the Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
private reason which faith often is inforced to captivate but into the authority of God revealing and the Church proposing I believe it saith Tertullian because it is impossible viz. to humane reason I reply 1. Chillingworth makes not reason the only Judge of controversies nor any Protestant therefore the conclusion is ill fathered on them 2. The reason of H. T. his denial of the consequence is insufficient For it supposeth the consequence to imply that our acts of faith are ultimately resolved into private reason and this private reason judging that onely to be true of which it conceives how it is possible But the truth is they that make reason the Judge of controversies neither resolve ultimately their acts of faith into private reason neither do they conceive they have reason to believe onely what they conceive how it is possible to humane reason but resolve their faith into Gods authority as the formal and ultimate reason of their believing and make their reason onely the means or instrument by which they finde that God hath revealed that which they believe not excluding their teachers credit and Churches example as a fit motive to hearken to it as a thing credible Which opinion is confirmed by this authors own words making faith an act of reason and discourse and approbation of reason alwayes a previous and necessary condition to it and therefore in all acts of faith even when it rests on the Churches Authority yet eachmans private reason is the Judge for himself discerning in controversies why he is to believe one and not another all the difference is the Papist thinks he hath reason to believe transubstantiation Popes supremacy c. because he takes the Church of Rome or Pope to be infallible The Protestant doth not believe them because the Scripture doth not say thus which alone he takes for an infallible rule to judge by in such controversies Whether Papists faith be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God revealing hath been before considered a little and will more in that which follows To Tertullians words I can return no answer till I know where to finde them As they are here cited they seem nor right Yet again saith H. T. Ob. There is no Apostolical tradition for the Churches infallibility Answ Yes a more universal one then for the Canon of the Scripture it self which notwithstanding you believe on that score if at all For there is not any one book either of the old or new Testament which hath not been rejected by some heretick or other if therefore it be a sufficient proof of an universal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture that some one or two general Councils have set down the number and names of all the books of Scripture though not without some variety and that the Fathers have given testimony to them some to some books some to others but few to all and that the Church in after ages hath accepted them for such how much more universal is the tradition for the Churches infallibility which is virtually decided and attested by the Anathema's and definitions of all the general Councils that ever were condemning all who did not humbly obey and subscribe to them every decision being attested by all the Fathers no one contradicting or condemning the stile and most unanimously accepted by the whole Church of after ages I reply the speech of H. T. here that there is a more universal Apostolical tradition for the Churches that is not only the Church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly Oecumenical that is to say call'd out of the whole world and approved by the Pope it's infallibility in definitions of faith then for the Canon of the Scriptures it self is so monstrously false and so pernicious as tending to the undermining of the fabrick of Christian Religion that it shews an impudent face and an impious heart in the assertor For 1. The tradition of the Canon of the old Testament is by the whole Nation of the Jews from Moses to Christ and from Christ and his Apostles who have testified that to them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 1 2. and this witnessed by the Jews unto the death and by the complement and events verifying it And though it be that some hereticks have been adversaries to the Law and Prophets yet scarce any but such as have been little better then phrenetick have denied it to be divine however they have conceived them not binding And for the Canon of the new Testament though some parts have been a little while somewhat doubted of in the second and third ages by some few yet the rest have had universal and undoubted tradition from the Apostles and Evangelists and primitive teachers who witnessed the truth of the doctrine by many evident undeniable divine miracles and by their martyrdome by which also in after ages many of the Fathers and other Christians gave testimony to it and since the Churches Greek and Latin Protestant and Popish Heretical and Orthodox in Asia Africa Europe have attested it as divine But for the Churches infalibility in that sense in which this Author means it how little hath been brought appears by the answer here made and that much may be said against it will appear by that which follows Yea I dare bodly say that as H. T. holds it no one Council or Father of esteeme held the Churches infallibility in the first thousand years from Christs incarnation and I think I may say for half a thousand more but many not onely of those who are reckoned for hereticks by Romanists but also such as have been judged Catholicks have opposed it in the second and third ages yea whole Nations Emperors Kings and states have opposed the definitions which the so termed Generals Councils approved by the Pope have made and many learned men have written against it none died for it in that time nor were any miracles wrought to confirme it Nor hath the questioning of some few of the books of Scripture either by some hereticks or a few Fathers for a while abated the credit of those parcels questioned in the Churches of Christ throughout the world So that if it were true that we believed the Canon as I know nothing but uncharitablenesse can make this Author question whether we do onely on that score as we do not yet we have far more abundant tradition for it then is for the Churches imagined infallibility 2. I say the Anathema's and definitions are neither formal nor virtual proofs of an universal tradition or attestation to the Churches infallibility For 1. p. 7. He confesseth in the second and third ages were no councils nor in the tenth in which any controversies of moment were decided p. 25. and therefore here this universal tradition fails 2. Those that were not approved by the Popes but rejected by them and those which were not Oecumenical have not used such Anathema's
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
The multitude of believers had one heart one soul Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church The Nicene Creed Ans 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity was the true church after he changeth it into this that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ By comparing of which it is apparent that this Author supposeth the true church the church of Rome and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or diverse names of the same thing which is supposed but not proved nor yeilded nor can be true as shall be shewed after 2. This Author pretends to demonstrate by this argument the church of Rome to be perfectly one which should have been his conclusion whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor though they belong to the middle term which should be the same in both premises nor is any proof brought for them here to wit that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth the visible or ministerial head of that church which is one body one fold or flock 4. That the Major might be for his purpose it should have been thus that church which is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial and no other is the church of Christ but such is the church of Rome ergo But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives which is against Logick rules and makes the syllogism naught as the very freshmen know But to it as it is now framed I answer If the words and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial be left out the Major is granted in this sense that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals and one flock by unity of one head and supreme Pastor But in H. T. his sense it is most false that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points or without any divisions in rites and disciplin and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth as Christs deputy and the churches visible head Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state but profession and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth or agreement in all points but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it as many as participate of one bread but for we all partake of one bread it being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some copies of the vulgar nam omnes as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin so that the meaning is this we do shew our selves one body one bread forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper The next text Ephes 1. 22 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head to wit Christ as H. T. rightly interprets it And the third text John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock as it should be read not one fold in respect of one Pastor which the very words ver 11. 14 15 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself who gave his life for them and no other and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor The next text 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms not that they are or must be if they be the true church but the text proves the contrary that they may be a true church though there be Schisms and difference of judgement among them The fifth Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so at which time they had also all things common which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times but not that the whole church shall be so still The last John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so and so will be accomplished but by the words ver 21 22 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory or if afore yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing for so Peter and Paul did not agree as Gal. 2. 11 12 13 14. it appears but of such unity in communion with God and aiming at his glory as is only in the elect by vertue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church but not an unity by agreement in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts but not one for his purpose SECT IV. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary H. T. adds The minor is made evident even to the weakest understanding by the present manifold Schisms and divisions which are now among Protestants and all other Sectaries as well in doctrine as government whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine all the world over even to the least Article or point of faith being all united to one supreme invisible head Christ Jesus and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head the Pope his Vicar on earth we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle I believe the holy Catholick church we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies God himself being the prime Author and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith Answ 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church but from the now Roman party who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tridentin council though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them
off from the unity of the Catholick church they own Christ their head and faith in him which is sufficient to save them and even by this Authors next argument enough to make them members of the Catholick church 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels Onuphrius reckons up thirty Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours Antipapes and all that have adhered to them Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception about the superiority of a council above the Pope about Priests marriages election of Popes investiture of Bishops have been so great and frequent and of long continuance as their own histories shew that they far exceed the Protestants divisions The divisions in this last age and some at this day to wit in and since the council of Trent between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius about certainty of salvation Pighius and others about inherent righteousness the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence not deriving their Episcopacy from the Pope the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council nor yet receiving the Trent council the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth about the vulgar translation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse though one in many places contradict the other as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations between Papists in Italy at Venice and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molâ—nists about Gods predeterminations efficacious and sufficient grace and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ the continuance of them the parties differing and their bitterness one to another then the Protestants divisions and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over even to the least article or point of faith is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars though the simple English Papists from whom the truth of these things is concealed are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so Nor doth that which H. T. here saith salve the matter and if it did the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves notwithstanding their divisions in respect of means for unity For 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false or that which Papists reject in Protestants If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope or the Pope with his Cardinals or a council it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church which according to their own Tridentin Catechism contains all believers from Adam to this day or that shall be hereafter and according to this Author p. 59. is coexistent with all times and spread or diffused over all places or if it be understood according to good sense it is most false For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities much less authorized thereto nor do Papists so look on them For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council or their Priests who only are to most the immediate proponents but rest in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church properly understood as in the Creed it is believed for it is invisible they never did together express their determination in all points of faith have varied in many nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had much less to the believers of this age Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities nor fit for such an authority as to be infallible Judge of controversies for to say the Catholick church is such is to say the university of believers is such of whom a great part are women a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. who tells us that God hath set some in the Church first Apostles then Prophets thirdly Teachers not the church to be teachers which is all one with proponents of revealed verities but teachers in the church and these are denied to be all the church when he saith ver 29. Are all teachers And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. where he saith let God he true and every man a lyar surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies yea should this be granted it would bring all confusion into the churches of God Nor can the speech have any good sense that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach that every man is to judge for himself not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears and receives yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes
and councils are ambiguous as they were in the council of Trent and are often in the Decrees Breves and other edicts of Popes as is manifest by the writers on the Canon law and disputes about the councils and Popes meaning in which are so many ambiguities that there is scarce a point in which there are not many opposite opinions If Pappus have overcounted who reckons out of Bellarmin alone two hundred thirty seven contradictions in Popish writers yet he that reads Bellarmins controversies shall finde very few questions in which the Schoolmen and other Papists do not gainsay each other And as for their resolution into the principle I believe the Catholick church They are not agreed what the church is from whom they may have resolution whether the Pope who is with them the church virtual or a general council which is either never or very rare which they call the church representative or the uniform consent of the Fathers according to which only the profession of faith of Pope Pius the fourth requires all Papists to receive and expound the holy Scriptures and yet this uniform consent of Fathers is either a nullity it being scarce found in any point or it is impossible to be known H. T. by his words pag. 108. resolves his faith into the next precedent age and so upwards and here pag. 30. into the church and this church is pag. 70. not the whole church which yet is all one with the Catholick but a council approved by the Pope into whose authority they finally resolve their faith for though they pretend to resolve it into the Scripture yet as it is expounded by the church pag. 109 113. which is the Pope So that whatever pretence they make of resolving their faith into the church as the proponent or God as the Author in conclusion they acquiesce in what the Pope dictates by himself or with a council approved by him As for the Scriptures the Papists are not all agreed which be the Canonical Scriptures which not nor can they set down certain rules to know what are the unwritten traditions of the church which they are to admit and embrace with a like affection of piety as the written Word as the Trent council decreed sess 4. nor can they have any bottom to rest on by their principles sometimes one Pope and one council crossing another some having been condemned in general councils as hereticks nor can they tell but by information of others as Priests or Carriers of their Bulls or Breves which are many of them not only fallible but also false as some of their own have complained what the Popes determin and what fraud is used in procuring Popes Bulls or Breves sometimes is many ways testified as that the Bull of Pius the fifth wherein Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated and deprived was gotten in a fraudulent way by Morton and Webb there is no certainty from the reports of others what the Pope determins except a man hear him preach or pronounce sentence or see him write and seal he must rely on the testimony of those that may and are like enough to deceive Nor if a man see or hear the Pope decree can he be certain whether he spake from Peters chair or determine what is to be believed by the whole church out of which case they say he is fallible or give his opinion as a private Doctor So that it is most false that either Papists agree as H. T. saith or resolve themselves into one safe and most unchangeable principle or have any infallible judge of controversies or have God himself for the prime Author and his authority the formal object and motive of their faith but their faith in what they differ from us rests only on mens sayings for the most part ignorant and wicked for such have been most of the Popes for a thousand years whom they follow against the plain and confessed words of the Scripture as in their communion under one kinde worshipping of Images and ascribe to them power by their authority to declare new Scriptures and Articles of faith and make the Scripture only to be believed because of the churches determination that is the Popes which in respect of us they make of more authority than the Scripture and so make the churches not Gods authority the formal motive and object of their faith So that if unity be a note of the church of all others the Popish church can lay least claim to it and H. T. his argument may be retorted The Catholick church is one the Roman church is not one therefore the Roman church is not the Catholick church On the other side the Protestants have better unity and means of unity than Papists For however they differ in ceremonies and disciplin yet in points of faith they differ little as may appear by the harmony of their confessions which shews agreement in their churches however in explication of points private Doctors differ and they have a more sure principle and safe in owning one Master even Christ and one certain rule to know the minde of God to wit the holy Scripture which the Papists themselves make the object of faith and the translation into the English tongue makes plain in the chief points to be believed so that every ordinary man may be certain what it delivers concerning them and this translation appears to be certain in those things by comparing it even with the Papists own English translation at Rhemes and Dowâ—y which had they left out their corrupt Annotations and permitted it to be read as God requires by all sorts of persons the falshood and errors of Popish Priests would soon appear and be rejected by all that love truth SECT V. The argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him and for Protestants But H. T. adds a second argument for the unity of the Catholick church thus As a natural unity and connexion of the parts among themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a natural body so the spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a mystical body But the church of Christ as I have proved is a mystical body Therefore a spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of the church of Christ The Major is proved by the parity of reason which is between a natural and mystical body for as a natural body must needs dye if all it's parts by which it should subsist be torn and divided one from another so also a mystical body perishes if all it's members be divided from one another and from the head whence it hath it's spiritual life by Schism and heresie Answ THough it be that this argument is only from a similitude which doth only illustrate not prove as Logicians say truely and there
I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Maâ—omâ—tan who deny such inâ—allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confesâ—edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal moâ—ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.
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
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
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
Maccabees to be canonical l. 19. Moral c. 17. As for the third Synod of Carthage it was not an Oecumenical Synod and it is over ballanced by the Synod of Laodicea before it who omitted them And if the ancients termed the Apocryphal books canonical or divine they are to be understood according to Ruffinus his explication in his Exposition on the Creed and others that they were canonical in a sort as being read in the Churches by reason of some histories or moral sentences but not so as that they were brought to confirm the authority of faith by them H. T. further saith Ob. The Father 's err'd some in one thing some in another Answ A part I grant all together speaking of any one age I deny and they all submitted to the Church and so do likewise our Schoolmen who differ onely in opinion concerning School points undefined not in faith I reply 1. That the Fathers of some ages did generally hold errors is apparent in many particulars Augustine held it an Apostolical tradition that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for infants as appears l. 1. de pec merito remiss c. 24. and elsewhere and Maldonat on John 6. v. 53. saith that it was the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent the first and that it prevailed in the Church for six hundred years and yet the council of Trent sess 21. c. 4. can 4. saith If any say the communion of the Eucharist to be necessary for little ones afore they come to years of discretion let him be Anathema The like might be said of sundry other points as that of the Millenary opinion the souls not seeing God till the day of judgement c. 2. That all the Fathers did not submit to the Church of Rome is manifest by the Asian Bishops opposition to Victor about Easter to Stephen about rebaptization by Cyprian and others to Boniface Zozimus and Celestin about appeals from Africa to Rome by Aurelius Augustinus and a whole council 3. That the Schoolmen differ in points of faith defined is manifest in Peter Lumbard l. 1. sent dist 17. who held the holy Ghost to be the charity whereby we love God and the dissent from him in that point the differences about the Popes authority above a council power to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance certainty of faith concerning a mans own justification Gods predetermination of mans will and many more yet controverted between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molinists 4. All submit not to the Pope but some appeal from him to a council others by withstanding in disputes and otherwise decline his sentence in their cause of which the opposition against Pope Paul the fifth his interdict by the republick of Venice about their power over Ecclesiasticks is a famous instance evidently shewing that all that live in communion with the See of Rome acknowledge not such a supremacy and infallibility to it as the modern Jesuits ascribe to it Yet again saith H. T. Ob. St. Augustin tells St. Hierom that he esteems none but the writers of the Canonical books to have been infallible in all they write and not to erre in any thing Answ Neither do we we esteem not the writers of councils infallible in all they write nor yet councils themselves but only in the Oecumenical decrees or definitions of faith I reply Augustin Epist 19. to Hierom doth not onely say thus I confess to thy charity that I have learned to give this reverence and honour onely to those books of Scriptures which are now called canonical that I do most firmly believe no author of them to have erred any thing in writing but he adds also But I so read others that how much soever they excel in holiness and doctrine I do not think it true because they have so thought but because they could perswade me either by those Canonical authors or by probable reason that it abhors not from that which is true Which plainly shews 1. That he counted only the writers of Canonical Scriptures and those books infallible 2. That the sentence of others however excellent in sanctity and doctrine is not to be believed because they so thought 3. That their sentence prevailed with him so far as it's proof did perswade 4. That this proof must be by the Canonical Scriptures or probable reason H. T. adds Ob. St. Augustin Epist 112. says we are onely bound to believe the Canonical Scriptures without dubitation but for other witnesses we may believe or not believe them according to the weight of their authority Answ He speaks in a particular case in which nothing had been defined by the Church namely whether God could be seen with corporal eyes But the decrees of general councils are of divine authority as we have proved and therefore according to St. Augustin to be believed without dubitation I reply though he speaks upon occasion of one particular case yet the speech is universal but for other witnesses or testimonies besides the Canonical Scriptures by which any thing is perswaded to be believed it is lawful for thee to believe or not to believe as thou shalt weigh how much moment those things have or not have to beget faith There 's not a word of exception concerning a thing defined by the Church yea the opinion of Augustin is full and plain in his second book of baptism against the Donatists ch 3. to take away infallibility from any Bishops or councils Oecumenical which I think fit to translate to shew how contrary it is to Austin to make any councils after the Apostles infallible Who knows not saith he the holy Canonical Scripture as well of the old as of the new Testament to be contained in it's certain bounds and that it is so to be preferred before all the later letters of Bishops that a man may not doubt or dispute of it at all whether that which it is manifest to be written in it be true or right but for the letters of Bishops which have been or are written after the Canon confirmed it is lawful that they be reprehended if perhaps in them any thing have deviated or gone out of the way from truth both perhaps by the wiser speech of any man more skilful in that thing and by the more grave authority of other Bishops and the prudence of the learned and by councils And those councils which are held in single Regions or Provinces are to give place without any windings to the authority of more full councils which are gathered out of the whole Christian world and oft times those former fuller councils may be mended by later when by some trial of things that is open which was shut up and known which did lye hid without any smoke of sacrilegious pride without any swollen neck of arrogance without any contention of wan envy with holy humility with Catholick peace with Christian charity Yet once more saith H. T. Ob. St. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Bishops
necessity of Infant baptism or for changing the Saturday into Sunday c. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known by the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular as Protestants will acknowledge if they be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church Nor is it sufficient we believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it I speak of the whole Church which she can never do without the Rule of Apostolical Tradition in any of the Points forementioned I Reply unless the man had a minde to plead for Arians Photinians Macedorians and Socinians I know not why he should so often make the Doctrines of three distinct Persons in one divine nature the Sons consubstantiality to the Father the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both and his Godhead as Apostolical unwritten Tradition Sure this is the way to bring into question these Doctrines which if they be not in Scripture will never be believed by intelligent Christians for the Pope and Council of Trent's sayings whose proceedings never tended to clear truth but to juggle with the World This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth because they condemned the Doctrines of Protestants unheard nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themselves in any impartial assembly till which be done no man can construe the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practises to suppress truth And for their juggling they were so notorious that many Papists themselves have observed them as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent especially about the divine right of Bishops of the Laity having the Cup Priests Marriages in which Papists themselves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome As for this mans denying the Antecedent it seems to me to savour of such an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheism For sure he is not to be termed a provident and just God who declaring his minde in the Scripture and promising life to them that observe his Word and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey yet doth not set down all necessary points therein to be believed and obeyed unto life Yea doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himself who saith pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith And for the Consequence if it be not good The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever and that explicitly and plainly therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith neither is his own second argument good for Tradition pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith in both the Consequence being the same As for his Instances I say If the three Creeds and four first Councils be not in the Scripture they are not necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular though they be sufficiently proposed to us by the Church that is in their non-sense gibberish the Pope or a general Council approved by him require us to receive them Neither hath the Church as he terms it power to propose any thing as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular but what is contained in the Bible nor hath it such authority as that we are bound to believe them if it do propound them though never so sufficiently but are bound to reject them as contrary to the duty we ow to Christ of acknowledging him our onely Master much more reason have we to contend against them when they are propounded by the Popes of Rome who teach not the Doctrine of Christ but cruelly and proudly tyrannize over the souls and bodies of the Saints in a most Antichristian manner and impose on them as Apostolical traditions things contrary to Christ and his Apostles in the Bible Nor is it true that all Protestants will acknowledge all thsse Points he mentioneth as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular I grant it not sufficient for us to believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense but aver we can believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it without the Rule of Apostolical tradition unwritten in any of those points in which the Errour is as our Lord Christ was able by it to vanquish Satan for which reason it is termed the Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. And for Traditions or Popes Decrees they are but a Leaden Sword without Fire and Faggot yea there is so much vanity in them as makes them ridiculous and so unfit for refutation and were it not for the horrid butchery and cruelty which Princes drunken with the Wine of the Cup of the Fornication of the Whore of Babylon make of their best Subjects at the instigation of Popes and Popish Priests nothing would appear more contemptible than their decisions Yet more Object Doubtless for speculative Points of Christian Doctrine Books are a safer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition Answ You are mistaken Books are infinitely more liable to Casualties and Corruptions than Traditions as well by reason of the variety of Languages into which they are translated as the diversity of Translations scarce any two Editions agreeing but all pretending one to mend the other besides the multiplicity of Copies and Copists with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiously wrested or literally insisted on Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted those that were written by the Apostles own hands we have not or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other sense and meaning than what is convenient for his purpose insisting onely on the dead Letter All which dangers and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical tradition which bindes men under pain of Damnation to deliver nothing for Faith but what they have received as such by hand to hand from Age to Age and in the same sense in which they have received it Think me not foolish says St. Augustin for using these terms for I have so learned these things by Tradition neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them Lib. de utilit cred cap. 3. I reply A more impudently and palpably false Discourse than this is a man shall seldom meet with it being contrary to all experience and use among men and condemns all the customes of the most civil people of folly
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
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