Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God N. HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation we shall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds Our Belief is thus resolved we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True because the True God is the Author of it We discern that God is the Author of it both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it in that it beareth his image and superscription and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles and other effects which lead us to the cause The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures That these Books were written by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and were confirmed by Miracles and are uncorrupted in the main we are infallibly assured of by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man such as is the Pope of Rome or of any fallible society of men but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible containing in it besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us so that by this infallible history and universal Tradition we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth are the same that they pretend to be And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles and hath not their immediate inspirations we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way nor what surer other means such as we can expect who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses or have Christ or Apostles still among us or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations And lastly the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers as they must be in other things that we would learn and by the help of them without and of the spirit within we are able to understand the meaning of the words especially comparing text with text and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Resolved He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers and perhaps first believeth them fide humana that it is Gods Word He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apostles by Infallible Hystory or Universal Tradition He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Image of God which he findeth on it and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it He believeth it to be True because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost and so is the Word of God who is most True Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine See L. du Plessis of the Church cap. 4. Translat pag. 121.122 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol Can. p. 208.209 210. Disp 2. § 125 126. To this same sence Vid. Sibrand Lubbert Princip Christ Dogm li. 1. pag. 20 c. What the Resolution of the Romane faith is the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part for it cannot be laid down in one proposition because they are of so many minds themselves Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in That the Scripture is the word of God and part of the Rule of faith and duty but not the whole Rule nor the whole Word of God but that unwritten Traditions are the other part and the judgement of the present Church is Gods Word after a sort as they speak That the Scripture hath its Authority in it self from God the prime truth but quoad nos as to us it hath its Authority from the Church That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God or a Divine Revelation And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture as also to decide all controversies in Religion and to judge which is the true sence of Scripture and that this Church must be one only visible infallible authorized thus to judge by Christ and this is onely the Romane Church Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened they fall all to pieces For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a sort sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane 2. And what the formal object of faith is they are not all of a mind whether it be only the Prime Truth or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal But I confess this controversie is more verbal then real 3. And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church they are not agreed neither 4. Especially they are divided in the main viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge and into whose judgement their faith is resolved whether it be the present Church or the former Church Whether it be the Pope only at least in case of difference between him and his Council or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not as the French and Venetians say Yea whether it be the Clergy only or the Laity also that are this Church Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition as Holden White Vane and divers other Englishmen of late as if that were the same with the Romane Tradition or as if it were the point in controversie between us and them And ordinarily they use to tell us of All the Church and All the Christian world and to mouth it in such swelling words that the simple hearer would little think that by All the Church they meant but one man or at the
that They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sence of the greatest part of Scripture and so they are sworn to take it in no sence because the fathers are not unanimous 2. He that knows not the unanimous sence of the Fathers where they are unanimous is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sence 3. If by The Church whose sence they also swear to admit be meant the present Romane Church then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith yea which in this oath they swear to which are against much more without the unanimous consent of the Fathers The Fathers never consented to this very Article that we must take and interpret the Scripture onely in the unanimous sence of the Fathers They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sence of the Fathers and withal swear the contrary in particulars even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to but against Never did the Fathers consent that There are seven truely and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ Never did the Fathers consent who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before that the Council of Trent did not erre or could not erre Nor That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind and the Cup withheld nor That there is a Purgatory or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful nor that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to Nor that Images were to be worshiped nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church and the use of them wholsome Never did the Fathers consent that the Romane Church is the Mistris of all Churches or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christs Vicar Let these proud deceivers shew us if they can when the Fathers or any one of the Ancients did ever take any such oath himself or perswade others to it Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith and Trent oath What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed and withal swear to believe that Christ never dyed rose or ascended or that there is no resurrection or everlasting life Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction and the profession of it plain perjury then Popery is not a safe way to Salvation I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors formerly called Heresies which the ancient Church hath testified against and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned or insisted on as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby Satisfactions and many Semipelagian errors Image-worship with many the like But that this is beyond my present intended scope and purposed brevity and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines Let us next here what is said of most moment to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption is a safe way to Salvation For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles Therefore c. Ans 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question It is Popery that we are disputing of and this argument instead of Popery speaks of The Religion of the Church of Rome The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts First the Christian Faith Secondly their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which â—e profess The second is it that we call Popery and â—ay It is no safe way to salvation 2. And of this I deny the Minor and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in thâ— West And even the multitudes still dissented and some opposition was still made against it and all the Esterne Churches and the rest of the Christian world did dissent Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Vsher de contin successione slatu Eccles Occident and his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge and by Bishop Jewell and Doctor Field and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus which shew us that he setled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholike Church and taught the people to believe as the Church believes that is to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves it is then an easie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn then they may say The Fathers are for them and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter when there is never a true word in it Then they may frame and forge new Decretals and cut out of the Ancient Writers thâ— which is against them and bring forth spurious writings under their names and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther for its easie to prove any thing where themselves are the Judges and no witnesses but their own must be heard But if they dare leave that hold and come into the light its easie to evince the novelty of Popery though not of every particular error they hold Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church then Popery is a safe way to salvation
utmost him and his factious Clergy So also they are disagreed among themselves whether the Bishops in a General Council are Judges with the Pope or onely the Popes Counsellors Yea or what a General Council is Though they all agree that it is not necessary that it be out of all the Christian world much less the Bishops of all Churches but onely some of those that adhere to the Pope of Rome yet they agree not whether it must be freely elected by all the Bishops of the Romish faction or onely so many and of such Countries as the Pope shall choose and whether the major part of the Council must concur with the Pope or the Pope and the Minor part may not serve turn 5. So also they are exceedingly disagreed about the nature and extent or pretended infallibility of the Church of the Pope in judging Some say that the Church judgeth de mediis discursive sed de conclusione per doctrinam propheticam Divinam And so these men may affirm agreeably to this principle that the Popes Definitions are part of the holy Canonical Scripture as Melchior Canus affirmeth he heard a most excellent Divine confess and citeth Gratian and Innocent also as of the same mind And thus all the most wicked Popes are made Prophets and speak by inspiration of the Holy Ghost But others of them do deny this Though yet they know not how it is that the Pope is infallible without declaring themselves Enthusiasts Also though saith Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 2. all yield that the Pope may personally erre through Ignorance yet they are disagreed among themselves whether he may be a Hereticke Some say he may not and others that its most pious and probable to think he may not Others reject that as false and say he may And one would think it should have been out of question by long experience before this time And Bellarmine confesseth that three General Councils did believe that the Pope might be a Hereticke ubi sup c. 11. some say that when the Pope is consulted and giveth his judgement in matters of faith he cannot err though in matters of fact he may and that he is Infallible in his Courts and Councils though not as a private Doctor Others say that he cannot err when he intendeth to binde the whole Church to receive his sentence or when he teacheth the whole Church Others say that the Pope may err even defining in Council but not in errors manifest to the Church but onely in new or not manifest points Others come yet neerer the matter and tell us merrily that the Pope cannot so err in judgement about matter of Faith because when he first erreth thus he ceaseth to be Pope but this is a hard conclusion in the eyes of their brethren The like disagreements there are among them about the Infallibility of a General Council some will make it the proper seat of Infallibility and say that the Pope cannot err if he be guided by the Council else he may Others say that a Generall Council may err if it be not confirmed by the Pope yea though the Popes Legates did consent or if they do not follow the Popes instructions But that they cannot erre if they follow them or be confirmed by him So Bellarmine Canus and the late champions And if the Pope and Council differ as they have shrewdly done when Councils have deposed Popes for heresie and wickedness some say that we may more safely follow the Council then the Pope But others say the clean contrary and place the Infallibility in the Pope onely and make it his work to reclaim the Council Though they are thus all in pieces among themselves even about these their fundamentals yet is it the custome of their deceitful Writers to make the simple people believe that they are all agreed and to tell them that they have the Consent of the Universal Church and of all the Christian world and they have Universal Tradition c. that by the noise of these big words they may do that which they cannot do by argument Thus Doctor Vane their late proselite and divers others do in their writings overlooking all their own disagreements and passing on as confidently in their boasts of the Universal Consent as if they were either such Novices as understand not their own Religion or such hardened seducers as are not willing that others should understand it Here are in this our Question contained three of the greatest controversies between us and the Papists 1. Whether it belong to the Pope or Romane Church to be the Judge of Faith and Scriptures to all the world 2. Whether the Pope or his Clergy be inâ—llible in judging of matters of Faith 3. Whether our Faith must be resolved into this infallible judgement of theirs Our intent in this present Dispute is to deal most with the second yet so as it is connexed with the other two and therefore shall take them in on the by but say less to them distinctly and the rather because there is so much said already by our Divines as all the Papists on earth will never be able solidly to answer To let pass all those beyond Sea that have effectually confounded them we have Brittans enough to hold them perpetual work as Jewell Reignolds Whitaker White Field Vsher Camero Baronius Davenant Chillingworth to whom they have lately lost their cause by shewing in a vain and frivolous Reply how little they have to say against him with many more who will either remain unanswered or the answers will be worse to the adversaries cause then silence it self which we have sufficient ground already to foretell As to the first of these controversies to dispatch it in short as we distinguish between Judicium Descretionis Directionis Decisionis a Judgement of Discretion of Direction and of Decision so we knâ—w that it is onely the later that properly denominateth a Judge in the publike and ordinary sence Take our doctrine in these few Propositions 1. We say that every Christian hath a judgement of Discretion to know that the Christian Faith is true and Scripture is the word of God Or else he were no Christian or faith were not an act of judgement or Reason but a bruitish thing This therefore we confess the Pope either hath or ought to have 2. Every Pastor of the Church hath a judgement of direction that is it belongeth to him by office to be a Director of the people and to teach those the Christian Faith that yet receive it not and to confirm those in it that have received it And they ought to have abilities for the work of this office If therefore the Pope were a true Pastor Bishop or Preacher this power we should confess to be in him as in others 3. It belongeth to these Teachers also to be specially careful to preserve the sacred Scriptures from corruption and
other doth not The Text speaks but to the same person and not in one half to one and in the other half to others I may well argue therefore in this manner To whomsoever Christ here promiseth that his faith shall not fail to him onely doth he speak in this text But he promiseth onely to Peter here that his faith should not fail therefore it is onely Peter and not the Popes that he speaks of The Major is clear according to the intelligible sence of the words and Bellarmine hath not yet proved a mystical sence The Minor is confessed by himself Lastly Bellarmine saith de verbo dei li. 3. c. 3. that Onely out of the litteral sence of Scripture effectual arguments are to be fetched But this great argument of his for the Popes infallibility is not fetcht out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore by his own confession it is uneffectual and unjust The second Text which he cites to this use is Mat. 16. On this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it A double argument he would fetch from hence One from the Name Rocke the other from the nature of a Foundation which both imply firmeness Ans 1. Note that here is in the Text not one word of the Pope of the Church of Rome more then any other or of infallibility 2. How doth he prove that by the Rocke is not meant Peters Faith or that Doctrine which he confessed but Peter himself 3 If he had proved it are not all the Prophets and Apostles as well as Peter called the foundation Eph. 2.20 So that here is no more promised to him then what was elswhere promised and given to the rest Onely his present confession occasioned the promise to be made expresly and particular at that time to him 4. As the rest of the Apostles were the Foundation on which we are built and yet their successors are not so So though Peter were the Foundation it followeth not that all or any of his successors are so The third text which Bellarmine citeth is Joh. last Feed my Sheep Where note again 1. That here is not a word of the Pope or Rome or infallibility 2. Did not Christ bid the rest of the Apostles Feed as well as Peter Sure Mat. 28. He bid them all Go teach all Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatever he commanded them And what could Peter do more in Feeding Yea thirdly Are not all Pastors though inferior to Apostles bound to Feed the Sheep of Christ and yet it follows not thence that they are infallible 4. Bellarmine would next prove this from The High Priests wearing the Urim and Thummim Exod. 28. When he first confesseth that it is not agreed among Jews or Christians what these are And yet it will serve him for a proof 2. The Priests were not infallible for all their Urim and Thummim therefore no more is the Pope They judged Christ not to be the Messiah and therefore crucified him They lived and died Infidels and hardened the people in the same Infidelity for which they were broken off and unchurched 3. And whereas he argueth that the High Priest was infallible because the people were to go to him for resolution of difficulties and obey them Deut. 17. I must say that Bellarmine had some fault in his eyes that caused him to overlook the Judge and name onely the High Priest God sendeth them to the Judge who was the chief Magistrate in those dayes as well as to the High Priest as any man that will read the text may see If therefore the one of them be infallible because of this why is not the other so too But perhaps they will make the Pope to be the successor both of the Magistrate and Priest and so to be the universal Emperor as well as the universal Bishop and use both his swords that so this promise may belong onely to him For he will hardly grant every King or Judge to be infallible 4. By this rule the rest of the Priests also should be infallible For the people were also to receive the Law at their mouthes 5. When was there ever one Priest in any age so impudent at Bellarmine and his faction are to plead for or pretend an infallibility in themselves Let them name one Priest or person if they can that ever had such a conceit of themselves except it were Gods Prophets in the matters of their Prophecy 6. What if the Jews High Priest had been infallible What 's that to the Pope of Rome any more then to another man Hath he indeed yet proved himself successor of the Jews High Priest Except as a corrupter of the Law and a persecutor of the Church of Christ Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring for he brings no more to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope May I not well say that it is no marvaile that they are such ill friends to Scripture who have no more Scripture that is none at all to befriend the very foundation of their cause And may I not justly recite again Bellarmines own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence shew them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity It is agreed bâ—tween us saith Bellarmine that onely out of the literal sence of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetcht But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture But yet one other Argument he hath though not from Scripture and no more and that is from a double pretended experience And his first experience is That in all the other Patriarchal seats there have been Hereticks but not in that of Rome But here 1. Bellarmine must be judge or the Pope who is a party before all the Patriarchs can be thus condemned 2. And what if that were true Can he say the like of all the Bishops as well as Patriarchs If not they may as well hence prove themselves infallible as the Pope can do 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arrian Pope Honorius a Monothelâ—te Pope John denying the immortality of the soul with abundance more such like we shall have fitter opportunity to open anon to the shame of this experinemt of Bellarmines His second experiment is that The Pope without a Council hath condemned many Heresies which upon that very account have been taken for true Heresies by the whole Church of Christ Ans But you must first unchurch the greatest part of the Catholike Church and damne most of the Christians on earth the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. and make your own faction to be the whole Church of Christ before you will ever give us the least proof of this All the Church doth not do that which your flatterers do Nor did
or feel any difference to give them the least cause of doubting I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side which in a matter of sense among sound men is certainly enough And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me that it is otherwise with their senses and will seriously profess that their eyes and taste c. do not take these for Bread and Wine but perceive that they are not I will take them for shameless lyars or madmen and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing Well I its paâ—â— doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine as confidently as they tell us any thing is such And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine If our eyes be infallible that read it and our ears that hear it from their own mouthes then this is sure enough and too sure I know they will not deny it I would they would we should then be somewhat neerer a reconciliation What now can be said to avoid the conclusion is past my understanding save onely that it is possible that some of them may come in with some alluding distinction to see if they can blind mens sense and reason and so perhaps they 'l tell them that 1. sense is infallible on supposition of the right constitution of the medium but else not or 2. that sense judgeth but of accidents and not of substances and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here or 3. that sense is infallible in common cases where substances and accidents are not separated as here they be To which if such stuff deserve an answer I reply 1. What medium is here questionable or questioned by you but the accidents themselves which you say are the objects Sure the aire is clear and perspicuous the distance is not too neer or too far off our eyes and taste are sound 2. I think senses judge of substances with their accidents The eye sees substantiam coloratam and the hand feeleth the substantiam qualem quantam and not onely qualitatem quantitatem substantiae But let that controversie go how it will I am sure the substance is objectum sâ—nsus per accidens though not per se or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance by the help of the senses apprehension Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow and still the Pope and Church will be fallible For then the Apostles and others that saw Christs Miracles could be sure onely of the accidents and not of the substance Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified and rose again or onely the accidents of Christ And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome or onely the accidents of a Pope and so of the rest 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable then it is alwayes infallible For the accident separated from the subject doth perish Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not If we be sure of that by sense then sense is still infallible so far if not then sense is fallible because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents But indeed it s a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia Obj. Sense is infallible suppose the right temper of the Organs object Medium till God tell us the contrary but then it is fallible But in the point of Transubstantiation God hath told us the contrary to what common sense apprehendeth Therefore here sence is deceived Answ 1. Sense must in order be first known to be infallible before you can tell any thing that God hath said or wrote of its fallibility or infallibility or else you cannot tell but your eyes in reading or your ears in hearing those words of his did deceive you 2. Sense and Reason are the judging faculties which God hath given to mankind for the discerning of their objects It is not therefore to be imagined that God doth turn the great Deceiver of the world and by supernatural light contradict the Light of Nature even the apprehensions of the sound and general sense of the world Gods supernatural Revalations presupposes his Natural ones and are additions thereto but do not contradict them for then God should contradict himself when both are his Revelations God cannot lye saith the Apostle And what were it for God to lye or say truth but onely to make a deceitful or not deceitful discovery of his mind and will or the effects to us Indeed there may through our imperfection be a deceit of the senses when the Organs are distempered and the medium or object are not conveniently disposed and every such distance impediment or other ill disposure is not as Gods voice to tell us the thing as what to our imperfect sense it seems But if the common senses of men that are sound and not hindred by any such impediments shall yet be all deceived meerly by a contradicting ordinance of God then it would seem that God gave man contradictory lights and guides And their objection seems to be as bad as if they should say so of Gods word That it is alway true except where God tells us the contrary but if it might be false at any time how can you tell that that very word is true which you pretend doth tell you of the falshood of another word so say I here If sense be not alwayes infallible where it hath its requisite assistance then how can you tell that your senses are infallible when you are reading Hoc est corpus meum This is my body which you think contradicteth the infallibility of sense For 2. Is the infallibility of sense a thing that is known by nature or by supernatural Light Not by supernatural Light unless consequentially where doth Scripture or your Tradition say that sense is sometime infallibe and sometime fallible supposit is requisitis And nature tells you no more of the infallibility of any other acts of sence or Receptions then of those same which you pronounce to be fallible 3. We challenge you and all the world to prove that ever God hath revealed in Scripture that the common sences of men are deceived about their proper objects the requisites in Nature supposed Or that ever he made any ordinances for the deluding or contradicting the sences of his Church Or ever said any such thing Cannot Christ say Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body but he must needs proclaim a delusion of the sences of all men that take it to be Bread Then when God saith Hoc est faedus meum This is my Covenant Gen. 17.10 He must proclaim all mens sences deceived because sence faith it was but Circumcision and Bellarmine will confess it was but the sign of
Nation the Kingly Priesthood was so far amiss that it was distracted into six hundred opinions and errors And spoiled and wasted by the Devil If the Popes Monarchical Government was then a foot then it seemâ— that Government will no more prevent sects and errors then the worst If it were not then 1. They are now usurpers 1. And they cannot prove ouâ— way of Government to be wrong by the multitude of errors that are in the Church Basil was far from resolving his faith into the Popes infallibility when he wrot his Ascetica or at least Eustathius Sebastienus if they be his when pag. 195. Tom. 2. translat Musculi Basil he saith It is a manifest lapse of faith and apparent vice of pride either to refuse any thing which the Scripture containeth or to bring in any thing which is not written seeing Christ saith My sheep hear my voice and premiseth But another they will not follow but flye from him because they know not a strangers voice And pag. 193. he saith that sometimes he had used unwritten sayings against hereticks But never aliene from the Scripture sence c. and that now he was resolved To make use of what he had learned from Scripture and but sparingly to use the very names and words which are not literally conform to the divine Scripture though they do retain the Scripture sence The same Basil Epist 80. To. 2. p. mihi 74. renouncing the argument from custome saith Let us stand therefore to the arbitration of the Scriptures inspired from God and with whomsoever is found the opinions which are agreeable to the Divine oracles to him let the sence or sentence of truth be wholly adjudged This is Basils judgement of the judge of controversies Hilarius Pictav in his Epistle de Synodis adversus Arrianos pag. mihi 318 319. and fully sheweth his thoughts that Councilâ— have erred and that even those of the Orthodox are to be tryed by the Apostolical doctrine And lib. 2. de Trinitate pag. 16. col 2. he saith Commendat autem fidei hujus integritatem c. The integrity of this faith is commended by the Authority of the Gospel and Apostolical doctrine For this foundation standeth strong and unmoved c. And he maketh it a remedy against all Heresies And in his Commentary on Mat. Canon 8. pag. 498. he saith Igitur secundum haec Ecclesiae intra quas verbum Dei non vigilaverit naufragae sunt c. i. e. The Churches in which the word of God doth not watch are shipwrackt And most fully lib. 4. de Trinitate pag. 31. col 2. Nemini autem dubium esse oportet c. that is No man ought to doubt but that we must use Gods doctrine for the knowing of divine things For humane weakness cannot of it self attain the knowledge of heavenly things It is God himself that we must believe concerning himself and those things which he offereth to our knowledge of himself must we obey For either we must deny him as the Gentiles do if we disallow his testimonies or if he be believed to be God as he is nothing of God can be understood but as he hath witnessed of himself Let mens own opinions therefore cease or be laid by and let not mens judgements extend themselves beyond Gods constitutions For the understanding of sayings must be fetcht from the causes of the speech because the thing is not subject to the words but the words to the matter And li. 4. de Trinitate pag. 29. col 1. when he sheweth that the hereticks use to plead Scripture misunderstood he doth not send them to Rome for a judgement of the sence but still concludeth Respondendum esse existimo haereticorum perversitati omnes corum stultas ac mortiferas institutiones Evangelicis atque Apostolicis Testimoniis coarguendas That is I judge that we must answer hereticks perverseness and all their foolish and deadly institutions by the testimonies of the Gospel and of the Apostles And the same Hilary doth largly perswade to a close adhering to the Gospel and the sum of Faith called the Apostles Creed without adding or altering under any pretence of amending and sheweth the divisions and depravations that have followed since the Council of Nice would make one emendation and on their example other Councils had made and mended done and undone so oft that they had marr'd all by it and he perswadeth the Emperor to hearken to the ancient Gospel faith and not to Synods His words are in Epist vel Lib. ad Constant August pag. Edit Paris 307.308 where having shewed how he had erred in looking after Councils he saith Recognosce fidem quam c. that is Reacknowledge that Belief which thou desirest to hear from the Bishops but hearest not For they of whom it is required do write their own things and do not preach the things of God they have drawn about an endless and perpetual circle For the modesty of humane infirmity should have contained all mysteries of divine knowledge in those bounds of conscience onely which he believed in and not after a Belief confessed and sworn in Baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to doubt or innovate any thing else Under the improbable occasion of this necessity the custome is come up of writing and renewing the Belief Which after that it began rather to frame new things then to retain what was received it neither defended the old nor confirmed the new and Belief is now become rather a belief of the times than of the Gospels while it is written according to the years and not held according to the Confession of Baptism It is a most perillous and miserable thing that we have as many Beliefs as Wills and as many Doctrines as manners and that as many causes of blasphemy spring up as there are vices And when according to one God and one Lord and one Baptism there is one Belief we are faln from that Belief which is but one and while many are made they therefore begin to be that there may be none For we are on both sides conscious that since the meeting of the Council of Nice we have wrote nothing but Beliefes While there is quarrel about the words and questions about the newness and occasion about the ambiguityes and complaints about the Authors and strife about the parties and difficulty in consents and while every one begins to be an Anathema to another almost no one now is Christs For we are carryed about by an uncertain wind of Doctrine and either while we teach we trouble or while we are taught we erre And what is the change that is in the last years belief The first decreeth that the word homousion shall be silenced The next decreeth and preacheth the homousion The third doth by indulgence excuse the word usia which was simply before used by our fathers The fourth and last doth not excuse it but condemn
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
believe not in him as well as in Christ but he flatly denyeth it and what he cannot get by Scripture and reason he would get by threatning and terrible words to affright the simple telling them that Protestants are not of the true Church or Religion nor in a safe way to salvation because they will not be the subjects of the Pope of Rome Well we shall briefly prove our way to be safe if not to the satisfaction of perverse ambitious or passionate and prejudiced men yet I doubt not to the satisfaction of all humble impartial diligent persons that are willing to know the truth and deny themselves that they may know it and do not stifle it by their lusts or imprison it in unrighteousness in their byassed resolutions And first we shall briefly open the termes By Religion here we mean the Doctrine de credendis agendis about matters to be believed and practised which we hold and profess as of Divine Revelation and injunction in order to Gods Glory and our salvation For though this be but the means towards those holy Affections and practices which are of neerer necessity to our salvation as being the necessary effects of the former yet is it not this later buâ— the former that we are now inquiring after Not of Subjective but Objective Religion not of the fides quâ but the fides quae â—creditur not whether we be true to our Religion and so truly Religious but whether we be of the True Religion or hold that Doctrine which will save them that are true to it in Belief and Practice I shall not much stop the plain Reader therefore with any further and unnecessary inquiry into the Etymology of the word Religion which some derive 1 a Relegendo some 2 a Religando and some 3 a Relegando Relinquendo But as long as we understand what is meant by the word we shall not stick at the Etymology or propriety By the Reformed Religion we mean the Christian Catholike Religion as it is separated from Popery and so by this word we do distinguish our Churches from the Romane Sectaries For it is not every Reformation much less every thing so called that here we have respect to but the Reformation by which we cast off Popery it self which because it was in one Countrey done by a solemn Protestation of certain Princes and Cities against Popery hath been since called the Protestant Reformation and our Churches the Protestant Churches and our Religion the Protestant Religion Our Religion is called Catholike because it is â—he Religion of the Catholicke Church which is so â—alled a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is universal consisting not onely of Jews and their Proselites as heretofore nor of one Town like Rome and those that will be â—he subjects of the Bishop of that Town as the Papists dream but of all that Believe in the name of Christ through the whole world holding the Foundation or points of absolute necessity to salvation and not again denying them by any such contradicting Errors as will not consist with the practical belief of the said Fundamentals As that was called A Catholicke Epistle which was directed to the whole Church and not to any one person or people so is that the Catholike Church which containeth all Christians As Austin was wont to describe it against the Donatists who would have confined it to the adversaries of Caecilianus and followers of Donatus in Africke that the true Church was that which was spread over the world by the Gospel which was commanded to be preached to all Nations beginning at Jerusalem so do we By the Christian Religion I suppose we are agreed is meant the Religion of Believers in Christ or that whereof Christ is the Foundation and prescriber and faith in him the first act which must contain all the essential parts though it may possibly want many integrals or else it is not to be called the Christian Religion They that were called Christs Disciples were afterwards called Christians first at Antioch Act. 11.26 To be a Christian therefore and to be Christs Disciple is all one Note therefore that as the word Religion denoteth the sum of doctrines and way of salvation absolutely necessary so it is but One in all the worlâ— that 's true and saving and that is the Christian Religion So that if a Heathen Jew or Mahometane ask me what Religion I am of in opposition to theirs I will say I am a Christian and not onely that I am a Protestant But if a Christian aske me what Religion I am of I will say I am a Reformed Catholike Christian for such a question in the mouth of a Christian usually implieth that I am a Christian and intendeth the discovery of what sort or party of Christians I belong to But indeed Christianity is not many but one and therefore Christians as Christians are not of many Religions but of one No nor Christians at all that are truely such if by Religion you mean a systeme of doctrines in the main necessary or sufficient to salvation or conceited so to be For as there is no such Body of Doctrine but Christs so no man that is indeed a Christian can believe that there is seeing such a Belief contradicteth the essentia's of Christianity But among those that call themselves Christians there are some Hereticks that deny or plainly subvert some part of the essentials of Christian Religion And among those that are Christians some have such dangerous corruptions as do much hazard the salvation and tend to frustrate them of their benefits of the Christian Faith and these very corruptions they Entitle by the name of Part of their Religion as the Papists do In which sence I must say I am not of the same Religion with them though I hold the same Christian Doctrine as they because I hold not their mixture and add not those corruptioâ—s which they make a part of their Religion The name Protestant I reject not because it was taken up on a just occasion but I take it to be too extrinsecal and private to be the standing denomination of my Religion as being not taken from the nature of the thing but from an occasionall action of a few men in one Countrey though it intimateth that all of their judgement in all other Countries do virtually at least make the like Protestation in the maine I do therefore rather choose to say that I am a Reformed Catholike Christian and when I call my self a Protestant this is my meaning So that by the name Christian which expresseth all my Religion it self Positively considered I am differenced from Heathens Jews Mahometans and all Infidels and those by some called Hereticks who usurpe the name of Christians while they deny part of the very essentials of Christianity And by the name Catholike I adde nothing Positive to the former but onely intimate that I am of the Universal Church and negatively exclude my self from all divided
the Catholike Church câ—lâ— Trasubstantiation I confess also that under one 〈◊〉 onely whole and entire Christ and the true Saâ—â—ment is taken I do constantly hold that there is a Pâ—rgatory and that the souls there detained are hâ—lpâ—â— by the suffrages of the faithful As also that the Saiâ—â— raigning with Christ are to be reverenced and called upon and that they do offer prayers to God for mâ— and their reliques are to be reverenced or honoured I do most firmely assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God-ever a Virgin as also of other Saiâ—â— are to be had and kept and that due honor and Vâ—â—ration is to be given them I affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in the Church aâ— that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people I acknowledge that the holy Catholike and Apâ—stolike Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistris â— all Churches And I do promise and swear true Obedience to the Pope of Rome successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Chrisâ— Also all other things delivered defined and declareâ— by the sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils aâ— especially of the holy Synod of Trent I do withâ—â— doubting receive and profess and also all things câ—â—trary and all heresies whatsoever condemned by thâ— Church and rejected and Anathematized do I iâ— like manner condemne reject and Anathematize This â—rue Catholike faith without which no man can be saâ—ed which at the present I do voluntarily professe â—nd truely hold the same will I take care to hold and â—onfess entire and inviolate by Gods help most conâ—antly even to the last breath of my life and as much â—s in me lyeth to be held taught and preached by â—hose that are under me or those whose care belongs to â—e in my office This I.N. do Promise Vow and â—wear so help me God and these holy Gospels of God So far the Trent Confession which I the raâ—her recite that you may see what their Religion is â— their own words and oaths where you see also â—â—at this is but a small part of it for it is moreover â— large as all the Council of Trent and all other â—ecumenical Councils and holy Canons of the Imâ—ossibilities and self-contradictions of which faith we â—hall say more anon So that I conclude that it is not Christianity but â—is additional Leprosie which we call by the name of â—opery they believe this much more then we or a â—reat part more and by believing more they believe â—ss while they destroy the sound faith which they â—efore seemed to profess 2 For the next term to be explained Salvation â—e mean by it principally Everlasting Glory and â—ithall those beginnings of it inclusively which we â—ve in this life consisting in our Justification Aâ—option Sanctification Consolation and Perseâ—erance 3. By the term Way we mean such necessary â—eans as are prescribed us by God for the attainment â— Salvation either as to our Belief or our Affection and Practice according to the directions of the doctrine which we do believe 4. As to the sence of the word Safe it signifieth that which is free from danger or which tendeth to a mans welfare Now here is a double safety considerable in Doctrines answerable to a double danger First it s one thing to be safe from any sin in the way to Salvation and so we may well say that Popery is no safe way which leadeth to so much sin But that 's not all that is here intended But it s another matter to be so deep in sin as not to be safe from the Everlasting Punishment but that salvation it self is endangered thereby and this we principally intend And whereas there are several Degrees of Danger we mean that true Popery heartily entertained and practiced doth leave but small probability if any possibility of the Salvation of any that do persevere impenitently therein to the end Though you may see what I deny in what is already said yet for the greater perspicuity I shall express my sence in these few Propositions following Prop. 1. That Christian doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures which the Papists do profess to believe is of it self without their corruptions a safe way to salvation Prop. 2. Whatever errors are held by Papists or any others which do consist with a true practicâ— belief of the foresaid Christian doctrine which they confess and we are agreed in those errors shâ—â—â— not exclude the erroneous from Salvation Prop. 3. The Papists do not expresly in terms and sence deny any fundamental point of faith Prop. 4. It s possible even practically to hold an error which by remote consequence contradicteth a fundamental Truth and yet to hold that truth practically and so to be saved For either all moral â—errots in Theology as Amesius thought do contradict the Foundation by consequence by reason of the necessary concatenation of Truthes or most at least Prop. 5. There are some errors so great that if they were cordially and practically held would be inconsistent with the cordial practical holding of the Foundation which yet may be held but speculatively and notionally in consistency with the cordial and practical belief of the fundamentals and the person not knowing the contradiction may be saved Prop. 6. Multitudes of people while they take common termes in Divinity in a wrong sence do maintain Propositions which by plain consequence if not directly contradict the Fundamentals according to the proper genuine sence of the words when yet in the sence as they mistake and misuse them in there is no contradiction Even as many on the other side do hold the Christian verity in words who in sence deny it Prop. 7. We have great reason to think that many millions of the Laity among the Papists if not the far greatest part of them do not cordially embrace the most of the Popish corruptions in doctrinals nor the most dangerous of them 1. Because they do not understand them and so cannot so much as speculatively receive them It is not one of a hundred perhaps of many hundreds among them that knows all contained in the Council of Trent alone much less in all the rest of the Council and Canons and customes wherein they place their Religion Nay perhaps it s but few of their Clergy that know this comparatively So that it is but an implicite general belief that they can give to such Canons as are unknown which is not a belief of the particular doctrines contained in them as such 2. Because I hope among most or many of them they are first taught the Creed the Lords Prayer and ten Commandments or at least the Creed and Decalogue though the Lords Prayer be usually taught them in Latine which contain the Fundamentals of Christian faith and practice and therefore we have reason to hope that these are deeper in their minds then any contradictory doctrines especially when they must have so
headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions called by them their Church and their Religion because it is so new and we dare not venture our souls upon new wayes nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection one sort before the Popes universal headship and the other since nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurpe I desire no better issue then this of our difference Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the tryal of antiquity and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion carry the cause If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours as since Christs Resurrection then we are contented to be of their Church and way Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismaticks upon earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the maine body of the visible Church then Popery is not a safe way to salvation But the Papists are the greatest Schismaticks on earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body thereof Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves It is only the Minor therefore that is to be proved which is too easily done being a matter of fact First The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christs Church on earth condemning all others to everlasting fire 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schisme in making a new center of the unity of the Church of these two in order 1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago much more numerous then now they be The Grecians the Syrians called Melchites the Moscovites and Russians the Georgians all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turkes dominions also the Abassins Egyptians Armenians Jacobites who are neer of a mind and differ from the Papists and submit not to their authority Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany Sweden Denmark Hungary Transylvania Brittain Ireland France Belgia Helvetia and other parts with those in the Indies I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them or not neer so many as they But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago when the Turkes had not yet subdued the Eastern parts and when the Abassian Empire was much more large and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universall headship and jurisdiction of the Pope or submit themselves to him besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him I know that the Papists say that these are all either Hereticks or Schismaticks and so no part of the Catholike Church But the accusation of Schisme is the meer voice of Schisme and for Heresie its true that all men and Churches have their errors which yet deserve not the name of Heresie The Jacobites and the rest that are neer them are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians but yet they are not plaine Eutichites and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures two persons and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct yet they say that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person and so deny two Persons onely in sence and two Natures only in name and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures onely in sence and two Persons in words onely Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said de Conciliis This I must needs say that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites and other Christians that are not of their Communion I should be forced to censure the former much deeper then the latter and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Hereticks or Schismaticks I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians and also that they are free from many of their mistakes yet withall they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from And for the Protestants they are Hereticks only on this supposition that the Pope be Judge By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from But yet this is not all nay the smaller part For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred yea five or six hundred years you will find that the Papists do differ from them all even from the whole Church For then the Popes universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world as is said before All these doth the Romane party now separate themseves from All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians but Hereticks and Schismaticks All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell They have now concluded that onely those are of the true Church that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope and the Mistrisship of the particular Romane Church which none of all those forementioned did They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this new-framed Church of theirs Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive whether there be any more notorious Schismaticks on earth then these men that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christs Church on earth at
the Determination of their Church he must presently not onely believe the contrary to what he believed before but do it also without doubting though they 'l confess millions are saved that believe Christ to be the Son of God though not without doubting Well but see what unity is procured by the addition of these new Articles to their Creed The French Doctors ascribe to his holiness that the said Articles may be taken in several sences The one sence is Heretical Lutheran or Calvinian but that is a sence That the words lawfully used will not hear but onely may malignantly be fastened to them say they The other sence which is genuine and proper they Defâ—nd themselves as true and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church as the Doctrine of Augustine and as defined by the Council of Trent and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adversaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian See here what the Papists themselves now do implicitely charge upon the Pope That he by his express unlimited condemnation doth malignantly fasten an Heretical sence on the words which properly they will not bear or else that he contradicteth Augustine and the Council of Trent and Anathematizeth the Christian faith and maintaineth the Semipelagian Heresie of Molina And yet must we judge either their Pope to be infallible or their Church to be at such unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe More of the like contention about his holiness Determinations you may see in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad sonum Buccinae and Franscus Macedo his Lituus Lusitanus In all which you may see that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them even their hope of salvation if they be Papists indeed consisteth in this that the Pope speaks one thing and means another and that as White so merrily saith in so sad a matter The wise father of the Church was necessitated for the appeasing of contentions to grant the more turbulent party their words and the more obedient party their sence so that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controversies they will still say that he determineth but the words nay he doth but grant one party their words and not the meaning and so not onely sence but bare terms must be made Articles of faith And here you may see the great force of the Papists arguing for a necessity of a living Judge to determine of the sence of Scripture because the Scripture is so ambiguous that each one will else wrest it his own way And do we not see that the Pope cannot after so many years deliberation determine five short Articles so expresly and plainly even when he doth it of purpose to decide the controversie as to make his learned Doctors understand him but that each party doth take his words to be either for or not against their opinions and hold their opinions as fast since his determination as before And so they do by Augustine Thomas and the Council of Trent each party confidently perswading the world that they were of their side And may not God have the honor of speaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent and cannot we well be without the Decision of such a Judge as cannot speak so as to be understood by his greatest Doctors himself So that the Principles and Practices of the Romanists do assure us that their faith is unfixed growing and mutable they may be one year of one Religion and another year of another as pleasâ— the Pope A Dominican might have been saved at any time since the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Popes Determination was dated but now they must all be damned for heresie There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before and for ought they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed So that for my part I desire not either to be shut out of heaven at the pleasure of every new Pope nor to be of so uncertain and changeable a Religion And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a safe way to salvation Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God and setteth the Decrees of men above it enabling them to contradict its most express institutions is no safe way to salvation But such is the Doctrine of Popery therefore it is no safe way to salvation The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine because I intend not to be too particular left I be too large The first is their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith as being but one part of Gods Word and Tradition the other part and also to be no Word of God at all to us till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word but upon the Authority of the Churches determination But of this I have spoken before and shall do more in another dispute The second instance that I give is Their changing Christs most express institution by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people and giving them but half the Sacrament I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half so delivered but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above Gods Word and give power to the Pope to change Christs Institutions and not onely to adde but to diminish and expresly to contradict Christ and forbid what he commandeth I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup and not to the Laity True nor the bread neither but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup why may they not as well say so of the Bread But do not these deceivers know 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administring the Cup Drink yee All of it For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins So that if this reason hold to others if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergie then the command extendeth to others Drink ye all of it And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you So that those whom it is shed for and we may discern to be Believers it may be applyed to 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup as from the Lord to the whole Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. and not onely to the Clergy Is it not all that he expresly commandeth to Examine themselves
that Christs body admitteth of augmentation and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts or else that he hath new bodies made daily 15. Also it followeth that a creature either the Baker or the Priest may make God or make his Saviour at least instrumentally which is a horrid imagination 16. It followeth that either Christs body hath the accidents of colour taste dimension c. which are there sensible or else that those Accidents have no subject which is a contradiction 17. It followeth also that Christ hath not indeed a true humane body if it be such as is before implyed 18. And it followeth that the body of Christ is part of it condemned hated of God and tormented by the Devil Because his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men which must be so condemned hated and tormented 19. Also it followeth that the Scriptures are not true which tell us that the heavens must receive him in that humane nature which ascended from earth till the times of the restitution of all things Act. 3.21 and that he shall come again to judge the world 20. Lastly it will follow that a man must not trust his sences that though my eyes my smell my taste my feeling tell me that this is Bread and Wine yet they are all deceived and not mine only but all the senses in the world to which they are objected And if that be true 1. What reason have I to trust any Papist living For all my good opinion of him must be ultimately resolved into something that I see or hear of him And it seems I am uncertain whether I see or hear him indeed or not 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is sure of any thing For if the senses of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this why not in other things for ought we know 3. And then how can any Papist tell that the Bread is turned into Christs body If he say because the Church or the Scripture saith so How knoweth he that but by hearing or seeing and therefore for ought he knows his senses may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth such a thing as well as when he thinketh that he seeth feeleth smelleth and tasteth Bread and Wine And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture sense and reason And what is the ground of their contrary belief Not the Ancient Church unless they willfully or negligently deceive themselves for the stream of antiquity is full against them so full that its hard to believe that any of them that 's verst in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read What is it then that bringeth them to this belief Is it the Scriptures That 's not likely because they make so light of it and swear to take it in the sence of the Church or ancient Doctors in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church that is the Pope and his Clergy that they entertain this hard belief That is The Pope and his Clergy believe it because they say it themselves and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it And is it truely possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself yea or any other think so well of him as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon sometime told them of very smartly You Italians saith he Believe Christ is in the Bread before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven while they pretend to a faith above men that is to believe Impossibilities upon the Popes credit I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians and that in heart they do not as once one of their Popes did account the Gospel but a commodious fable But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief and that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body is the very word that doth convince them as some of them do pretend I would here be bold to aske them that say so a Question or two 1. What if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do against your Transubstantiation would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text What need I ask this Your own Oaths and Profession saith No It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief And let me adde that if I prove not in a fair debate upon a just call that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Christ was against Transubstantiation I will give all the Papists in England leave to spit in my face for all the high expressions of the Eucharist that some fathers have 2. What is there in those words This is my body that can perswade any sober Christian to their strange belief What is it because that they are properly and not figuratively to be understood And how is that proved Is it because we must not force the Scripture but take it in the plainest obvious sence I easily grant it But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common speech the figurative sence is oft the most plain and obvious and the literal the most improbable What three sentences do we use to speak together without some figurative expression I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reason whether a Christian that should newly read those words of Christ and had never heard them or read them before would not sooner take them in our sence then in the Papists They may easily try this upon a new convert if they please and I dare make their own consciences judge if they have any left to befriend a common truth What is there more in This is my Body being a Sacramental business then for a man that is in a room among many Images to say This is Peter or Paul or this is Augustine or Hierom or Chrysostome And would not any unprejudiced stander by suppose that the most obvious sence of those words is This is the picture of Peter Paul c. Or would a man easily believe that it was the meaning of the speaker that this Picture was the very real flesh and blood of Peter and Paul and all other Pictures that ever should be made after the same exemplar should be so transubstantiated So what is the obvious signification of those words This is my body but This is the Sacrament or Representation of my Body Especially when his real body was distinctly there present and he expresly biddeth them Do this in remembrance of me
infallible while our sufferings prove us Heretical 4. Is it not ambition and desire of Rule that is the very cause which they contend for What 's the unreconcileable quarrel so much as that all the world will not be subject to them And yet the sufferings of these men prove them infallible If one Butcher Henry the third of France and another Henry the fourth and others would blow up the English Parliament with Gunpowder is the Pope infallible if some of these be hanged Or what if some of them have suffered from infidels Are not others as ready so to suffer as they and have suffered as much as they The next mark that he layes down is Victory over all sorts of enemies But is it over their minds or over their bodies that they mean If the first who must be judge of their victories but themselves I never heard any of them plead their cause but in my judgement they had the worst There iâ— no party but may turn divers others to their opinions Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world then Christ and Heathenism than either If Papists can turn all these why do they suffer themselves still to be confined to so small a part of the world And if it be victory over mens bodies that they mean I say the like Have not the Turkes a larger Dominion than the Pope Have they conquered the Great Turk the Great Mogol the Grand Cham of Tartary c Are we not as infallible as they on this account when we conquer them It seems then when Papists are so industrious to enlarge their Dominions to destroy their enemies by Poysoning or stabbing Kings or other means it is that they may have a further Testimony of their infallibility The last mark which the Jesuite mentioneth is the conversion of Infidels But 1 If that be a sure Mark we are infallible as well as they For we have been means of converting Infidels And so have the Greek Churches and others that disown the Popes infallibility 2. If that Argument be good then it was not only the Apostles but all that converted Infidels at the first or after preaching of the Gospel that were infallible which sure they never pretended to 3. If it will prove any body infallible it s liker to prove them so that did convert any Infidels then the Pope that onely gives them leave or order to do it 4. Let them not boast too much of their conversions till we have a better character of their new made Christians and a better report of their means of conversion then Acosta and other of their own Jesuites give us who have been eye witnesses of the case To cut men off by thousands or millions and force the rest to Baptism as cattle to watering when they have nothing of a Christian but the name and that sign and some forget the name it self this is not a conversion much to be boasted of Nor must they think that all are Christians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines The Apostles did not convert Infidels by an Army but by the word and miracles but it is the King of Spaines souldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the conversions that you have most to glory in If the Jesuit had put his proofs into well formed Arguments what stuff should we have had So much for the Answer to Chilling worth and the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help And I marvaile not at their contempt of Scripture-Testimony to them unless there were more or more appearance for them then there is Having considered the Papists proof of their infallibility I shall next though it be more then the cause obligeth me to say somewhat to prove the Negative and so proceed to my second Argument against them Argu. 2. If the common senses of sound men or their sensible apprehensions be infallible then the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible But the common senses of sound men are infallible Therefore c. I know not how we should come neerer hand with a Papist nor to plainer dealing then to argue from common sense And as to the Antecedent Either sense is infallible or it is not If it be I have that I seek If not then mark what follows 1. Then no man can be sure that the Christian Religion is true For the proofs of it all vanish if sense be not infallible If you plead the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples no man was sure that he saw them If you plead the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ no man was sure he saw them and therefore could give no assurance of it to another All the Disciples senses and the worlds senses were or might be for ought we know deceived Nor are you sure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apostles For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived 2. And then most certainly the Pope himself and all his Clergy are fallible For they cannot be sure of that which the Apostles and following Church were not sure of Nor can they be sure that in reading and hearing their eyes deceive them not And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do use their senses and by them receive these matters into their intellect Nay if sense be fallible no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any such place as Rome or any such person as the Pope at all or ever was Nay what else can any man be sure of I suppose you will marvail why I bestow so many words on such a point But you see what men we have to deal with When all the quarrel between us must be issued by this point whether common sense be infallible For if it be we infallibly carry the cause Yea whether it be or be not as shall appear I come next therefore to prove the consequence and that I do thus The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension or judgement of common sense therefore if common sense be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible The consequent is unquestionable the Antecedent I prove by this known Instance Common sense takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of consecration The Pope and his Council say it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of consecration therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension of common sense For the first I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist Whether seeing feeling smelling and tasting do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables and whether they can see or taste or smell
a Covenant Then when Paul saith This Rock was Christ it must proclaim that all the Israelites sences were deceived that thought it to be a true Rock when a Papist will confess that the meaning is This Rock represented or signified Christ As if among many Images you should say This is Peter and this John and this Paul this were plainly to say This signifieth Peter or representeth him c. and doth not proclaim that deceit of sence Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. 11. Bread and the Cup six times over as after the consecration and here his shifting answer is that things are said to be in Scripture what they seem to be as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent and so here he pleadeth a Trope Good still The Scripture calls it Bread six times neer together after the consecration and it calls it Christs Body once when his living body sate by Now the Question is which of these speeches are Tropical And we must believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it six times Bread must needs be Tropical and that which calls it once Christs Body must needs be understood without a Trope And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed mens sences to be fallible Nay all that we need for our cause is but to take est for significat which is so common that one would think there should not such unnatural absurdities be admitted to avoid it as overthrow our humanity When we plead that Christ had a true body and that a true body may be seen and felt because Christ bids them Luk. 24. See and feel for a spirit hath not flesh and bones c. Bellarmine answereth that Sence is infallible in positives and therefore thence we may say This is a body because I see it self but not in Negatives and therefore we cannot say This is not a body because I see it not And what need we more then that which is here granted By his own confession then we may conclude that This is Bread and Wine because we see feel smell taste it Yet no doubt we may also argue that it is not a natural body because it is not visible or sensible So much for this second Argument which I may thus with full advantage enforce If sence be either fallible or infallible the Pope is fallible But sence is either fallible or infallible Therefore If sense be fallible the Pope is fallible and all his Church for their sences and the Apostles and their followers were fallible If sence be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible because the common sences of all sound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expresly say as de fide to be believed is not either Bread or Wine Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already then are they not infallible But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already Therefore they are not infallible As the first Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility and the second from the common senses of mankind so the third is taken from certain experience which is a medium so evident that their vain words and subtil evasions have the less force to elude or obscure it Of the validity of the consequence there is no question can be made He that hath erred is not infallible All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent which hath by unquestionable evidence of History been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago I shall produce some few instances of many There are no less than fourty Popes whom Bellarmine himself takes notice of as charged with error or heresie for whom he frameth such poor excuses that I should think any impartial Reader might receive satisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err Did not Pope Liberius erre judicially when he subscribed to the Arrians confession in the Council of Sirmium Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens which the Fathers condemn of Heresie and to the Councils condemnation of Athanasius as Athanasius himself and many more witness Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council for condemning dead Hereticks And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the first and Adrian the first did all approve of the same Sure one party of these Popes erred unless contradictoryes may be true Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own constitution sure he erred either in making or revoking it And so did Pope Paschalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok those grants which said they contained Heresie which he himself had before made to the Emperor Though Cajetans excuse be true that it was no Heresie yet either the making or revoking was an error What will they invent at last to hide the nakedness of Pope Honorius who in two several General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretick which he judicially perswaded Sergius to when he sought his judgement Stapleton and many more of them confess the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Heresie but forsooth they say the Council did mistake the case It seems then either a Pope may be a Heretick or a General Council err Moreover will any Papists deny that Pope Stephen six and Sergius erred when they judicially decreed that those should be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Formâ—sus And of Pope Celestines error Alphonsus a Castro faith that he himself saw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition and therefore that it cannot be said that he erred as a private man and not as Pope What can they say of Pope John twenty two who denyed the immortality of the soul and was admonished of his heresie by the Doctors of Paris as not onely Pope Adrian the sixth Joh. Gerson Alphons a Castro and others witness but Bellarmine himself confesseth also But he excuseth him because that opinion was not there defined against and therefore was no heresie See here 1. Whether the Papists do not make themselves a new Faith and Religion when they please and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before so that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themselves confessed 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them unless it be declared by a Pope or General Council 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been that had determined whether the soul were immortal or not 4. Chamier truely noteth that Bellarmine himself forgetfully contradicteth himself and tells us elswhere that Innocent the third the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two had taught the contrary in express words I shall
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
presbyter ordinatur Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem Quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas That is For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do Nor is the Church of the Romane City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another Both France and Brittaine and Africk and Persia and the East and Jndia and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ and observe one Rule of truth If you seek for Authority the worlds is greater than the Cities of Rome Wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanis of the same Merit he is also of the same Priesthood The Power of riches and the lowness of poverty make not a Bishop high-eror lower But they are all the Apostles successors But you say How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon What tell you me of the custome of one City why do you defend a few of which superciliousness is arisen against the Laws of the Church It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers can put such a sence on these words of Hierom as shall consist with that which he purposly doth oppose But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words he was acquainted with Romes claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters in the beginning and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops how then could Hierome believe the Popes universal jurisdiction Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church Greg. Nazianzene saith of Councils If I must write the truth I am of this mind that I will flye or avoid all Councils of Bishops for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils then a removal of them To this of Nazianzene Bellarmine answereth that Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful for he lived between the first and second general Council where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Hereticks had a bad end And he names five of them Answ 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregories words to some Councils which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may erre and then where is the French Religion 3. I would fain know where was the Churches infallibility and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens dayes If there were no lawful General Councils nor could be then it was not in them therefore it must be either in the people and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them or else as Bellarmine will say in the Pope alone or in the Romane Clergy with him I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Romane Clergy in particular are Infallible though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world and not talke of the whole Church and all the Church when they mean but one man 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmines how far the universal Church was visible at that time when all Councils were bad and none could be lawful The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole and the â—aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong â—o that the Church was visible onely in one man or â— few particular persons according to the Papists common reckoning who judge by the Pastors visiâ—ility Yea the Church of Rome it self was invisible â—hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Hereâ—ick If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man or in the Laity of many partes opprest by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say then we will â—ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther and more too 5. It s confest here also that â—ot onely a Council but the greater number by â—ery many of the Bishops of the Church may be â—eretickes or erre in faith 6. And then the Church may lye in the smaller oppressed part and why then may not the most erre now Stapleton himself confesseth â—hat Luther was not much out of the way when he said â—here were scarce five Bishops â—o be found that turned not Arrians And Hieromeâ—aith â—aith Dialog advers Lucifer The whole world â—â—aned and wondred that it was turned Arrian â— And did the authority of the Scripture at that time â—ll quoad nos when the judge was turned heretick â—ven Liberius and the Councils And if the high Elogies of the Romane Church would prove its Authority then see what Nazianâ—ene saith of the Church of Caesarea In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta found among his own works Edit Paris Tom. 1. pag. 785. and also in Basils works translated by Musculus Edit Basil 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. Seeing every Church as being Christs body is to be watched over or looked to with greatesâ— care and diligence then specially yours which anciently was and now is and is esteemed almost oâ— nigh the mother of all Churches on which thâ— whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the center not onely for the soundness of doctrinâ— long divulged to all but also for that conspicuouâ— grace of Concord which God hath given them What would the Papists say but that this were foâ— their supremacy if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome And I think there is no doubt but that in thosâ— ancient times the Church was acquainted with thâ— true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further 8. Whether thâ— truest Government may not stand with great desolations divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors Greg. Nazianzene saith Orat. 20 pag. mihâ— 345. That when Basil seâ— upon the great work of healing the Church The holy
of the Church and decider of controversies 3. Observe also that Vincentius doth fully and purposely acknowledge the Scripture sufficiency and never once mention any Traditions as necessary to supply the defects of Scripture or as part of Gods word when Scripture is but the other part Not a word of such Traditions But onely of Tradition subordinate to Scripture finaliter for the true expounding of them Hear himself Cap. 2. Hic forsit an requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturarum Canon sihique ad Omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur authoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipinut And in his recapitulation Cap. 41. Diximuâ— in superioribus hanc fuisset semper est esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent Primum divini Canonis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba Divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errores que concipiant So that Scripture is sufficient ad omnia ad universa onely the Churches tradition that is interpretation is the safe way to avoid heresie for the understanding of it 4 Note also that the Catholike Church which Vincentius mentioneth is not the Romane Church any more then any other but the Tradition that he referreth us to is that which hath been taught or held ubique semper ab omnibus every where alwayes and by all 5 Note also that it is not any authoritative Determination of any person or persons whomsoever but universal consent that he referreth uâ—to 6. And it is not in lesser probable or controverted points but in those great necessary points which the Church hath wholly every where in all ages agreeed in 7. Note diligently that one of the cases he putteth is this cap 4. Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum sed totam pariâ—er Ecclesiam commaculare conetur i. e. But what if any novel contagion shall not onely stain a small part of the Church but also the whole Church A presumptuous Question in the Papists sence But what saith he to it doth he say it is impossible no but Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhaeteat quae prorsus jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci i. e Then let him see that he stick to antiquity which cannot at all now be seduced by any fraud of novelty Here 1. he supposeth that the present Church may all erre 2. He makes the remedy to be an appeal to the ancient Church and not as the Papists to appeal in all cases to the present Church or Pope Costerus seeks by a citation out of Tertullian in his Annot. to detort both 8. Lastly note diligently that it is not in all cases that Vincentius leadeth us to the exposition of the Church and Fathers but onely as in the weighty use beforesaid so in case of the newness of errors when they first arise before they falsifie the Rules of the ancient faith let them be forbidden by the straights of time and before by the large spreading of the poison they endeavor to vitiate the volumes of our Ancestors But dilated and inveterate heresies are to be set upon this way because by the long tract of time they have had a long occasion of stealing truth that is Antiquity and other signs of truth And therefore as for all those Ancient prophanesses of schismes or heresies we must by no means convince them but by the onely authority of Scripture if there be need or avoid them as certainly already of old convicted and condemned by the General Councils of Catholike Priests They are his own words translated pag. 677. Edit Perionii pag. 87 88. Edit Colon. 1613. So that you see Vincentius supposeth error may infect all the Church and may grow old and so seem to be the Truth and in such cases onely Scripture must be pleaded against it unless also we can produce some ancient Council that hath condemned it This is the very case between us and the Papists Their heresies are old and far spread though not universal nor of utmost antiquity therefore between us and them the Scripture only must be pleaded Where there is no need of a judge by reason of its plainness we need not go to the Ancient Church where there is need of an Expositor we are content to deal with them on Vincentius grounds and to admit of that which ubique semper ab omnibus hath been held in point of faith if they will do the like And indeed this is our very Religion Will the Papists but dispute their cause with us on these terms we shall readily joyn issue with them and doubt not of a good success Of this see more in our Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol divin Canonis THe Dispute which we have hitherto managed being only against Popery in the gross and two or three branches of it onely in particular I had thought to have annexed a Brief enumeration of the particular errors of the Papists that the vulgar might observe and avoid them and therein I thought to have endeavored the true stating of the differences between us both for the avoiding of error on the other extream and also that we may take out of the Papists hands the greatest of all their advantages against us which is the false-opposed opinions and unsound Arguments of such as thus erre on the other side But perceiving how it would lengthen this work beyond the intended limits and how certainly all those that so run into extreams would fall a quarrelling with me for not stating the controversies according to their fancies I have thought best for answering all my ends at cheaper rates to give you the chief of the Popish errors in the words of Doctor Feild and to that end to tranâ—â—ribe his seventh Chapter of the third Book that so the simple Reader may have some help to inâ—orm him without a commixed means to pervert him And for those that desire to see the Protestant Doctrine solidly defended and cannot have time to read many books I know not of any one that they may more profitably and safely read to that end then the said Book of Doctor Field on the Church and especially the Appendix to the third part which is but the Defence of this very Chapter proving it in particulars that the Western Church was Protestant and not Popish even in the worst times before Luthers Reformation and that the Papists were but a seducing tyrannical party in the Church endeavoring to obtrude their errors against the mind of the generality of good men In which he hath quite broken down those pretences of Vniversality and All the Church which the Papists do so fondly boast in Dr. Feild of the
superstition and wil-worship yea meer hypoâ—â—isie or a form of godliness resting in external works and observations 31. They worship God after the commandments of men 32. they defend the ceremonies invented by themselves or taken from Jews or Heathens to be a part of worship pleasing to God 33. And to be observed as the Law of God 34 That their observation deserves remission of sin 35 That no ceremonies appointed by the Church can be omitted without mortal sin nor without scandal 36. That things consecrated by themselves as holy Water Dei's c. have spiritual effects to drive away divels to blot out sins c. 37. They conjure salt yea and herbs and consecrate it that it may be healthful to the mind and body of those that take it 38. They Baptize and consecrate the Bels making them Godfathers to fright away divels and drive away Tempests 39. That their ringing does profit the dead 40. The Chrism being consecrated the Bishop and Presbyters salute it in these words God save St. Chrisma Ave S. Chrisma 41. They give it a power to confer upon the anointed health to the body and holiness to the soul and so the Holy Ghost himself 42. That every Church solemnely consecrated is indued with a divine vertue 43. The many abuses of fasting and prayer I touched before 44. They teach men to swear by the creatures 45. They deny oaths to be fit for the perfect 46. Vows made to the Saints they defend 47. That the Pope can absolve from the bond of vows and oaths 48. They consecrate feast dayes to the worship of Saints 49. And some they consecrate to patronize their own errors as the feast of Conception the feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin the feast of Christs body and of Peters chair and of all souls c. 50. That feast dayes are in truth more holy then others 51. They exempt the Clergy from the secular yoke i.e. they exempt Ecclesiasticks both persons and goods from the obedience of Temporal Lords and from their jurisdiction in personals and reals in civil things and criminal and therefore that the civil judge cannot punish Clergy-men 52. That the Clergy is not bound to pay tribute to Princes 53. That the Rebellion of a Clergy-man against the King is not Treason 54. That the Pope can forbid subjects to keep the oath of fidelity to Christian Kings if they be such as acknowledge not the Roman sea 55. That the Pope can absolve subjects from the oath of fidelity 56. That the Pope has power to depose Princes 57. That the subjects of such Princes are bound to obey such a sentence if it be published 58. That if grave and learned men such as the Jesuites especially are shall judge any Prince to be a Tyrant it is lawful for their subjects to overthrow them and if they want power to poison them 59 That the subjects of the most Christian Kings whom they call Lutherans and Sacramentarians are free from all bonds and that they may lawfully destroy their Kings 60. That 't is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Infidel or a heretick indeavoring to draw men to his Sect but they are bound to depose him 61. That the ancient Christians did not depose such because they wanted power 62. That the Pope may give the Kingdoms and Principalities and Lordships of all those whom he judges hereticks unto his Roman Catholikes or may adjudge them to those that can lay hold of them 63. That 't is not onely lawful but meritorious to kill Princes that are excommunicated by the Pope 64. They suffer Stews and stoutly defend their toleration 65. They forbid the Clergy to mary 66. That Priest does better say they that keeps a Concubine then he that marries a wife 67. That marriage after the vow of Chastity is worse then Adultery 68. That single life even as it is vowed and practised in the Roman Church is a worship most acceptable to God and satisfactory for sin and meritorious of eternal life 69. That the Pope with a whorish intention makes gain as Leno did by the prostitution of Whores 70. That all faults are sold at a certain price in the Popes Taxe 71. An officious lye they allow of 72. They approve and teach the Mistery of equivocation 73. The act of counterfeiting and dissembling with great men they commend as good and profitable 74. They say Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks 75. That the desires of the will going before assent are not sins 76. Neither is concupiscence a sin in the Baptized 77. That in concupiscence there is onely the evil of punishment not of sin 78. By that command thou shalt not covet it is not forbidden that we have no evil desires I have recited a huge Catalogue of errors to which I doubt not but many more may be heaped up As those which we are refuting in this book about Antichrist By all which it appears that the opposition of the Pope to Christs truth is not a particular opposition as in some hereticks but universal such as we may look for from Antichrist Thus far Bishop G. Downame FINIS * The abominable wickedness of your party even the Romane Cardinals themselves is proclaimed by many that have been your Priests and turned from you as Copley Sheldon Boxhorne and many more saith Sheldon in his Survey of Rome Miracles p. 18. having spoken of the Cardinals Sodomy Believe it Reader the abominations which are committed by these purpured Fathers and the Supream Fathers of that Synagogue are so detestable that they pass all narration either of modest or immodest pen. And it 's long since Petrarch Dante 's Aventine Parisiens Clemangis Sabellicus Grosthead Ferus and more of your own Writers have said enough to satisfie us of your sanctity Many a one that hath been â—iced to Popery in England have been cured by a journey to Rome seeing the abominations of that place Veniale culpa non est sed dispositio ad culpam Reinerius Cont. Waldens ubi infra Armeniorum Ecclesiae Ethiopum jndorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae Reinerius cont VValdens Catal. in Biblotheâ— Par. T. 4. p. 773. * Much contrary to Damascene who saith that the Rebaptized do crucifie Christ again Orthod fid li. 4. c. 5. p. mihi 296. Though I suppose he is as far on the other side * Religion in the first sence seems to be as Martinius propriè actio ejus qui res divinas studiose Relegit pictatis ergo though the word be thence variously used 2 Lactantius saith Instit li. 4. c. 28. Hac conditione gignimur ut generanti nos Deo justa debita obsequia prebcamus hunc sâ—lum noverimus hunc sequamur Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo Religati sumus unâ—e ipsa Religio nâ—men accepit non ut Cicero interpretatus est a Relegendo Melius id nomen Lucretius
That it is Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia that Austin speaks 2. That its cum omnibus and therefore not an Argument onely for such as deny the Church and right grounds 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred ☞ 4. So may wâ— say As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Romane Catholike Church Andradius Defen l. 2. Vainly replyeth that this is spoken onely to those Hereticks that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures 1. That 's plainly false for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish * That is Savingly Constantinus Magnus See Andrad Tâ—ef l. 2. fol. 110 c Where are the rest of his cavils Salvianus Massil de Provid li. 3. pag. mihi 62. The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres * That is before they corrupt antient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves Because many of these Errors are delivered onely by particular Doctors and all be not of a mind as to the sence and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning I thought meet to adde these Animadversions to acquaint you in what sence we reject them What I pass by without Animadversion I leave upon them as it is here charged and also suppose the difference to lie plain a 1. That is as the Authenticke sign of Gods will For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith as the Authorized chief revealers and God himself onely as the principal efficient and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed and the Catholike Church as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth 3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabrike 6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many especially Blondel in a just volume that abundance of them are forgeries and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines 7. At least quoad nos So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature 8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakeâ—s have their doctrine of the light within us 9. It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement 10. We confess as Peter saith of Pauls Epistles that there are somethings in them hard to be understood which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction But we maintaine that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends that is to be the Rule of our faith and life 11. This is one of their greatest errors 15. The last clause that the Popes authority is greater then the Churches the French do not hold And so they are divided in their foundation 16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder then the Church and we yield that the Church is elder then â—â—â—ings But we affirme that the doctrine as fetcht from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature as the cause of it at least as to the generality of members 17. The Negative is their master error but the Affirmative Proposition is not denyed of us as to every kind of dependance but of some special sorts of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit 2. c. 18. The height of Romish arrogancy 20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding â—â—le for there is eâ—â—ugh in it against them 21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God and contrary to express Scripture and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest and had they but this â—ne they could never expect that the Catholike Church should unite upon their principles 1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite so it was of God But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted or the corruption of the will inclining it to evil it is not of God 2. See Rada's first controversie 3. A posse mori and a posse non mori were not then Natural But a non posse mori or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience and is now given by Christ And a non posse non mori or an actual death are the fruits of sin 4 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical 1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us 2. Saith Davenant the point of Predetermination is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with But they that do are not of a mind in it no more then they 4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment but onely permitteth it But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention And so he justly withholdeth his grace and giveth men over to the power of the devil their own lusts 2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortifyed and all its motions subjected to holy Reason And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often The flesh and the body if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination much of the end that I say not the whole 4. Sins are called voluntary either because they are in the Will or from the will In the first sence the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second the ellicite and imperate acts Also they are voluntary directly and formally as are the wills owne acts and habits or participative as are the acts and habites of all the imperate faculties And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses nor any further then voluntary 5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin 8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in We have vicious habits and the abscence of Rectifying habits call this what you will Free will is either Physical and that all men have as they are men or moral which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good and this all have or to be free from vicious Habits and this onely the sanctified have and that but in part 9. It is the most noble controversie among the Schoolemen and Thomists and the greatest part seem rather to erre on the other extream and the Scotists that hold this to rectifie them do giâ— such explications of their doctrine as are well worth our study as you may see in Rada's first controversie