherans and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver but not bodily but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self as Scotus long ago resolved And for the Primacy of St. Peter it hath been told this Authour that a Primacy of order of zeal and some other endowments is yielded by Protestants but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied and it is proved before Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture And for the authority of Apostolical traditions though unwritten if there were any such truly so called I should not deny it but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us he hath not proved in this Article nor brought one Text for it but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians Arians Socinians as to yield that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons the Sons consubstantiality the Spirits procession more evident than this is my Body for Transubstantiation Thou art Peter for the Popes Supremacy and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods nature and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture As for Sunday being in stead of the Sabbath he should me thinks allow somewhat in Scripture for it Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Revel 1. 10. more evident than for his real presence Peter's Supremacy unwritten Traditions But I see prejudice doth much to sway men and make them see what others cannot The Crow thinks her own Bird fairest Yet again saith H. T. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be applied to the negative as well as positive Doctrines on either side All Catholick points denied by Protestants are sufficiently say you condemned in Scripture But many points imbraced by Protestants are as clearly say I condemned in Scripture as divers they deny in opposition to Catholicks therefore many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture Where does the Bible so plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead as this darling Errour and fundamental Principle of Protestancy that any one
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by
necessity of Infant baptism or for changing the Saturday into Sunday c. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known by the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular as Protestants will acknowledge if they be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church Nor is it sufficient we believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it I speak of the whole Church which she can never do without the Rule of Apostolical Tradition in any of the Points forementioned I Reply unless the man had a minde to plead for Arians Photinians Macedorians and Socinians I know not why he should so often make the Doctrines of three distinct Persons in one divine nature the Sons consubstantiality to the Father the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both and his Godhead as Apostolical unwritten Tradition Sure this is the way to bring into question these Doctrines which if they be not in Scripture will never be believed by intelligent Christians for the Pope and Council of Trent's sayings whose proceedings never tended to clear truth but to juggle with the World This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth because they condemned the Doctrines of Protestants unheard nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themselves in any impartial assembly till which be done no man can construe the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practises to suppress truth And for their juggling they were so notorious that many Papists themselves have observed them as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent especially about the divine right of Bishops of the Laity having the Cup Priests Marriages in which Papists themselves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome As for this mans denying the Antecedent it seems to me to savour of such an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheism For sure he is not to be termed a provident and just God who declaring his minde in the Scripture and promising life to them that observe his Word and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey yet doth not set down all necessary points therein to be believed and obeyed unto life Yea doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himself who saith pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith And for the Consequence if it be not good The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever and that explicitly and plainly therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith neither is his own second argument good for Tradition pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith in both the Consequence being the same As for his Instances I say If the three Creeds and four first Councils be not in the Scripture they are not necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular though they be sufficiently proposed to us by the Church that is in their non-sense gibberish the Pope or a general Council approved by him require us to receive them Neither hath the Church as he terms it power to propose any thing as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular but what is contained in the Bible nor hath it such authority as that we are bound to believe them if it do propound them though never so sufficiently but are bound to reject them as contrary to the duty we ow to Christ of acknowledging him our onely Master much more reason have we to contend against them when they are propounded by the Popes of Rome who teach not the Doctrine of Christ but cruelly and proudly tyrannize over the souls and bodies of the Saints in a most Antichristian manner and impose on them as Apostolical traditions things contrary to Christ and his Apostles in the Bible Nor is it true that all Protestants will acknowledge all thsse Points he mentioneth as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular I grant it not sufficient for us to believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense but aver we can believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it without the Rule of Apostolical tradition unwritten in any of those points in which the Errour is as our Lord Christ was able by it to vanquish Satan for which reason it is termed the Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. And for Traditions or Popes Decrees they are but a Leaden Sword without Fire and Faggot yea there is so much vanity in them as makes them ridiculous and so unfit for refutation and were it not for the horrid butchery and cruelty which Princes drunken with the Wine of the Cup of the Fornication of the Whore of Babylon make of their best Subjects at the instigation of Popes and Popish Priests nothing would appear more contemptible than their decisions Yet more Object Doubtless for speculative Points of Christian Doctrine Books are a safer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition Answ You are mistaken Books are infinitely more liable to Casualties and Corruptions than Traditions as well by reason of the variety of Languages into which they are translated as the diversity of Translations scarce any two Editions agreeing but all pretending one to mend the other besides the multiplicity of Copies and Copists with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiously wrested or literally insisted on Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted those that were written by the Apostles own hands we have not or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other sense and meaning than what is convenient for his purpose insisting onely on the dead Letter All which dangers and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical tradition which bindes men under pain of Damnation to deliver nothing for Faith but what they have received as such by hand to hand from Age to Age and in the same sense in which they have received it Think me not foolish says St. Augustin for using these terms for I have so learned these things by Tradition neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them Lib. de utilit cred cap. 3. I reply A more impudently and palpably false Discourse than this is a man shall seldom meet with it being contrary to all experience and use among men and condemns all the customes of the most civil people of folly
themselves I reply were not this man bewitched or as the Prophet speaks Isai 44. 20. Fed on Ashes having a deceived heart that turneth him aside so as that he cannot say Is there not a Lie in my right hand he would never have preferred oral Tradition seconded by erecting and use of Images made by idolatrous Sots and termed Teachers of Lies by the Prophet Hab 2. 18. as a safer and more infallible Rule of Faith than the holy Scriptures inspired by God and his great gift to men though impiously termed by this Wretch dead Letters ' But it is the just judgement of God that they that make Images and adore them should be like them Psalm 115. 8. that is as blockish as the Images are How uncertain oral Tradition is hath been shewed and how impossible it is to be a true and right Rule since the departure of those who could preach infallibly That there is any such uniform and outward practise of the Roman Church which can second oral Tradition aud make any Point of Christian Doctrine much less the whole frame of necessary Points of Christian Doctrine in a manner visible and sensible is a Lie with a witness Christian Doctrine doth not consist in the History of the things sensible to the eye but in the opening of the true causes and ends and uses of things done which can onely be apprehended by the understanding and is brought to it by hearing and reading whence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10. 14 15 17. It is most false that the erecting of Images of Christ and of the Cross hath been the uniform practise of the Church It is certain by many Writers that Christians had no Images in their Churches for many hundred years yea it is certain that the best Emperours and Bishops of the East and West were against the having them in Churches however Gregory the first Bishop of Rome by his superstitious opposing Serenus his taking them down counting them Lay-men's Books opened a Gap to that Deluge of Ignorance and Idolatry which hath since spread over the Western Churches which have gone a whoring after them This Authour calls them holy Image which the Scripture counts abominable as defiling places and making them not sacred but polluted He saith The Incarnation and all the Mysteries thereof are made sensible by the Images of Christ erected in all sacred places the passion by the sign of the Cross used in Sacraments and set up in Churches But what a notorious falshood is this One Mystery sure is the Holy Ghost's overshadowing the Virgin Mary another the Union of the two Natures Can any Image of Christ teach these What can the sign of the Cross teach but that there was such a kinde of punishment to put men to Death If Images did teach these Mysteries then Image-makers would be Stewards of the Mysteries of God and Successours of the Apostles and Michael Angelo and such like Painters and Carvers more truly Peter's Successours and Bishops of Rome than Popes as doing more to teach the Mysteries of God than Popes do The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is a meer figment of a thing present which all the sense of all the men in the World contradicts full of apish gestures and toyish fashions fitter for a Stage-play than a spiritual Service of the Christian Church and being in a Tongue not commonly understood without teaching informs not the Hearers or Seers in the Mystery of the Death of Christ nor makes any lively Commemoration of his Passion but pleaseth superstitious and womanish or childish spirits which are taken with such shews the Sacrament opens no Mystery thereof without the Word written Accedat Verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum was the old resolution Put the Word to the Element then it is made a Sacrament Nor is it true that the practice hath been uniform therein the variety of Missals and the corruptions purged out of the Roman Missal as is confessed in Pope Pius the fifth his Bull according to the Decree of the Trent Council prove the contrary The Trinity is known by the institution and practise of Baptism but that is learned out of the written Word not oral Tradition None of these practises do at all open the Mystery of the Gospel as experience shews it being manifest by conference that none of the People in Italy and elsewhere who go to Mass and look on Pictures and have no other teaching do understand any thing of the Mystery of the Gospel the end reason use of Christ's Birth or Death but content themselves with a meer theatrical shew without any true understanding of the grace of God inward feeling or effectual change in their souls thereupon Perhaps it is better with Papists in England where their Superstitions are not altogether so gross and their understanding bettered by neighbourhood and converse with Protestants But that Images should conserve revealed verities or oral Tradition seconded with Images more explicate them than Books which this man again impiously terms dead Letters unless the Images be animated as that was that it's said told Thomas Aquinas Thou hast written well of me which was fit to be silenced by telling it that it had no allowance to speak in the Church is to me unintelligible And if these be such a safe and infallible Rule or means to teach and conserve the whole frame of Christian Doctrine then sure Christ did inconsiderately appoint Writers and Preachers to teach and guide the Church till we all meet in the unity of the Faith Ephes 4. 11 12 13. he should rather for the times after the Apostles have appointed Massing Priests and Painters to have taught the People nor were the Council of Trent and some of the Popes so advised as they might have been in appointing the unnecessary businesses of framing a Catechism and amending the vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible and much more foolish have been all the learned Papists who have in late years and formerly made large Commentaries and other Treatises to conserve revealed verities there being a more compendious way by oral Traditions with the use of Images and Masses and some other things if this impudent Scribler say true Yet H. T. continues thus Object If all things necessary to salvation be not contained in the whole Bible now shall a man ever come to know what is necessary to be known either by the whole Church in general or himself in particular Answ For the whole Church in general she is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde she being made by Christ the Depository of all and having the Promise of divine assistance to all And for each particular man so much onely it necessary to be believed as is sufficiently proposed to him by the Church and her Ministers for the Word of God or would at the least be so proposed if he himself were not in fault
all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine I reply neither the Church nor her Ministers can sufficiently propose to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture by which we may have infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten And to say that the whole Church in general and not each man in particular is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde is to speak contradictions Yet once more saith H. T. Object You dance in a vicious Circle proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apostolical tradition and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility Answ No we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition but that is evident of it self and admits no other proof When we bring Scripture for either we use it onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem I reply if this be so then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstration of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration as being evident of it self and admits no other proof which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved it follows that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach but what Popes and their Councils define into which their Faith is ultimately resolved No marvel then they decline Scripture or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity not because they think it is to be rested on and if so sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith we should take it as a thing confessed that Popery is not Scripture doctrine but onely unwritten Tradition and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination and so to be imbraced upon his credit which sure can beget no other than a humane faith and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith which is all one as to make him their Christ and that is to make him an Antichrist Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle and herein they go divers ways Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith chap. 9. rejects the common way and sticks to that of universal Tradition which by natural reason is evident and firm But when he hath urged this as far as he can this must be the evidence that what all say and was so manifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true But the being of Christ the Mossiah and his Doctrine from God as the holy Scriptures declare is avouched by all the Church and manifestly known by Miracles therefore it must be true which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition confirming the truth of the Scriptures and deriving our Faith from thence which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions whether they be with Scripture or without they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope not Christians that is Disciples of Christ I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture but in men whether Popes or Councils or the universal Church or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition which is his Rule as being evident of it self and admits no other proof though I have shewed it to be uncertain yea not so much as probable I go on to the next Article ARTIC IX Schism and Heresie are ill charged on Protestants Protestants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church as now it is in their Worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by rejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this Subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks SECT I H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie and begins thus Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie we shall here briefly shew what they are and who are justly chargeable therewith Our Tenet is that not onely Heresie which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but also Schism which is a separation from her government is damnable and sacrilegious and that most Sectaries are guilty of both Answ I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour 's own sense as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church and owning the Pope or being the Pope himself is an Arian as Pope Liberius or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius And for his definition of Heresie it is in mine apprehension too obscure and imperfect For it neither shews what is the Catholick Church the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie nor what separation in heart or profession or other act nor when it is wilfull when not nor how it may be known to be wilfull Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets who acquit many from Heresie who wilfully separate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as they define it to wit that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope As for instance The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour but taken as granted though it may be justly questioned And for the use of the terms Heresie and Hereticks in the Ancients it is certain that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philastrius Epiphanius Augustin and also by other Writers elder and later and those opinions termed Heresies which were not so The like faults are in the definition of Schism in not setting down which is the Catholick Church what is her government what separation of heart or outward
It is false that the Roman Church falsly by H. T. called Catholick was in most quiet possession of her Tenets when Luther began his Separation in Germany Tyndal in England It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught in many if not all the points in which Protestants do now oppose it 7. It is false that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception about the Popes Supremacy above a Council and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed as the event shewed no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day but each when occasion is offered contending for their way 8. It is false that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great or that Protestants do confess it It is most certain to the contrary that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy the Worship of Images Transubstantiation half-Communion in the Eucharist and many other points were brought into the Roman Church as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley 's Apology to King James hath proved 9 It is also most false that their Doctrine and Government were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles The contrary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans by Bishop Robert Abbot against Dâ—ctor Bishop and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fathers 10. It is false which H. T. saith It is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as may be seen in the Councils The contrary is most manifest that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage in which Augustine was present opposed the Popes Supremacy as schismatical that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical besides many other as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth SECT III. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks BUt H. T. saith Fathers for this Point though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Protestants being guilty of Schism or Heresie or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages or that in no case there may be dividing from it or teaching contrary to it without Heresie or Schism yea it is certain that Irenaeus Cyprian and Austin thought the clean contrary Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him Cyprian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization Augustine opposing Popes Boniface Zozimus and Celestine about the Appeal of Apiarius But let 's view their Sayings The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church ambitious men who have not the honour of God before their eys but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so important as the evil of Schism is prejudicious lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put prejudicious for pernicious or his Authour whence he had it for it is in Irenaeus Quanta est Schismatis pernicies But it appears 1. That he hath either not read the place or not considered it because he puts in God will judge whereas it is manifest out of the words following But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth that is without the Church but he himself is judged of no man and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God and the Apostolical Doctrine chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters the love of God into the honour of God before their eys 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes which was most true of Victor then Bishop of Rome in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eusebius hist 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants who neither make nor continue Schisms and that Separation which they make they do it for very great causes And he saith No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes as is the mischief of the Schism they make but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation or correption which is Irenaeus his word is so necessary that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent I add the words of Irenaeus the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors and Churches as Schismaticks and Hereticks who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints humane Satisfactions inherent Justice justifying Merit of Condignity have departed from the Apostolical Faith and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture The words of Cyprian de unit Eccles in the third Age against the Novatians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism that it could not be purged by suffering for Christ nor they be Martyrs though they died for the Confession of his Name is too heavy a censure yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants who are not guilty of that Schism The words of Chrysostom hom 11. in Ephes shew how grievous an evil Schism is but prove not that they are all Schismaticks that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof or the Romanists free The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controversie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be
an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and yet no Separation from the whole And therefore this Position of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonstration that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Protestants have made cannot stand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Discipline Which sure he hath not yet proved nor is it likely he ever will but as the fashion of these Scriblers is sing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church and that Protestants are Hereticks and Sectaries with other Popish gibberish though the folly and frivolousness thereof hath been a thousand times demonstrated I have thus at last examined these nine Articles being moved thereto out of hope to do some souls good by recovering them out of the snare in which they are held by Satan and Romish Emissaries If they shut their eys against the light their judgement will be of themselves I shall add prayer for them that God would open their eys and if time health and other concurrences suit with my aims discover the vanity of the rest of H. T. his Manual In the mean time not as some Romanists blasphemously Praise be to the Virgin Mother in the end of their Writings but as Paul concluded his Epistle to the Romans so do I To God onely wise be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever Amen FINIS The Contents ARTICLE I. THe Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession Page 1 Sect. 1. Of the Title of H. T. his Manual in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed ibid. 2. Of the Epistles prefixed in which he ascribes too much to the Church and deceitfully begins with her Authority 3 3. His Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd 4 4. The Succession required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church 7 5. None of the Texts alleged by H. T. prove a necessity to the being of a true Church of such Succession as he imagines 10 6. The Succession pretended in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary 11 7. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years 13 8. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries of years 18 9. The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Centuries is shewed 21 10. The defect of his Catalogue in the eleventh and twelfth Ages is shewed 25 11. The defect of his Catalogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth Ages is shewed 28 12. The defect of his Catalogue in the fifteenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed 32 13. The close of H. T. is retorted 36 14. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections 38 ARTICLE II. PRotestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God 42 Sect. 1. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists demand ibid. 2. The Argument of H. T. against Protestants doth as well prove the nullity of the Roman Church for want of Succession as of the Protestants 44 3. Protestants have had a Succession sufficient to aver their Doctrine 47 4. The Succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding the Exceptions of H. T. 51 5. The Doctrine of Romanists was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by learned Protestants 53 6. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostasie of the Roman Church is proved 56 ARTICLE III. SUch visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church 62 Sect. 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church and what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church ibid. 2. Neither Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5. 14. Psalm 18. 19 4. nor the words of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine prove such a Church visibility as H. T. asserts 65 3. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church as it is by H. T. asserted 66 ARTICLE IV. THe Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Christian Faith 69 1. 〈◊〉 in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the universality of the Church militant ibid. 2. The ambiguity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed 70 3. Unity of Discipline under one visible Head and of Faith without division in lesser Points is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Acts 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed necessary to the Churches being 71 4. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his Argument from the unity of the Church is better against than for the Roman Church 73 5. The Argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him for Protestants 77 6. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. John 14. 15 16. Luke 1. 33. for time Psalm 85. 86 9. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. Psalm 19. 4. for place agrees not to the now Roman Church but may be better said of the Protestants 78 7. The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem Augustine are not for the universality of H. T. by which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman Church but against it 80 8. It is non-sense or false to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered 81 ARTICLE V. THe Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to obey her under Pain of Damnation but all this is a meer impudent arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scriptures or Antiquity 85 Sect. 1. The decit of H. T. in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope is shewed ibid. 2. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick Churches Infallibility 87 3. Matth 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for the claim