the Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
wherein it is revealed not a finding out what is not revealed But 1 Cor. 2 11. speaks of a knowledge of invention by search into the things without revelation a knowledge of invention not of discretion as the words vers 10. shew But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God Now Mr. Chillingworth so far as I discern did never assert that every mans private reason by its own search could ever finde out the mystery of the Gospel had not the Spirit revealed them to the Apostles and they to us but that each mans private reason since the Apostles have revealed them in their Writings may judge whether that which one Teacher saith is the Apostles meaning be truer than what another saith he makes Reason not the Judge of the Spirits revelation but of mens interpretation and inference 2 When Mr. Chillingworth makes each particular mans reason or his private spirit the Judge for himself he means right reason not every fancy which hath no proof and that reason which he calls right reason must be rectified by the Spirit of God and his influx upon the understanding and so the Text 1 Cor. 12. 3. is not against Mr. Chillingworth 3. When he means that every private mans reason or private spirit is a Judge to each man he conceives as the matter of his discourse lead him to speak this judgement to be onely of the meaning of the speech wherein the things revealed are made known whence comes a a speculative notional knowledge upon which a bare dogmatical faith follows but he asserted not right reason rectified by common influx of the spirit which understands onely the true meaning of such a Text or the truth of such a Proposition to be sufficient without a special work of the Spirit of God enabling a man to see the beauty worth goodness of the things thus believed above any other thing propounded to be chosen to beget an affective practical knowledge which begets faith of adherence of which 1 Cor. 12. 3. Ephes 2. 8. 2 Cor. 3. 5. 10. 5. are to be understood So that Mr. Chillingworth's Assertion rightly understood doth well consist with these Scriptures it being no whit contradictory to these speeches that no man can know by his invention the mystery hid in God but by the revelation of the Spirit and yet when it is revealed each mans private reason may judge of the meaning of the Scriptures in which it is revealed and whose Doctrine is most agreeable to those Scriptures and though no man can fiducially and electively say Jesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost yet without the sanctifying and renewing or indwelling of God's Spirit a person may by his private reason understand the meaning of this speech Jesus is the Lord and assent to it upon credible motives with a bare dogmatical faith And though saving faith be the spetial gift of God to his Elect yet in working faith God useth mans reason to understand what he is to believe and to judge it to be true and as H. T. saith here p. 77. The discourse and approbation of reason is always a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason And though we are not of our selves sufficient to think any good thing yet our selves do think good things and by reason rectified by God's Spirit do judge them to be good And though we are to captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith yet that obedience of faith to which our understanding is captivated is by the assent of the understanding upon the apprehensions which our reason hath of the good of that we assent to and that which we obey But saith H. T. Secondly because divine revelations are not to be admitted or rejected for their seeming consonancy or repugnance to every mans private reason but for the authority of the Church proposing as the immediate motive and the Authority of God revealing as the highest Motive of our Faith into which it is ultimately resolved nor can any thing be more rational than to captivate and even renounce private reason where God the Authour of Reason commands it I reply I doubt not but Mr. Chillingworth would have said so too and have counted it an injury done to him to suggest it as H. T. seems to do to any as if he meant otherwise provided that by the authority of the Church proposing be meant not the pretended infallible authority of the Church or Prelates of it but either the infallible authority of the Primitive Church comprehending the Apostles or the probable and credible authority of the present Church or Teachers in it But it is likely H. T. meant it of the infallible authority of the present Church or Prelates of it which is not yet proved and till it be Mr. Chillingworth's Assertion is not overthrown H. T. adds Thirdly because if every mans private reason is to judge for himself in matters of Religion then all the Heresies that ever yet were in the World were good and sound Doctrines for there was never any Sect of Hereticks who did not pretend both to Reason and Scripture for their Tenets how damnable soever and some of them such as were unaswerable by humane reason setting aside the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition for who can prove by private reason or by all the reason of man against the Arians that a spiritual and indivisible substance such as God is could beget a natural Son of himself without a Mother or against the Sabellians and Trinitarians that the same indivisible essence or divine nature can be at once in three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost or against Nestor and Eutiches that one person can subsist in two different natures the Divine and Humane in Christ which notwithstanding are high Fundamentals in Christianity In all these and many others private reason must either bend the knee and be captivate to faith or become Atheism I reply I conceive Mr. Chillingworth would have said so too to wit that private reason must bend the knee and be captivate to faith in points revealed though it cannot comprehend how thing revealed should be so and yet his Assertion hold that each ones private reason is to judge these to be matters of faith and it will judge them to be so by the evidence it hath that these are divine revelations which right reason knows to be so from the agreement with the Scriptures without the present or late Churches authority or unwritten traditions though termed Apostolical And those Tenents which a private mans reason findes to be agreeable to holy Scripture though the whole Church of this or former Ages since the Apostles days should judge them Heresie and the Nicene or any other Council condemn them yet is that person to hold them as truth provided he do use his reason aright
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
passage in his Epistle to the Reader in which he saith but not truly It is agreed by all parties that the Church founded in Christs blood was the onely mistris of Divine Faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two For this is not true of the church but of Christ his Apostles and their preaching and writings And therefore it is not true which he thence infers that the controversies of the Church are the most important doubtless of all others or that on the notion and eviction of her authority all other points essentially depend for their knowledge and decision which in effect is as if he had said Were there not a Pope and his council the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God and to decide any controversies in Religion which I count little better than blasphemy nor doth he well to begin with that point were it that he intended to have cleared truth he should first as Bellarmine and some others have done have examined the points of the Scriptures sufficiency and the needlesness of unwritten Traditions and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference that thereby the Reader might have discerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God sith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith which they hold as H. T. himself urgeth p. 45. Succession in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles continued unto this time is it by which the Church is known and therefore we must first know whether the Roman Faith be the same with that which Christ and his Apostles taught before we can know the truth of their succession and of their Church But H. T. after Becanus and others conceives it best for their design to forestall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church which being oncâ— setled in mens minds no marvel if they swallow down such gross Doctrines as Transubstantiation half Communion Invocation and Worship of Saints deceased Angels Reliques Images Crucifixes and the rest of their errors and abuses wherein any that reads the Scriptures may see how far they are gone from the Primitive saith taught by Christ and his Apostles nevertheless having premonished the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice I shall examine his Book in the order he hath chosen SECT III. The Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd ARticle 1. saith H. T. Our Tenet is That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the onely true Church of God Answ By the Sâ—e of Rome he means the Roman Bishop or Pope and the Communion he means is in the same Tenets which they hold according to the Trent Canons and Pius the fourth his Bull with subjection to the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ In which sense the Tenet is so palpably false and so extremely uncharitable that it is a marvel that any that hath the understanding of a man should imbrace it or the charity of a Christian should brook it For 1. If the Church now in communion with the See of Rome be the onely true Church of God then that Church onely hath eternal life for onely the true Church of God hath eternal life Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is their own determination Concil Lateran 4. Can. 2. and elsewhere But that Church which is not in communion with the See of Rome hath eternal life Ergo it is the true Church of God The Minor is proved thus That Church which believes in Jesus Christ hath eternal life But other Churches besides those now in communion with the See of Rome believe in Jesus Christ Ergo. The Major is plain from John 3. 16 18 36. 17. 3. 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11 12. Mark 16. 16. in which it is expresly said that he that believeth on Christ without any mention of Peter or the Pope hath eternal life The Minor is proved by their profession and other evidences of their reality in believing which if any deny to prove true faith in them he may as well deny there are any believers in Christ in the world 2. If there be no true Churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then there is some other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ given among men by which we must be saved and there is salvation in some other besides him for men have salvation in that name by which they are the true church of God and if we be the true church of God by communion with the Pope we have salvation by the Pope But this is most false and Antichristian to ascribe salvation to any other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ as being expresly contradictory to Peter's own words Act. 4. 12. There is no salvation in any other neither is there any name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ not Peter or the Bishop of Rome 3. If no churches be true churches of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ died for no other churches but them For Christ died for his church Ephes 5. 25. it is not said he gave himself for them who are not his church But sure it is very uncharitable to say that Christ died for no other than those that own the Pope and contrary to the Scripture that God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. therefore it is false and uncharitable to exclude all but Romanists out of the church of God 4. If none be the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are members of Christ in Christ the sons of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the true church of God onely are members of Christ in Christ the children of God Ephes 23. But it is false that none are members of Christ in Christ or children of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the Apostle tels the Galatians Gal. 3. 26 27. that they were all the sons of God by â—aith in Christ Jesus that as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ v. 28 that they were all one in Christ Jesus without any requiring of communion with the See of Rome 5. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ is present with none by his Spirit and protection but such as are in that communion For such as are not the true Church of God Christ is not present with them by his Spirit and protection Rom. 8. 9. Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in you If any man have not
not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian nor to take on him to juâ—ge their cause but to remit them to their own Bishops 2. It appears by the fact of Cypriâ—n who opposed Stâ—phen Bishop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks as his Epistle to Pompeius shews and joyned with Firmiâ—â—anus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen and so involved in the same censure in which state he died without repentance for ought is known and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible or his judge or himself subject to him but counted Stephen an usurper over his brethren by reason of his imposing his decree on others and censure of dissenters And for the words in the Epistle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them To Peters chair and the principal Church infidelity or false faith cannot have access But to the Romans meaning not only the Bishop but the rest of the church and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or false faith whatsoever but those perfidious persons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian nor doth he say that perfidiousness could have access at no time but not at that time which he ascribes not to the priviledge of the place but their constancy in the faith heretofore praised by Paul and to the providence of Cornelius their Bishop and their own vigilancy as the words in the end of the Epistle shew Although I know there your fraternity to wit being fenced by your Providence and also wary enough by their own vigilancy cannot be taken with the poysons of hereticks nor deceived and that so much the magisteries and divine precepts prevail with them as the fear of God is in them yet our over abundance of carefulness or charity hath perswaded us to write these things to you being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epistle Marvailing enough when he observed by his letter that he was somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came and therefore doth earnestly press him to take courage and to withstand them Which being rightly understood the speeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman constancy and the inaccessibleness of perfidiousness to them appear only expressions of his confidence and good hopes not of any certainty that it would be so much less of any infallibility of their Bishop or church and this he did to engage them to withstand the schismaticks it being a great argument with persons to be constant to those who express their confiding in them and their expectation thereof And therefore he would have his Epistle read to the most flourishing Clergy there presiding with Cornelius and the most holy and most ample common people or Laity that if any contagion of poysoned speech and pestiferous sowing had crept in it might be all put off from the ears and breasts of the brethren and the entire and sincere love of good men might be cleansed from all filth of heretical detraction which shews that he conceived them liable to such contagion and pollution and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free All these things being considered it will appear that these passages of Cyprian are so far from proving the infallibility and supreme judicature and supremacy of the Pope and church of Rome which H. T. asserts that they prove the contrary The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worship of God this is the well-spring of truth the dwelling place of faith c. are true but nothing to the purpose it being a meer dream that the Româ—n and Catholick church are the same nor if they were do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith or supreme judicature in controversies of faith but the enjoying for themselves the true worship truth and faith The words of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed l. 3. c. 4 in apolog cont Ruffinum we subscribe to who profess our ready reception of what faith the Apostles commanded The words of Vincentius Lyrinensis adv hares c. 41. are thus not as H. T. cites them In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and studiously to be observed unto which they ought altogether to stick who will not be hereticks the first if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an universal council from all the Priests of the Catholick Church which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible much lesse that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible Nor are the words of Augustin which I finde not l. 4. de bapt c. 4 I know by Divine revelation that the spirit of truth teacheth it all truth if they be as H. T. cites them for his purpose For if by it he means the church it follows not he means the Roman church and if the spirit teach it all truth it cannot be meant of all truth simply nor at all times But I finde these words l. 4. de bapt contra Donat. c. 5. In vain some when they are overcome by reason object to us custome as if custome were greater then truth or that were not to be followed in spirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit This is plainly true that reason and truth is to be put before custome The words of Augustin epist 118. c. 5. are not fully set down by H. T. They are thus If the authority of divine Scripture prescribe which of these speaking about offering and fasting is to be donâ— it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read In like manner also if any of these things the whole Church through the world doth frequent For to dispute whether we are so to do is of most insolent madness Where 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture not in points of faith 2. Neither doth he count it madness to dispute against the use of the Roman church yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambrose to fast as they did at Millan when he was there and as they did at Rome when he was there Epist 86. ad Casul no nor to dispute against the whole church of one age but against the whole church in every age Other words of August cont epist fundam c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romanists for the asserting the authority of the church above the Scripture thus And I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it But the words are not thus rightly alleged For 1. The word Catholick is left out which shews he meant it not of the Roman onely and some words following seem to extend it to the church comprehending
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
in his days of which he warns Christians and our Lord Christ commands Revel 2. 2. the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in that he had tried some that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them Liars As for some of those things which Ancients have called Apostolical tradition the Papists themselves do reject them as the opinion of the Millenaries the keeping of Easter as the Quartodeciman held the giving the communion to Infants and many more and therefore all Apostolical traditions so termed cannot be the Rule of trial nor can they give us any sure Notes by which we may distinguish genuine Apostolical tradition unwritten from them that are supposititious It is true the oral tradition of the Apostles while they lived and there was access to them might be fit to be a means to try spirits by but the relation of Irenaeus lib. 2. adv haeres cap. 39. about Christ's age and the censure given of Papias in Eusebius plainly shew how quickly such traditions came to be mistakes and the very reason of John 1 Epist 4. 1. doth take us off from trying by such tradition because of the multitude of deceivers and therefore requires that such spirits as pretended tradition should be tried by an unerring Rule which is the holy Scripture But H. T. takes up the blasphemous reproach which some impudent railing Papists have heretofore given to the holy Scripture when it bids us not try by the dead letter by which he means the Scripture in contradistinction to unwritten tradition Which sure is not the language of the holy Ghost but of such impure mouths as in love to their Romish Idols endeavour to disgrace the holy Scripture 'T is true the Law ingraven in stone is termed 2 Cor. 3. 6. the killing letter yet not of it self for elsewhere Act. 7. 38. the law of Moses is termed the living Oracles but by accident in that it could not give life Gal 3. 21. in that it was weak through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. it did kill that is condemn men as guilty of sin and so accursed by it Gal. 3. 10. But on the contrary the Word of God is termed living Heb. 4. 12. the word of life Phil. 2. 16. And our Lord Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they did think they had eternal life John 5. 39. and John 20. 31. These things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and believing ye might have life through his name So that justly may H. T. with such other as before him have done the like be charged with impiety in his disparagingly terming the holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament the dead letter which Paul calls the word of life But it 's likely he meant that the Scriptures cannot hear both parties and so pronounce sentence in a point of controversie If this be his meaning he might term the churches sentence printed or written in parchment and Apostolical tradition unwritten the dead letters as well as the holy Scriptures For surely the authority of the church in an Oecumenical council approved by the Pope suppose the Trent council approved by Pope Pius the fourth and the Apostolical tradition doth no more hear or speak then the Scripture And it sure discovers an extream perversness and malignity of spirit in Papists that refuse to be tried by Scripture as being dead and require a living Judge to end controversies when the council and Pope and Apostolical tradition they would try by are as much dead as the Scripture which there is reason to conceive they do as foreseeing that if their proselytes would try their doctrines by the Scripture they could not stand As for humane reason no Protestant that I know makes that the rule by which he is to try the spirits nor his own private spirit if by it be meant his own councils But we say that every man is to make use of his own reason or judgement of discretion and the ability of his own intelligent spirit as the instrument or means by which he is to try whether that doctrine which is propounded to him be according to holy Scripture and in this he doth no more then Christ requires Luke 12. 57. yea and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right without the use of which it is impossible for men to make trial as men And this the Papists themselves must allow men to do according to their own principles For how else can they hear and believe the church if they do not use their reason to know the church and what it saith they must make men blocks or brutes if they allow them not the use of reason to try by When H. T. brings arguments from texts of Scripture Councils Fathers common sense and experience as his title page pretends would he not have men to use their reason to try whether he do it rightly would he have us go to a council approved by the Pope to know whether his arguments be good what a meer mockery is this of men to write books to teach people and yet not permit people to use humane reason to try their tenets whether they be according to Scripture Council Fathers common sense and experience as if we must not only take an Oâ—cumenical council approved by the Pope but also H. T. and every Popish writer whose book is licensed to be infallible If he write is it not that we may read and will he have us read and not judge and can we judge without humane reason But it is the fashion of these men to write and speak in points of controversie but not to permit their Disciples unless they judge them firm to them whatever they meet with to the contrary to examine their adversaries tenents arguments and answers by reading the Scripture and such impartial writers as would discover their deceit but either by some device or plain prohibition to deter them from searching after the truth that they may rest on the Popes and prelates determinations without examining H. T. further adds Obj. The Church may erre at least in points not fundamental Answ All that God hath revealed is fundamental at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the Divine authority revealing though not always for the matter and if it be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church as so revealed we are then bound to believe it so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals is idle Besides if the Church be infallible in fundamentals then Protestants are Schismaticks at least in revelting from her in points not fundamental or necessary to salvation and sin against charity by accusing us of Idolatry I reply 1. Sure this exception is idle to argue the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith which the users of it take from the matter according to which he confesseth all is not fundamental that God revealeth to be idle because all
to discover the truth And though it be that Councils may be and have been usefull when good choice hath been made of persons and undue practises to mis-lead and over-aw them have been removed yet as Nazianzen in his five and fiftieth Epistle ad Procopium complained that he knew no good issue of them so he that shall examine the cariage of things in Councils even the best of them since the Apostles days will finde reason not to take any thing from them on trust meerly by reason of their authority and for the Councils which have been above a thousand years by reason of the activity and prevalency of Factions and the unlearnedness of most of the Bishops in them will find more reason to be jealous of what Councils have determined them to acquiesce in them Nor will it follow that if this judgement be allowed to every private man then all or any Heresies whatsoever have been good and sound Doctrine but that those who have pretended Reason and Scripture have abused both Nor is H. T. his Reason of force because Hereticks pretend to reason and Scripture therefore every one is not to judge for himself and all Heresies were sound Doctrine any more than than this cavillers pretend Law and Reason therefore Judges that use their knowledge in the Law and their Reason in passing Sentence do justifie cavillers or determin no better then cavillers Were the Churches authority infallible hereticks might and did pretend to it's authority and Apostolick tradition and therefore notwithstanding these yet heresie may be taken for sound doctrine as well as if private reason be made a Judge for each ones self yea many heresies have alledged unwritten tradition and have had some council or other perhaps more and more numerous to patronize them then the Orthodox so that I may say setting aside the holy Scripture which is now the rule by which to determine what is error what not neither the Churches authority nor unwritten tradition can prove a point to be heresie or extirpate it but rather propagate and establish error as by experience is manifest there being never more heresies established and propagated by any one or more private mens following their reason then have been by the Popes and Councils supposed to be Oecumenical and infallible nor is there any greater cause of erring then the confidence of infallibility nor any error so fast rooted as that which is decreed by men that will confesse no error As for those heresies which he reckons as unanswerable by humane reason if he mean they are unanswerable by humane reason how or in what manner the things opposed by them are it is granted but of this Mr. Chillingworth doth not make humane reason Judge if any humane reason cannot comprehend how a thing should be nor can answer all objections yet if it judge that God hath revealed it is so it is to believe it even as Mary was to believe her having a son though she knew not how Luk. 1. 34. That which each mans reason is to judge is not how a thing can be which God hath revealed is or shall be but whether it be so revealed and this he is to do not by a blind assent to what the Church or his teachers say but by searching as the Beraeans did Act. 17. 11. with Gods approbation even when Paul preached to them the Scriptures whether they say right And if the Scripture say the contrary to what those named hereticks say then are their tenents to be rejected of which each persons reason is to judge for himself he being to be saved or damned according to his own faith if not the determination of councils against it is not to be received And this manner of judging by reason will neither promote herefie nor Atheism but on the contrary if the Popes Councils Churches determination be counted infallible it will perpetuate an error if once received as too much woful experience shews in the Roman Papacy wherein the error of transubstantiation though it be such as is so contrary to Scripture reason sense Fathers that a man unprejudiced would think them meer mad men or phrenetick persons who hold it yet it is by Papists maintained I dare hardly say by the learned believed most obstinately and furiously to this day Finally saith H. T. because if private reason were the onely Judge of controversies it would evidently follow the general councils of all former ages which have commanded all persons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions and submit to their decrees were the most tyrannical and unjust assemblies that ever were in usurping such a power over mens consciences and consequently that there neither is nor ever was any such thing on earth as a Church or obliging guide in matters of faith and Church Government I reply though Mr. Chillingworth say not private reason to be the onely Judge of controversies nor denies the Church or Council to be Judge of controversies but only the infallibility of them yet if he did say either neither of these things would follow which H. T. makes consequent thereon For notwithstanding such saying he might deem councils to have followed Scripture and therefore not unjust in those commands and that there was a Church and Church government obliging men in matters of faith though not by vertue of their own authority yet by vertue of Gods revelation in the holy Scriptures Neverthelesse if I may be allowed to speak my judgement freely I do think that if not all yet most of the Councils termed general have been for more then one hundred years too unjust and tyrannical in their commands usurping the words of the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. 28. too arrogantly as if their authority were equal to the Apostles and imposing on mens consciences burdens too intolerable and that this hath been a most pernicious engine of Satan to cause divisions and mischiefs in the Church of Christ And certainly if any have followed humane reason and a private spirit in deciding controversies of faith and judging matters of religion they have been Popes and the Councils approved by Popes who do almost in every thing in some things expressely forsake the Scripture and adhere to their own reason in their Canons and Decrees and Papists who receive their determinations do forsake the guidance of Gods Spirit and follow humane reason and a private spirit H. T saith further Ob. Your therefore believe the Church to be infallible and whatever else you believe because you judge it reasonable to believe it and your very act of faith it self is an act of reason therefore reason is the only Judge of controversies Answ The discourse and approbation of reason is alwayes a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason not discoursing but simply assenting All this I grant yes I deny your consequence because our acts of faith are not ultimately resolved into
Scripture or many Protestant ones are not and thus I frame my discourse All Protestant Tenets say you are sufficiently contained in Scripture but many Catholick Doctrines say I denied by Protestants are as evident in Scripture as divers Protestant Tenets therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture He that has hardiness enough to deny this Conclusion let him compare the Texts that recommend the Churches authority in deciding controversies and expounding Articles of Faith with these that support the Protestant private spirit or particular judgement of discretion let him compare the places that favour priestly Absolution with those on which they ground their necessity not to stand upon the lawfulness of Infant-baptism let him compare the passages of the Bible for the real presence of our Saviours body in the Eucharist for the primacy of St. Peter for the authority of Apostolical Traditions though unwritten with what ever he can cite to prove the three distinct persons in the blessed Trinity the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father the procession of the holy Ghost from both the obligation of the Sunday in stead of the Sabbath so expresly commanded in the Moral Law and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleases I shall offer him onely this request either to admit the Argument or teach me to answer it Answ H. T. sure hath a singular eyesight which sees such an evidence in this Argument as that he sees nothing more evident What is not this more evident that the whole is bigger than a part that God made the World that the Word was made Flesh Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonstration specially when what the man holds at one time upon second and better thoughts he relinquisheth nor is an argument ad hominem fit to establish any truth but somewhat to lessen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconsistencies and therefore the cause is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith or that Popish Doctrine is grounded on Scripture because some Protestant tenets have no better proof thence than some Popish tenets denied to be contained in the Scripture But that I may gratifie H. T. as much as in me lieth in his request I tell him The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know nor if I would examine the form of it do I doubt but that I should finde four terms in it at least and then H. T. it is likely knows his Syâ—logism is naught Nor do I know how to form it better unless it be formed dis-junctively but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him To it as I finde it I say that if he mean that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scripture who ever he be that saith so yet I dare not say so But this I think that all or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship which are controverted between them are sufficiently contained in the Scripture and all of them ought to be or else they may be rejected And for his Minor I deny it if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith which are held by all or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions excepting some about Discipline Ceremonies and Sacraments And for his instances to the first I say I am willing any Reader who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controversies or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is propounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope general Council or Prelates who are never called the Church in Scripture And for the second I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet that Infant-baptism is necessary and for the lawfulness I grant there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it that is none at all for either And for the third there are Protestants that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist as the Lutherans and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver but not bodily but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self as Scotus long ago resolved And for the Primacy of St. Peter it hath been told this Authour that a Primacy of order of zeal and some other endowments is yielded by Protestants but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied and it is proved before Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture And for the authority of Apostolical traditions though unwritten if there were any such truly so called I should not deny it but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us he hath not proved in this Article nor brought one Text for it but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians Arians Socinians as to yield that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons the Sons consubstantiality the Spirits procession more evident than this is my Body for Transubstantiation Thou art Peter for the Popes Supremacy and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods nature and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture As for Sunday being in stead of the Sabbath he should me thinks allow somewhat in Scripture for it Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Revel 1. 10. more evident than for his real presence Peter's Supremacy unwritten Traditions But I see prejudice doth much to sway men and make them see what others cannot The Crow thinks her own Bird fairest Yet again saith H. T. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be applied to the negative as well as positive Doctrines on either side All Catholick points denied by Protestants are sufficiently say you condemned in Scripture But many points imbraced by Protestants are as clearly say I condemned in Scripture as divers they deny in opposition to Catholicks therefore many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture Where does the Bible so plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead as this darling Errour and fundamental Principle of Protestancy that any one
thou me more than thou lovest them or more than they love me And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profession and shamefull denial 2. That Christ made Peter a Head or gave him a supreme Dominion under the term of Feeding But 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to rule but onely to provide pasture or to eate as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth Jude 12. being intransitive both of them where they are enjoyned to Apostles Bishops or Presbyters note teaching not imposing Laws on persons excommunicating depriving and such like acts as Popes claim as belonging to them as Pastours as may appear by viewing the places Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 20. 28 29 30 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power Jurisdiction and Government in Peter it proves every Bishop and Presbyter to be also a supreme Head and Governour over the Church of God 2. That Peter had no such Headship of Government and Jurisdiction given him in those words John 21. 17 18. is proved by the description of the persons to whom these acts of feeding were to done they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Christ not Goats now to the Lambs and Sheep of Christ no act of lordly rule such as imposing Laws excommunicating depriving or the like acts in which the Pope placeth his power of Jurisdiction could be lawfully done nor did Peter any such acts but teaching them being guides to them directing exhorting and comforting them which the Pope regards not to do were to be done to them Wherefore it is plain that lordly rule was not appointed by Christ but fatherly care and tenderness in that injunction and that which Christ enjoyned in his Commission to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do noâ— thinks it his work but another thing to wit princely dominion which Christ forbade 3. The third thing supposed is that because the terms are indefinite my Lambs my Sheep therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep even the whole Catholick Church which if true then it is false which Paul saith Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and the Gospel of the circumcisiou unto Peter and vers 9. James and Cephas and John did sin against Christ's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Heathen and James Cephas and John to the Circumcision and Paul did ill to style himself the Teacher of the Gentiles 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he should have boasted in another mans line or rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. sith all places had been within Peter's line or rule and he did ill to say Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and never mention Peter's Supremacy no not in that very Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Rome so much as once naming him who was if Papists say true the Universal Bishop and Bishop of Rome and sate there at that time when he wrote that Epistle nor doth Paul salute him when he salutes many of less note As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Christ it is very frivolous For an indefinite term is not all one with an universal unless the matter so require it but in such kinde of speecheâ— as these it notes onely indefinite particulars as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we should remember the poor that is so many as we could and when Christ bids Matth. 10. 8. Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead it is meant without exceeption of any yet not an injunction to heal every individual or to raise every dead person but such as there was occasion of healing and raising And when Mark 16. 15. the Apostles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature the Command is to preach to any one without exception yet not to every individual which had been impossible so here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely yet not all universally which had been an impossible task 4. It is supposed that John 21. 16 17. was a Commission conferring power authority rule and that over the very Apostles themselves and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection of Christ Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care not dignity or authority of empire and hath nothing in it of jurisdiction as a Judge or Commander but of faithfulness and diligence as a servant and guide And in this the Apostles were equal to him H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 97. The Apostles were equal in their calling to the Apostleship to which this of feeding the Sheep of Christ belonged and therefore Peter reckons himself but a fellow Elder and requires other Elders to feed as well as himself 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Ephesus are appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the Church of God which is as large an exppression as is John 21. 16 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headship in them as in Peter And Paul counted himself not behinde the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to â—im nothing Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him but was equal to him And to bid Peter to feed the Apostles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds The Doctrine of the Gospel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter but of the Apostles in common Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted persons and they were together nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd or by his direction but by agreement Gal. 2. 9. yea they sent Peter to Samaria Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection but a task enjoyned to him because of his more open denial three times charged on him as he thrice denied Christ and used as a stay of Peter's weakness rather than a mark of his worthiness much less a proof of his Supremacy SECT V. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy THe second Argument of H. T. is this He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith and is generally set bâ—fore others in the Scripture must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apostles in the faith and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures therefore St. Peter was above the rest of the Apostles in power and dignity and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest Answ The Conclusion it self might
it being in Luke 22. 25. onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have rule over them And that where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth not forbid onely tyrannical dominion but also any dominion at all over one another is apparent from many Arguments in the Text. 1. From the occasion which was the petition and contention in opposition to which this answer being made Christ must be conceived to forbid what they sought for else it had not been apposite to the business but they sought not tyrannical dominion but the higher seat and chief dignity and power or as Christ's answer Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimates they strove for seniority or priority of order and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 24. and Matth. 20. 27. Mark 10. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that the thing they sought was not Supremacy but onely priority therefore our Lord Christ forbids not onely tyrannical dominion but the higher seat chief dignity and power and the affecting seniority or priority over or before one another 2. From the subjects whose dominion is forbidden who are termed not Tyrants but Kings of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that have authority Luke 22. 25. in Matth. 20. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes or Rulers or Leaders of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the great ones in Mark 10 42. yet more diminutively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that seem or are accounted to rule or lead the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their great ones Which terms do plainly shew that these whose dominion was forbidden to the Apostles were the Rulers which were esteemed and accepted by those to whom they were Rulers and had lawfull authority and therefore such rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used among the Nations and not onely tyrannical and meer lording it over one another after their own will 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however it may be sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be meant so sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have absolute lordly arbitrary forcible dominion 4. This is further confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well forbidden as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have authority or power as well as to have dominion and that which is expressed by the compound in Matthew and Mark is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple in Luke which is used still of rule without abuse 5. In Luke it is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word that signifies Benefactours and though to be Benefactours is not forbidden yet it is forbidden to be so called that is to affect that Title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another in bestowing favours granting petitions one to another bestowing preferments or refuse which doth imply superiority in some sort and such a dependence one on another as the Apostles were not to have 6. The additional speech of Christ commanding in stead of dominion Matth. 20. 26. 27. Rather Ministery and service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7. Christ's propounding his own Example Matth. 20 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 22. 27. as that which they were to follow evinceth the same And though it is true he was their Master and Lord John 13. 13. yet both there vers 14 15. and here he propounds himself an Example onely in service 8. He expresseth that which he would have them to be so emphatically that he not onely forbids that which all counted unlawfull to wit tyrannical rule but also requires in those places such a mutual debasement voluntary subjection condescension Ministery yielding to each other as takes away all assuming of so much as was lawfull in others even the taking to themselves priority of order or place precedency seniority affected empire or rule over one another as the words Matth. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. do plainly shew 9 This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Matth. 18. 1. 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33 34 35. Luke 9. 46 47. in which places Christ resolves them that they should be as a little childe that assumes not empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10. It is further evident from Luke 22. 28 29. 30. that Christ having forbidden Supremacy or superiority in any of them among themselves doth promise them a Kingdom afterwards and that then they should be in his Kingdom and eat and drink at his Table and sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel in recompense of their abiding with him in his temptations And in very truth if there were no more than the consideration of the present state of Peter and the Apostles their despised and persecuted condition and the future accidents that Christ foretold should befall Peter in particular John 21. 28. and the rest of the Apostles Matth. 24 9. no man could reasonably imagine that Christ should make Peter a visible Monarch to rule the Apostles and the Church scattered over the World he himself being in prison and they also and in so remote places he unknown to them and they to him they having no access or means of access to him nor knowing where to finde him but all judicious men must conceive that this device of Peter's Supremacy over the Apostles and whole Church given by Christ is a meer impudent forgery as was after Constantine's donation to the Bishop of Rome by which wicked means the Popes have usurped the greatest tyranny that ever was in the World Out of all this I gather that Christ intended 1. That there should be no Kingdom Monarchy or Empire in any of the Apostles over the rest or any part of the Church till he came but that their state should be a state of service in preaching the Gospel and laying the foundation of Christianity till his coming 2. That then he onely would be King and they all equals sitting upon twelve Thrones with him and therefore that he would make none of them supreme Monarch over the rest nor Vicar to himself as the Pope doth blasphemously and arrogantly challenge And for that which H. T. saith that Christ expresly mentions a greater and a lesser a superiour and inferiour among them it is frivolously added sith it is plain that what in Luke is vers 26. he that is greater he that is chief is in Matthew 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43. He that would be great among you he that would be first and that which is in Matth. 20. 26 27. let him be in Mark 10. 43 44. shall be your Minister your servant is in Luke 22. 26. Let him be as the younger as the
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by