ROMANISM DISCUSSED OR An Answer to the nine first Articles of H. T. his Manual of CONTROVERSIES Whereby is manifested that H. T. hath not as he pretends clearly demonstrated the Truth of the Roman Religion by him falsly called Catholick by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first five hundred years common sense and experience nor fully answered the principal Objections of Protestants whom he unjustly terms Sectaries By John Tombes B. D. And commended to the World by Mr. Richard Baxter Jer 6. 16. Thus saith the Lord Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall finde rest for your Souls LONDON Printed by H. Hills and are to sold by Jane Underhill and Henry Mourtlock in Paul's Church-yard 1660. TO THE English Romanists Who term themselves CATHOLICKS Specially to those of the Counties of Hereford and Worcester ALthough the prejudice wherewith you are prepossessed against the Truth avouched by me the Ingagements whereby you are linked to the Roman See the Hopes that it 's not unlikely you feed you selves with of seeing your Native Countrey reduced under the obedience of the Roman Papacy besides the long experience which hath been had of the fruitlesness of Attempts to alter your Opinion in Religion how gross soever they have been proved to be might have deterred me from this Writing yet sith I have been instantly urged to it and am loath to imagine all of you tobe of so deplorable a wilfulness of spirit as that you will obstinately persist in your manifest Errours and thereby cast away your Sâ—uls I have adventured to publish this ensuing Treatise that I might not be guilty of betraying the Truth and your Souls by my silence I have been many years a Preacher in England chiefly in the Counties of Hereford and Worcester and though I have not had much acquaintance with any of you yet some Conferences have left me not without hope that you might see your Errour about the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome which is the chief Point on which your Religion rests as it is opposite to Protestantism although formerly and of late the French and some other Churches have strongly opposed the Popes or Roman Churches Superiority above a General Council and their Infallibility in their Determinations Certainly these two Points which are the Pillars of the Religion of the Roman party are so far from being Catholick that to him that shall impartially examine the Proofs it will appear that they have been late Innovations and are yet contradicted by a great part of those Churches which hold communion with the Roman See And for many other Points of your Religion if you would either use your Senses or your understanding in judging by the Scripture translated by your own party what is true or false you could not be so besotted as to believe Transubstantiation Invocation of deceased Saints Justification by your own Works and their Meritoriousness of eternal Life Purgatoryâ—fire Prayer for the Dead another Propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead besides Christ's Communion under one kinde onely Worshipping of Images and Reliques with some other of your Tenets For freeing you from which Errours which are pernicious to your Souls if I could contribute any thing I should count it a part of my happiness of which I should have some hopes were it that I perceived you free from the Imposition of your Leaders on you not to reade such Writings as are against them which must of necessity enslave you to their Opinions and hinder you from an impartial Search after Truth wherein what deceit is used by your imagined Pastour the Pope may appear as by many other things so especially by the late carriage of Pope Innocent the tenth in the Controversies between the Jansenists and Molinists in France who being importuned to give Sentence concerning the five Propositions of Jansenius if we may believe Thomas White one of your chief Disputants and one whose approbation is to this Manual of Controversies of H. T. did in shew condemn Jansenius his words but did allow his meaning And that I may not be thought to misreport him I will set down his words in his Appendicula to his Sonus Buccinae about the Censure of the five Propositions of Jansenius Sect. 9. where after he had shewed that the Propositions of Jansenius might be true in their sense though the words were liable to Exceptions he adds But whereto are all these things said Is it that I might enervate or reprehend the Popes Decree Nothing less I profess that was published by the best Counsel and special guidance of the Holy Spirit which governs the Church The Church was afflicted with Dissentions one part stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture the other being guarded with the multitude of Princes and of the common People circumvented with the sound of words flattering humane weakness took great courage What should the Father of the Church do He allayed the more unquiet part by granting them their words the more obedient part he flatteringly comforted by commending to them their Senses The former part of the Saying was confirmed by a publick Instrument The later if there be any credit to be given to men of tender conscience was done before the Oratour of the most Christian King It is manifest by what hath been said with what rectitude of Faith and Divinity this part shines that that exhibites prudence worthy the Pope thus take it Wherein it may be perceived that however White speak favourably of the Pope yet he sets out his dealing in that business as unworthy an infallible Judge of Controversies which should have decided openly for Jansenius whose Propositions stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture according to their meaning which Innocentius the tenth commended to them that they might hold them still in that meaning in a Conference and yet he condemned their Propositions in their words by his Bull published to quiet the wrangling and potent party of Jesuits that had drawn the Princes and common People to their side by words that flattered humane weakness in stead of Truth glorifying God than which in so weighty a matter what could be done more like a Juggler or man-pleaser than a Servant of God constant in asserting Truth Which shews that the Popes resolve not by the Spirit of God or the holy Scripture but by humane policy as it may be for their advantage to keep their party in obedience to them And that it is not indeed any sincerity in seeking Truth or serious intention to feed the Souls of People with true Doctrine but to accommodate all their Determinations and Negotiations as to uphold their credit authority might be made abundantly appear by the History of the Council of Trent and many other ways which I shall not mention being shewed by many and particularly by Mr. Richard
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
and yet H. T. thinks not his infallibility proved thereby 3. That they did well in using such Anathema's or the Church in submitting to them may be doubted 4. But if that be yeilded that they did well yet surely they did not set their Anathema's to their decisions because they took themselves to be infallible either by their own authority or the Popes approbation yea it is certain the Councils did set to their Anathema's when they opposed the Popes and deposed them and defined themselves above him And even the Council of Trent put their Anathema's to their definitions afore they were tendred to the Pope or Pius the fourth had approved them but they took it they might set their Anathema to their definitions because they thought them right though not themselves infallible in them And thus may any particular person pronounce Anathema as Paul did Gal. 1. 8 9. and yet not be thereby demonstrated infallible So vain is this no better then blasphemous speech of H. T. which will further appear by examining what follows SECT VIII The objections of Protestants against the Churches infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from the answers of H. T. He saith Objections from Fathers and Councils resolved Ob. The Council of Fanckford condemned the second Nicene Council for giving soveraign honour to images as you may see in the Preface to the Carolin books Answ The second Nicene Council allows no such honour to images but onely a salutation or honorary worship not true Latria or soveraign honour which it defines to be due to God onely Act. 1. 7. The Carolin books are of no authority they say that Council was not approved by the Pope which is false and that it was held at Constantinople in Bythinia whereas Constantinople is in Thracia I Reply That honour to Images which Papists will not have to be termed Latria or soveraign honour proper to God the Scripture makes soveraign honour to be given to God onely in a religious respect to wit bowing down the body to them kissing burning incense offering gifts holding up the hands lifting up the eyes praying to them which the Scripture appropriates to God and denies to images Matth. 4. 10. Revel 19. 10. 1 Kings 19. 18. Exod. 20. 4 5. Nor doth the Scripture make such distinction of Latria and Dulia but that it forbids such worship to be given to any image of an invisible being which shews subjection to them or dependence on them for such worship is religious and is an acknowledgement of a Deity in them The Scripture doth no where appropriate Latriam or the soveraign honour or worship due to God onely to offering of sacrifice but that it also condemns as idolatrous the other acts named if they be not given to Magistrates or superiors out of civil respects but to Images Angels or Saints alive or deceased in a religious respect as superiors to us to whom we are subject and on whom we depend for help and succour And therefore this plaister of H. T. is too narrow to cover the foul ulcer that came from the false Synod called the second Nicene For what is that salutation or honorary worship H. T. saith the second council of Nice allows to Images Is it not bowing down to them which Papists themselves call adoration and difference from veneration which consists onely in a decent usage without defiling defacing or such usage as shews hatred and contempt of the thing or person represented such as is done to monuments or treasure laid up to be kept but not as things set up higher then our selves to be worshipped for that is plain Idolatry and the very same with the Gentiles adoration of their Idols now this did the second Nicene Council require to be given to Images ut erigerentur adorarentur c. yea if Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagin Sanct. c. 21. say true that Council would have them adored not only by accident that is because joyned with the thing adored but also of themselves as that in which is the reason of veneration nor onely improperly that is in the place of another so as that the proper term of the adoration should not be the Image but Christ himself but properly so as that the Image be honoured ratione sui ipsius in respect of it self as he explains his distinctions ch 20. And this adoration it was conceived by Charles the Great and the Synod of Francfurt that Nicene Council intended to give to Images and was refuted by the four books set forth by Charles the Greats authority yet to be seen and condemned by the authority of the Synod of Francfurt Anno 794. at which were present the Popes legats and did approve of the Synods determination or dissembled the Popes opinion I finde not that the Carolin books say that the second Nicene Council was not approved by the Pope if they did and that they were deprived it makes the more against the infallibility of Councils approved by the Pope which those three hundred Fathers acknowledged not who met at Francfurt The mistake of the Country wherein Nice was is not such as Bellarmin or Baronius conceive derogates from the truth of the thing testified by so many authors of credit all the ancient historians nearest that time besides Hinâ—marus Agobardus and after some English writers as Hoveden c. Bellarmin himself l. 2. de concil auth c. 7. confesseth it condemned the seventh Synod and Platina in the life of Hadrian the first saith that two worthy Bishops Theophylact and Stephan held a Synod in the name of Hadrian of German and French Bishops in which the Synod which the Greeks call the seventh was abrogated H. T. adds Ob. The Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth Sess 11. defined a Pope to be above a Council and the Council of Constance Sess 4. defined a Council to be above a Pope Answ Neither part was ever yet owned by the Church for an Oecumenical decree or definition and if it were it would be answered that the Lateran Council defined onely a Pope to be above a Council taken without a Pope or not approved and that the Council of Constance onely defined a Council approved by a Pope to be above a Pope without a Council which definitions are not contradictory no more than to say one part of any thing is bigger then another and the whole bigger then both so that from hence it cannot be inferred that either Council erred nor was either decree approved by the Pope I reply this is impudent outfacing with shifts the truth in things manifest to all that enquire into them He cannot deny that these contrary definitions were of two Councils which he himself p. 33 36. terms general Councils and makes Popes president in both and both he sets down in his Catalogue made to prove a succession in the Church of Rome and yet here he denies their definitions to be Oecumenical what is an Oecumenical definition if that an Oecumenical
offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the sacred Mysteries and sacred Vessels should not be touched but by sacred Ministers and that the Priest beginning Mass the People should sing Holy holy holy and that Telesphorus commanded the seven Weeks of Lent â—o be fasted Epist Decret Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishops of France Soter decreed that no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk Zepherinus decreed that the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because so the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Epist to the Bishops of Sicily 217. And then H. T. adds These were all Bishops of Rome but no Protestants I hope Which is a ridiculous passage shewing his folly in triumphing insolently over his Adversaries upon such frivolous Allegations For 1. who that knows those times of Persecution confessed by himself p. 7. and therefore the second and third Ages produced no Councils in which many of the Popes were Martyrs would imagine that they should busie themselves in making Decrees about sacred places sacred vessels hearing of greater causes fasting in Lent when they were in danger to be shut up in Prisons necessitated to hide themselves wanted perhaps food of any sort by reason of persecution 2. Or who that reades Authours of those and other Ages does not perceive in those Epistles the style and terms of far later Ages 3. But were it supposed they were the genuine Epistles of those Popes yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainsaid by Protestants as v. g. Transubstantiation or the Popes visible Headship over the whole Church They might call the Eucharist a Sacrifice yet not properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead Pius might call the spilling of Wine spilling of Christs Blood signified by it as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Testament because it is signified by it Lent fast fasting afore Mass mingling Water and Wine might be appointed yet no real substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood taught the greater causes of the Church and more difficult questions referred to the Apostolick See and yet no supreme Headship over the whole Church deduced thence As for the Tale of James his being made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John it rather makes against Peter's Supremacy than for it fith in that no more is ascribed to Peter than to James and John so that we may grant him that they were Popes of Rome and yet aver they were true Protestants in respect of their Doctrine though differing in frivolous ceremonies if the Epistles alleged had been their own which is altogether improbable and slight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory His catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous some of them being of the African Aâ—ian and Greek Churches that had no such communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes necessary to the being of a true Church yea it is well known that Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops opposed Stephen and Cornelius Bishops of Rome about Appeals to Roms and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council not by the bare authority of the Roman Bishops Nor is one word brought by H. T. that shews they held the same faith which the Roman Church now holds in opposition to the Protestants Thus have I examined his catalogue for the first three hundred years which were the best and purest times of the Church as being the times of the ten great Persecutions and have not found the Succession which H. T. asserts Let 's view the rest SECT VIII The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches some of the Greek some of the Asiatick some of the Latin Churches but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy or the Doctrine of the Romanists which he maintains against the Protestants Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same and the Bishop of Rome of no higher but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium And for the Nations converted which he mentions there were some of them as Indians and Ethiopians who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church nor had any conversion from them Noâ— is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy or any point of Doctrine they now hold in opposition to the Protestants As for the fourteen Popes of this century what ever their succession were which is not without question yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim or that faith which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants cannot be proved The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century to wit the first Nicene and the first Constantinopolitan which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century H. T. himself saith onely The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester but doth not affirm that either he called it or was present at it or was President of it And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself lib. 1. de concil Eccl. c. 19. tom 2. controv he imagines but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council or any one that was there And whereas H. T. saith The first Constantinopolitan Council Fathers 1. 50. Pope Damasus preâ—iding Anno 381. against Macedonius it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place It is also manifest that the Roman Pope was not President there but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople of which thing the cause is because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself nor by his Legates What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presiâ—ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius Anno 431. is not true sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council that Cyril of Alâ—xandria was President there and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem And though it be said that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of
hands the thing that was good that he might have to give to him that needs and how they should be called a holy order who were like to the institutors but never appointed by God I understand not Many learned men in those daies demonstrated them to be no holy orders but a company of men that promoted the Popes usurpations and injuries to the great mischief of the Commonwealths and Churches of Christians Of the Nations converted the Emperour Cassanes with innumerable Tartarians were not converted by the Church of Rome nor owned the Popes supremacy or faith and therefore are no witnesses for the Papacy In the fourteenth age ten Popes are set down of whom most â—â—te at Avignon in France and so could not be Pastors of the Church of Rome one is Clement the fifth who chained Francis Dandalus the Venetian Ambassador under his table to feed with dogs and lost at the pomp of his Coronation out of his mitre a carbuncle valued at six thousand â—â—orens Another John the twenty one by others John the twenty second whom Bellarmin de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 14. confesseth to have thought that the souls should not see God till after the resurrection though he adds a cold excuse as if he might so think then without danger of heresie because no definition of the Church proceded which is not true if he say rightly himself l. 1. de eccl triumph c. 2. that the same that is that the souls see God afore the resurrection teacheth Innocent the third who was one hundred years before John the twenty one by H. T. his account c. Apostolicam extra de Presbytero non Baptizatâ— However if there were no definition it proves a Pope may teach heresie sith John the twenty second did earnestly press this on the Parisians that they should believe as he did Of the rest their unpeaceableness in their contention with the Emperor and among themselves in their Schisms in which one Pope was set up against another divers Popes at the same time one owned by one another by another makes the succession so uncertain that even the Romanists disagree in the succession some putting in Clement the seventh in this age whom H. T. leaves out some standing for one some for others as the right Popes Besides their cruelty and covetousness pâ—ove them rather Butchers than Pastors of the Church of Christ H. T. adds one general Council of Vienna Fathers three hundred Pope Clement the fifth presiding Anno Domini 1311. in which he tells us the Council defined baptism to be necessary for infants condemned the Begards and Beguines who held carnal lust done out of temptation to be no sin and that we ought not to shew reverence at the elevation of the body of Christ which last alone is against Protestants in common But the Council whether provincial or general being swayed by a proud prelate Clement the fifth it s no marvel it should make such decrees as then were made As for the Catholick Professors there is scarce a man of any note but Iro a Canonist whose profession will be of little weight with considerate men That an Emperour of Russia if made a Christian did embrace the Romish Religion and submit to the Pope is not likely The rest of the Nations converted H. T. proves not to have been converted from Rome or to have held communion with the Pope if they did it avails little to prove H. T. his Minor that such rude people did so SECT XII The defect of H. T. his Catalogue in the fiftenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed IN the fifteenth Age he reckons up thirteen Popes as chief Pastours in which number he leaves out Benedict the thirteenth though reckoned by others who with Gregory the twelfth upheld a Schism of three Popes together till they with John 22. or 23. for divers intolerable villanies were deposed as Eugenius the fourth was after at the Council of Basil of the rest scarce any of worth besides Pius the second whose Writings remain under the name of Aeneas Sylvius and the last is Alexander the sixth Roderique Borgia who with his son Caesar Borgia were so infamous for poysonings covetousness and uncleanness of body that Rome though the sink of wickedness yet yielded few or none worse in any Age. H. T. tells us of two general Councils that of Constance Anno 1415. against John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague Pope John the two and twentieth and Martin the fifth presiding but the main end of its calling by Sigismund the Emperour was the composing of the Troubles by three Popes together whom it deposed and decreed the Council to be above the Pope which is against the now Roman faith It is true also that they condemned sundry Articles of John Wickliff John Hus and Hierom of Prague whereof some were most falsely ascribed to them as the Works of John Wickliff and other testimonies do shew And notwithstanding the safe conduct given by Sigismund the Emperour to the perpetual infamy of the popish party they judged he was to deliver John Hus to be burned Sess 19. whereupon the Emperours solemn faith was broken and thereupon they were burned and Wickliffs bones as they imagined forty years after his death were digged up and burned in England and a most impious Decree made that notwithstanding Christ 's institution and administring in both kindes and in the primitive Church it were received by the faithfull in both kindes yet the custom was confirmed of receiving in one and the requiring it in both judged an errour and it was forbidden to be given the people in both kindes Sess 13. The other Council H. T. mentions is the Council of Florence Fathers 145. Pope Eugenius presiding Anno 1439. against many Heresies which defined Pugatory the Popes headship Transubstantiation the Apocryphal books canonical the Grecians Jacobites Armenians and Patriarch of Constantinople subscribing this Council and being reconciled to the church of Rome But this Council however it hath a shew of great authority by reason of the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other of the Eastern Christian churches yet indeed it was of no authority it being gotten together by a Factioâ— in opposition to the Council of Basil which was decreed by Pope Martin the fifth to be ten years after the Council of Constance and the end of it was to divert the Fathers of the Council of Basil from deposing Eugenius the fourth from his Popedom which nevertheless they did for his ill Government and chose Amadeus Duke of Savoy who was named Felix the fifth who is omitted therefore by H. T. though by others counted the lawfull Pope but H. T. thought it best to omit him and the Council of Basil which together with the Council of Constance had determined that a general Council was above the Pope and were not bound to obey him but might depose him as the French churches yet to this day do hold so that they who are termed
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
them later than the time of Gregory the great even in the Roman Church and were opposed more or less at least some of them by a considerable party of the Church of Christ who were far better Christians than the Popes or Roman Clergy which condemned and persecuted them as Hereticks From which crime we are able to acquit our selves other ways than H. T. saith we can chiefly by shewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and first Churches after Christ's Ascension and the Orthodox Teachers in them as will appear in answer to his ninth Article It is a meer frontless impudence in him to charge us with any blasphemous evasion or excluding our selves from all possible assurance of faith or salvation and to arrogate to himself as if he had proved either The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther and after by Zuinglius and others continued hath been blessed by God notwithstanding the Persecutions of the Papal party and the Differences among Protestants And the Reformation sought in England since 1641. hath been blessed notwithstanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popish and Prelatical parties as the Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and first Preachers was notwithstanding the Persecutions Heresies and Schisms that followed it Notwithstanding what H. T. or any other Romanist have said the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible but may be proved and have been false and heretical which is in part proved by the Objections following SECT VII The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers H. T. saith thus Objections from Scripture and Reason solved Object All the Israelites adored the golden â—alf therefore the whole Church erred Answ Moses and the Levites did not who were many thousands Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both those Propositions are false TO which I reply that whereas the Romanists do allege to prove an universal Bishop over the whole Church who by himself or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controversies of faith Gods ordinance of one high Priest in Israel to whose judgement all must stand Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 4. c. doeth this Argument is retorted thus If Aaron and the People of Israel were not infallible then if there were such an universal Bishop over Christians as there was over the Israelites and such a Council as the Jewish Synedrium which were to be Judge of controversies as Romanists would have yet they might be fallible sith the Jewish high Priest and Council who were to be Judge of controversies were not infallible though they were as much privileged by Papists own arguings who infer their sovereign infallible Judicature of controversies which they ascribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewish high Priest and his Council But Aaron and the Jewish Council and Church were not infallible for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre as is manifest by the making the golden Calf and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto Now though Moses and the Levites did not erre yet the high Priest and the People did from whose privilege and not from Moses the civil Magistrate the infallible judicature of the Pope as universal Bishop and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht and therefore the Answer avoids not the Objection H. T. adds Object The Jews Council â—rred in condemning Christ Answ No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical for Christ himself was then Head of the Church on earth and the highest Authority was in him not in the Jews Council and if the Jews Church could erre it doth not follow that the Church of Christ can for it was built as St. Paul saith on better Promises I reply 1. This Answer which makes that Council not perfectly oâ—cumenical and therefore no wonder it erred plainly intimates that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical though it would be otherwise infallible yet in that case it may erre Whence it will follow unless the Papists can prove their Councils which they say are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical that is called out of the whole World they are not infallible Now certain it is that neither the Trent nor the Lateran Councils nor those of Constance Basil Florence nor any other Council for a thousand years last past have been so called yea sometimes one party hath kept a Council in opposition to another and Pope against Pope And from the Trent Council to which they adhere not onely the Greek and Asiatick and African Churches were wholly absent but also the French for a time and the Council consisted in effect of none but Italians and the Popes Hirelings some of whom were onely titular Bishops having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles and these by the plurality of Voices served the Popes ends but in nothing either seriously sought the truth or reformation of corruption as the History of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of Vâ—nice hath cleared to the World By which were it not that Papists are a sort of men that hood-wink themselves they might see how meer a cheat that Council was and how justly it was refused by the French Papists themselves unto this day 2 Though Christ were then Head of the Church yet he did not exercise Jurisdiction among the Jews not act but as Prophet to his Disciples he did not deny subjection to the Priests he was circumcised the eighth day as subject to the Law of Moses presented at the Temple with an Offering went up to the Feasts kept the Passover denied not the Authority of the high Priest yea directed the Leper to offer to the Priest for his cleansing as Moses bade him and John notes that the high Priest in that he was high Priest that year prophesied of Christ's death John 11. 51. which are sufficient proofs that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Priest and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Christ's being on earth But sure then they did erre and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations 3. It follows if the Jews Church could erre notwithstanding those passages in the Old Testament which the Papists bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence 4. St. Paul doth not say The Church of Christ was built on better Promises than the Church of the Jews but that the second Covenant was made a Law on better Promises than the first is said Heb. 8. 6. But those Promises are set down vers 10 11 12. of that Chapter of which there is none concerning any much less a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Bishop on earth oecumenical Council or Church of Christians above the Jewish high Priest and Council and therefore
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
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
had there not been sufficient Proof Yea since that time the books of Bellarmine and Santarellus have been condemned by the University and Parliament of Paris as teaching that Doctrine and yet more books have been vented tending to the same as in the Writings of Suarez and other Jesuits may be found Nor did I ever hear that the Pope did by punishing the Traitors in England when they fled to Rome or by condemning the Jesuits Doctrine of killing Kings acquit Roman Catholicks from this accusation Yea whereas King James towards the end of his Reign propounded nine Questions to be answered by John Fisher the Jesuit it is observed by Dr. Francis White that he doth decline to answer directly the ninth Question about deposing Kings and giving away their Kingdoms alleging that it touched a controversie between the Pope and Princes in which he makes shew of loathness to interpose having a Letter dated Aug. 1. 1614. from the general of his order not to write any thing thereof having found it an unhappy course but never declared against it nor took the Oath of Allegeance though the State knew it was easie for their general to alter the order or to make an other order in private and whatever order their general give yet they are tied to do what the Pope requires of them And the answers of the Jesuites about Santarellus his book approved by their general that they in France then disavowed the Book yet withall acknowledged if they had been at Rome they would have done as their general did shewed that they had disavowed that Doctrine out of fear and that at Rome it was held for cuâ—â—eâ—t What they still hold may be seen in the mystery of Jesuitism and other Writings As for what H. T. allegeth out of the Council of Constance it satisfieth not sith all Roman Catholicks allow not that Council which deposed the Pope and chose another and determined the Council to be above the Pope yea Mariana de rege c. lib. 1. cap. 6. answers thus But that Decree I finde not approved by Martin the fifth the Roman Pope Nor indeed can Papists hold that which H. T. sets down as the Council of Constance's definition but that they must gainsay what the fourth Lateran Council under Innocent the third determined concerning the rooting out of Hereticks Nor are Princes secured by the determination of the Council of Constance or H. T. his avouching it to be of faith sith perhaps it is but one Doctor 's opinion or if it be the faith of more or all yet they can hold King killing and yet hold that Doctrine alleging that a Priest is no Subject nor a person excommunicate his Prince and that however he may not kill him upon any pretence whatsoever yet he may do it upon the Popes Excommunication as a just Sentence of a superiour Judge the words in that Council Sess 15. left out here by H. T. whether fraudulently or no his own conscience can tell best being non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscunque The Sentence or Mandate of any Judge whatsoever being not expected which have a shew of limiting their other words and intimate their allowing the killing of a Prince when there is a Mandate or Sentence of a Judge such as they conceive the Pope to be Nor have we any cause of confidence in H. T. as free from such devices if we mark what follows Object Mariana the Jesuit printed the opinion Answ True by way of Probleme he did but his Book was condemned and publickly burnt by a Provincial Council of his own Order I reply Doth H. T. think the Book is not now to be seen to detect his falsity Or that the Memorials of these things are lost who goes about to excuse Mariana or the Order of Jesuits in this manner Mariana did in his first Book of the Institution of a King chap. 6. write that James Clement by killing Henry the third King of France with a poisoned Knife had gotten himself ingens nomen a great name that we consider from all memory that they were greatly praised who attempted to kill Tyrants and that it is a wholesom cogitation that Princes be perswaded if they oppress the Common-wealth if they be intolerable in vices and filthiness that they live in such a condition that not onely of right but with praise and glory they may be killed Which that they were more than a Probleme appears from his own words This our Sentence certainly comes from a sincere minde And the sad event of Ravillac's killing Henry the fourth of France by the inducement of that Book and the Edict of the Parliament of Paris the eighth of the Ides of June 1610. set down in the Continuation of Thuanus his History Tom. 4. lib. 3. upon which his Book was adjudged to be burnt but that his Book was burned by a Provincial Council appears not nor is it set down by H. T. when nor where nor is it likely to have been burnt by a Provincial Council till after the Sentence of the Parliament of Paris that thereby they might salve the credit of their Order But it is added Object At least you hold the Pope can dispense with your Allegeance to Princes and if â—e dispense you are not bound to keep any faith with them or any Hereticks Answ We hold that our Allegeance to Princes is not dispensable by any Authority on earth and are as ready to defend our Prince or civil Magistrate with the hazzard of our lives and fortunes even against the Pope himself if he invade them as against any other Enemy We esteem our selves obliged to keep faith even with Infidels And the Council of Trent hath declared that to violate any least point of publick faith given to Hereticks is a thing punishable by the Law of God and Man Sess 15 18. What this or that particular Doctor may hold or the Popes flatterers if he have any adds nothing to the Creed of Catholicks nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church I reply I am glad to read this passage if this Authour mean plainly as his words seem to import yet see not sufficient security to Princes given thereby though this Authour should mean so For other Romanists may say as this Authour doth of others What this or that particular Doctor holds adds nothing to the Creed of Catholicks nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church Nor is this Protestation so full as to leave no starting hole from it if it be for advantage It may mean they will defend their Prince who is their Prince yet not acknowledge Allegeance to their Prince as being exempt from his Jurisdiction as Clergy-men or their Prince ceasing to be their Prince being an Heretick or excommunicate or worthy to be excommunicate or they will defend their Prince against the invasion of the Pope but not against the Sentence of Deposition or they will defend him till they judge him an Enemy to the
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
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
passage in his Epistle to the Reader in which he saith but not truly It is agreed by all parties that the Church founded in Christs blood was the onely mistris of Divine Faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two For this is not true of the church but of Christ his Apostles and their preaching and writings And therefore it is not true which he thence infers that the controversies of the Church are the most important doubtless of all others or that on the notion and eviction of her authority all other points essentially depend for their knowledge and decision which in effect is as if he had said Were there not a Pope and his council the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God and to decide any controversies in Religion which I count little better than blasphemy nor doth he well to begin with that point were it that he intended to have cleared truth he should first as Bellarmine and some others have done have examined the points of the Scriptures sufficiency and the needlesness of unwritten Traditions and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference that thereby the Reader might have discerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God sith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith which they hold as H. T. himself urgeth p. 45. Succession in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles continued unto this time is it by which the Church is known and therefore we must first know whether the Roman Faith be the same with that which Christ and his Apostles taught before we can know the truth of their succession and of their Church But H. T. after Becanus and others conceives it best for their design to forestall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church which being oncâ— setled in mens minds no marvel if they swallow down such gross Doctrines as Transubstantiation half Communion Invocation and Worship of Saints deceased Angels Reliques Images Crucifixes and the rest of their errors and abuses wherein any that reads the Scriptures may see how far they are gone from the Primitive saith taught by Christ and his Apostles nevertheless having premonished the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice I shall examine his Book in the order he hath chosen SECT III. The Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd ARticle 1. saith H. T. Our Tenet is That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the onely true Church of God Answ By the Sâ—e of Rome he means the Roman Bishop or Pope and the Communion he means is in the same Tenets which they hold according to the Trent Canons and Pius the fourth his Bull with subjection to the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ In which sense the Tenet is so palpably false and so extremely uncharitable that it is a marvel that any that hath the understanding of a man should imbrace it or the charity of a Christian should brook it For 1. If the Church now in communion with the See of Rome be the onely true Church of God then that Church onely hath eternal life for onely the true Church of God hath eternal life Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is their own determination Concil Lateran 4. Can. 2. and elsewhere But that Church which is not in communion with the See of Rome hath eternal life Ergo it is the true Church of God The Minor is proved thus That Church which believes in Jesus Christ hath eternal life But other Churches besides those now in communion with the See of Rome believe in Jesus Christ Ergo. The Major is plain from John 3. 16 18 36. 17. 3. 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11 12. Mark 16. 16. in which it is expresly said that he that believeth on Christ without any mention of Peter or the Pope hath eternal life The Minor is proved by their profession and other evidences of their reality in believing which if any deny to prove true faith in them he may as well deny there are any believers in Christ in the world 2. If there be no true Churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then there is some other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ given among men by which we must be saved and there is salvation in some other besides him for men have salvation in that name by which they are the true church of God and if we be the true church of God by communion with the Pope we have salvation by the Pope But this is most false and Antichristian to ascribe salvation to any other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ as being expresly contradictory to Peter's own words Act. 4. 12. There is no salvation in any other neither is there any name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ not Peter or the Bishop of Rome 3. If no churches be true churches of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ died for no other churches but them For Christ died for his church Ephes 5. 25. it is not said he gave himself for them who are not his church But sure it is very uncharitable to say that Christ died for no other than those that own the Pope and contrary to the Scripture that God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. therefore it is false and uncharitable to exclude all but Romanists out of the church of God 4. If none be the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are members of Christ in Christ the sons of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the true church of God onely are members of Christ in Christ the children of God Ephes 23. But it is false that none are members of Christ in Christ or children of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the Apostle tels the Galatians Gal. 3. 26 27. that they were all the sons of God by â—aith in Christ Jesus that as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ v. 28 that they were all one in Christ Jesus without any requiring of communion with the See of Rome 5. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ is present with none by his Spirit and protection but such as are in that communion For such as are not the true Church of God Christ is not present with them by his Spirit and protection Rom. 8. 9. Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in you If any man have not
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
He that knoweth God heareth us and he that heareth us not is not of God in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures c. He that believeth not shall be condemned St. Mark 16. 16. Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with H. T. his tenet and so the proof is in the same manner faulty as in the first argument 2. The Minor is denied nor doth any one of the texts alleged prove it or any thing like it For 1. The text Matth. 18 17 or 18. is not as this Author cites it be that will not hear the Church as if it were an indefinite speech equipollent to this universal every man that will not hear the Church without which H. T. proves not his Minor but thus but and if he hear not the Church restraining it to the brother finning against his brother And first reproved singly 2. Before two or three witnesses 3. Of whom the Church hath been told 4. And he doth not obey the Church 2. The text speaks not at all of believing the Church in a point of faith but doing right to an injured brother For the phrase of sinning against a brother ver 15. can neither be meant of heresie or error in faith no nor sinfulnesse in life which is termed commonly though for the most part mistakingly a publick scandal or scandalous practise but only of a particular injury such as he against whom the sin was might forgive as is manifest from ver 21. and the parable following whereas to forgive heresies or errors in faith or publick scandalous practises is not in the power of a private brother 3. That by the Church is meant the Christian Church is not certain sith it is not as Matth. 16. 18. my Church but the Church nor if it were can it be understood either of the universal Church diffused over all the world sith it is impossible for every injured brother to tell his injury to it not of a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the world for either there never was such a Church or if ever there were it hath not been in many ages together H. T. confesseth p. 7. 25. the second third and tenth ages produced no councils Nor if there were in every age or every year could every injured brother addresse their complaints to them And the same may be said of the Pope sometimes there hath been none for some years together sometimes it hath been uncertain which was the true Pope sometimes by reason of persecutions and for other causes no accesse could be to him sometimes the wronged brother could not travel to him nor he hear his cause Nor is there any direction to go to his legate or any assurance that he can commit his power to another or that such a legate is infallible Undoubtedly by the Church Matth. 18. 17. must be meant such an assembly whether regularly formed or otherwise occasionally convening which is of near accesse and which is fit to hear the cause and to determin And I must confesse that I cannot deprehend that by the Church is meant the meer Ecclesiastical authority nor is here appointed that disciplin Ecclesiastical which is termed the power of the keyes to excommunicate hereticks and scandalous livers in the Church but a direction to a wronged brother how to deal in case of particular injuries the neglect of which the Apostle Paul blames so much in the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 4. Neither doth let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publican import excommunication out of the Church For it is said let him be to thee not to the Church as a heathen or a Publican nor is any power at all therein given to the Church to excommunicate all that the Church is to do is to injoyn what the injurious brother should do that excommunication which is here mentioned is appointed or permitted to the wronged brother Nor did the being a Publican exclude out of the Jewish assembly or service the Publican went up to the Temple to pray Luke 18. 10. Matthew a Publican was a Jew and had the priviledge of a Jew though a Publican nor was a heathen as such damned there were proselytes as Cornâ—lius who were heathens and yet were accepted with God only the publicans and heathens were such as the Jews would not have familiar arbitrary converse with as Luke 15. 2. 19. 7. Acts 11. 3. appears and therefore the speech can have no other sense but this If thy brother who wrongs thee will neither right thee after private rebuke nor after rebuke before two or three witnesses nor after the monition of the Church that is either that particular assembly of Christians to which ye are joyned or some other competent number of Christian brethren fit to hear such differences then mayst thou shun his society in such a manner as Jews are wont to shun heathens and publicans by not going in to them to eat or inviting them or other unnecessary society that so they may know how evil their dealing is and be ashamed and amended Which is nothing to that Ecclesiastical discipline or juridical excommunication which is at this day arrogantly claimed by Popes even over Emperours and by other Ecclesiastical prelates for breaking their Canons much lesse doth this text infer damnation to him that shall not hear the universal Church or Oecumenical council or Roman Pope The other text 1 John 4. 6. is lesse to H. T. his purpose For it speaks not a word of hearing the Catholick Roman Chuâ—ch or universal diffused over all the world or Oecumenical council or Roman Popâ— but of hearing the Apostles and other teachers of the Gospel opposite to false Prophâ—â—s ver 1. who denyed Jesus Christ to become in the flesh and of hearing them not in every thing but in the doctrine of Christs coming in the flesh And in like sort Marke 16 15 16. is a plain command to the Apostles not to the Bishop of Rome or an Oecumenical council or the universal Church for then the Pope should be â—ound to leave his See and the Bishops in a council to be non resident and go into all the world and the Apostles are bid preach not Popes decrees or councils Canons but the Gospel of Christ and the threatning of damnation is not to him that shall not believe the Popes decrees or the determinations of an Oecumenical council or universal Church but the Gospel of Christ which reacheth not them who deny the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation purgatory humane merits worshipping imagâ—â— not eating flesh in Lent Priests single life and such other innovations as neither Christ nor his Apostles taught but such as believe not the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ and salvation by him alone Whence it is apparent to any that are not resolved to shut their eyes against manifest light that none of these texts
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
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
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
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
of Africa tells the Arians they in vain ran about to seek councils since the Scripture is more powerful then all councils Answ He says it was vain for them who had rejected the general council of Nice nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many respects a preheminence above the definitions of general councils and a higher degree of infallibility yet these also are infallible in points of faith I reply the reason of Athanasius shews it was in vain for Arians to seek to councils because the Scripture was against them not because the council of Nice was against them as the very words recited by H. T. shew who doth well to acknowledge the Scriptures preheminence which justifies Protestants who stick to the Scriptures against councils which do often swerve from them and sometimes oppose them As for the degree of infallibility if there be any degrees of infallibility which perhaps a Logician will deny infallibility being a meer negation of liableness to error or being deceived H. T. ascribes to them it is so uncertain what it is and so weakly proved that none that loves his soul should rest on it and not try what they hold by the Scriptures confessedly more infallible As for the speech of the council of Basil there 's no reason why Protestants or others should rest on it when Papists themselves even H. T. p. 79. rejects it and says it was not approved in any decree but such as concern Church benefices and yet this man concludes with it's speech about the authority of a general council as if it were certain So vertiginous is this Author ARTIC VI. Sanctity and Miracles prove not the Roman Church true The Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her Sanctity and Miracles SECT I. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by Sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent H. T. proceeds thus Article 6. The true Church demonstrated by her Sanctity and Miracles Our Tenet is that the Roman Catholick Church is known and evidently distinguished from all false Churches not onely by the marks and properties by us premised but also by her sanctity and power of doing Miracles and is proved thus That is thé true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ which is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles But the Roman Catholick Church and no other is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles therefore the Roman Catholick Church and no other is the true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ The Major for Sanctity is proved by that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church as also by these Texts of holy Scripture Christ gave himself for his Church cleansing her by the Laver of Water Baptism in the Word that he might present her to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle but that she might be holy and unspotted Ephes 5. 27. These things ye were saith St. Paul but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. 10. A good Tree bringeth forth good Fruit by their Fruit ye shall know them St. Matth. 7 17 20. Strait is the Gate and narrow is the Way which leadeth to Life c. If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all thou hast and give to the poor c. and come and follow me St. Matth. 19. 21. There be Eunuchs who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven he that can take let him take St. Matth. 10. 12. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them c. Heb. 13. 17. Answ 1. THe Syllogism is not good the words and no other being wanting in the Major Proposition and if they be put in the Major is false That which is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles and no other is the true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ For a Chnrch may be true and a lawfull Spouse of Christ which is not eminent for Miracles Else it would go ill with all the Churches since Miracles have ceased and with the Church consisting of John Baptist and his Disciples But as it is now expressed by H. T. I grant the Major though except the words of Christ Matth 7. 17 20. the Texts are all impertinent The Article of the Creed is not meant of the meer visible church but of the church which is also the invisible of the elect persons nor is it meant of holiness of outward Discipline and Doctrine but of inward real holiness and so are Ephes 5. 27. 1 Cor. 6. 10 11. yea the former is meant of that holiness which is perfect without spot or wrinkle when the Church is presented to himself at his appearing and the other of that sanctifying which is by the Spirit of God and not onely by Baptism The Texts Matth. 7. 13 14. 19. 11 12. Mark 10. 21. Heb. 13. 17. are not expressions of properties which are marks of the church but Precepts and signifie what duty some did or ought to do Now the doing of some duties is not a mark of the church as v. g. doing justice giving to the poor relieving the Saints selling all we have which may be in Infidels and those duties which are in the three later Texts are special duties of some and therefore not marks which agree to the whole church but such as all members are not tied to every member not a woman is not to geld himself but he that can take it nor to sell all Papists make these Evangelical counsels of more perfection than is ordinary nor to obey Prelates and therefore in such they are no parts of Sanctity much less marks of a true church SECT II. The Sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church BUt it is the Minor which is to be denied of which H. T. saith thus Now that the Roman Catholick Church hath abounded with and brought forth Saints in all Ages which is a pregnant and convincing proof of our second Proposition is manifest by the Chronicles and Martyrologies of the whole Christian World Answ 1. To talk of the Roman catholick church is non-sense as is shewed before 2. It is scarce good sense to say The Church brings forth Saints when the church is no other than the Saints or a company of Saints 3. Were it yielded that the Church did abound with and bring forth Saints in all Ages yet this proves not the sanctity of the church but of those Saints in it nor doth it at all prove the sanctity of the Discipline or Doctrine but of the persons much less the power of Miracles the sanctity of the church persons being often Saints as John Baptist who have not power of doing Miracles and unholy persons have it sometimes Matth. 7. 22 23. and if it did prove any thing it would prove
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Scripture or many Protestant ones are not and thus I frame my discourse All Protestant Tenets say you are sufficiently contained in Scripture but many Catholick Doctrines say I denied by Protestants are as evident in Scripture as divers Protestant Tenets therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture He that has hardiness enough to deny this Conclusion let him compare the Texts that recommend the Churches authority in deciding controversies and expounding Articles of Faith with these that support the Protestant private spirit or particular judgement of discretion let him compare the places that favour priestly Absolution with those on which they ground their necessity not to stand upon the lawfulness of Infant-baptism let him compare the passages of the Bible for the real presence of our Saviours body in the Eucharist for the primacy of St. Peter for the authority of Apostolical Traditions though unwritten with what ever he can cite to prove the three distinct persons in the blessed Trinity the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father the procession of the holy Ghost from both the obligation of the Sunday in stead of the Sabbath so expresly commanded in the Moral Law and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleases I shall offer him onely this request either to admit the Argument or teach me to answer it Answ H. T. sure hath a singular eyesight which sees such an evidence in this Argument as that he sees nothing more evident What is not this more evident that the whole is bigger than a part that God made the World that the Word was made Flesh Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonstration specially when what the man holds at one time upon second and better thoughts he relinquisheth nor is an argument ad hominem fit to establish any truth but somewhat to lessen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconsistencies and therefore the cause is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith or that Popish Doctrine is grounded on Scripture because some Protestant tenets have no better proof thence than some Popish tenets denied to be contained in the Scripture But that I may gratifie H. T. as much as in me lieth in his request I tell him The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know nor if I would examine the form of it do I doubt but that I should finde four terms in it at least and then H. T. it is likely knows his Syâ—logism is naught Nor do I know how to form it better unless it be formed dis-junctively but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him To it as I finde it I say that if he mean that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scripture who ever he be that saith so yet I dare not say so But this I think that all or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship which are controverted between them are sufficiently contained in the Scripture and all of them ought to be or else they may be rejected And for his Minor I deny it if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith which are held by all or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions excepting some about Discipline Ceremonies and Sacraments And for his instances to the first I say I am willing any Reader who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controversies or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is propounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope general Council or Prelates who are never called the Church in Scripture And for the second I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet that Infant-baptism is necessary and for the lawfulness I grant there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it that is none at all for either And for the third there are Protestants that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist as the Lutherans and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver but not bodily but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self as Scotus long ago resolved And for the Primacy of St. Peter it hath been told this Authour that a Primacy of order of zeal and some other endowments is yielded by Protestants but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied and it is proved before Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture And for the authority of Apostolical traditions though unwritten if there were any such truly so called I should not deny it but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us he hath not proved in this Article nor brought one Text for it but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians Arians Socinians as to yield that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons the Sons consubstantiality the Spirits procession more evident than this is my Body for Transubstantiation Thou art Peter for the Popes Supremacy and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods nature and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture As for Sunday being in stead of the Sabbath he should me thinks allow somewhat in Scripture for it Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Revel 1. 10. more evident than for his real presence Peter's Supremacy unwritten Traditions But I see prejudice doth much to sway men and make them see what others cannot The Crow thinks her own Bird fairest Yet again saith H. T. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be applied to the negative as well as positive Doctrines on either side All Catholick points denied by Protestants are sufficiently say you condemned in Scripture But many points imbraced by Protestants are as clearly say I condemned in Scripture as divers they deny in opposition to Catholicks therefore many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture Where does the Bible so plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead as this darling Errour and fundamental Principle of Protestancy that any one
all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine I reply neither the Church nor her Ministers can sufficiently propose to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture by which we may have infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten And to say that the whole Church in general and not each man in particular is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde is to speak contradictions Yet once more saith H. T. Object You dance in a vicious Circle proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apostolical tradition and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility Answ No we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition but that is evident of it self and admits no other proof When we bring Scripture for either we use it onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem I reply if this be so then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstration of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration as being evident of it self and admits no other proof which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved it follows that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach but what Popes and their Councils define into which their Faith is ultimately resolved No marvel then they decline Scripture or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity not because they think it is to be rested on and if so sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith we should take it as a thing confessed that Popery is not Scripture doctrine but onely unwritten Tradition and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination and so to be imbraced upon his credit which sure can beget no other than a humane faith and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith which is all one as to make him their Christ and that is to make him an Antichrist Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle and herein they go divers ways Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith chap. 9. rejects the common way and sticks to that of universal Tradition which by natural reason is evident and firm But when he hath urged this as far as he can this must be the evidence that what all say and was so manifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true But the being of Christ the Mossiah and his Doctrine from God as the holy Scriptures declare is avouched by all the Church and manifestly known by Miracles therefore it must be true which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition confirming the truth of the Scriptures and deriving our Faith from thence which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions whether they be with Scripture or without they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope not Christians that is Disciples of Christ I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture but in men whether Popes or Councils or the universal Church or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition which is his Rule as being evident of it self and admits no other proof though I have shewed it to be uncertain yea not so much as probable I go on to the next Article ARTIC IX Schism and Heresie are ill charged on Protestants Protestants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church as now it is in their Worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by rejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this Subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks SECT I H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie and begins thus Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie we shall here briefly shew what they are and who are justly chargeable therewith Our Tenet is that not onely Heresie which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but also Schism which is a separation from her government is damnable and sacrilegious and that most Sectaries are guilty of both Answ I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour 's own sense as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church and owning the Pope or being the Pope himself is an Arian as Pope Liberius or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius And for his definition of Heresie it is in mine apprehension too obscure and imperfect For it neither shews what is the Catholick Church the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie nor what separation in heart or profession or other act nor when it is wilfull when not nor how it may be known to be wilfull Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets who acquit many from Heresie who wilfully separate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as they define it to wit that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope As for instance The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour but taken as granted though it may be justly questioned And for the use of the terms Heresie and Hereticks in the Ancients it is certain that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philastrius Epiphanius Augustin and also by other Writers elder and later and those opinions termed Heresies which were not so The like faults are in the definition of Schism in not setting down which is the Catholick Church what is her government what separation of heart or outward
subject which if so meant the words are not true if meant as Cyprian meant that there is one Bishoprick of which each Bishop holds a part intirely in respect of unity of Doctrine the speech is good but not against Protestants who hold the unity of that Episcopal Chair The words of Augustine lib. 4. de Symb. fidei ad Catech. cap. 10. if they were true yet are they nothing to the purpose unless it were said that by the holy Church he meant the Church of Rome or that he who is found out of the Church of Rome is a stranger from the number of sons that he hath not God for his Father nor will have the Church for his Mother none of which are said by him It is true there are these words in Austin's second Exposition on Psalm 21. with us 22. ver 18. He who hath charity is secure or safe No man moveth it out of the Catholick Church But these words are not against Protestants but against Papists who move it out of the Catholick Church and confine it to the Roman and most uncharitably damn them who are not of their party therein following the Donatists whom Austin there condemns who confined the Church to the part of Donatus in Africa And there is another passage in the same Exposition which doth justifie the Protestants and condemn the Papists in the main point of controversie between us what shall determine controversies between us they say the Church when the great controvesie is which is the Church we say the Scripture and so doth Augustine in these words The Testament of our Father that is the Scriptures as the words a little before shew is come out of any hole I know not what Thieves would take it away I know not what Persecutours would burn it Whencesoever it is brought let it be read Why strivest thou We are brethren why do we strive The Father died not without a Will he made his Will and so died he is dead and risen again So long there is contention about the Inheritance of the Dead untill the Will be publickly produced and when the Will is brought into the publick all are silent that the Tables may be opened and recited The Judge hears within the Advocates are silent the Criers make silence all the People is suspended that the words of the Dead not perceiving it in the Tomb may be read He lies without sense in the Monument and his words are in force Christ sits in Heaven and is his Testament contradicted Open let us read we are Brethren why do we contend Let our minde be pacified our Father hath not left us without a Will He that made the Will lives for ever hears our voices acknowledgeth his own Let us read why do we contend Where the Inheritance it self is found let us hold it These words were spoken by Austin against Donatists and may rightly be applied to Papists who are the true canse of all the horrible Schisms and bloodsheds among Christians because they will not try who hath the Inheritance of the Church by the Scriptures which are God's Will but usurp the name of the Catholick Church as the Donatists did and under that pretence trample under foot all their Christian Brethren in the World who have as great and better Portion in the Inheritance of God their Father and of the Church than themselves The words of Augustine in his Sermon super gestis Emeriti are not that out of the Church an Heretick may have all things but Salvation For he saith He may have the Faith which he would not say of the Heretick but he speaks it of the Donatists which whether it be true or no is nothing to Protestants who are and may be in the true Church of Christ and have salvation though they be not in the Roman Church The words of Augustine Epist 48. concerning the Donatists that they were with other Christians in Baptism in the Creed and in the other Sacraments of the Lord but in the spirit of unity in the bond of peace and finally in the Catholick Church you are not with us do not at all touch Protestants who are in the Catholick Church with other Christians though not with the Roman party who are most like the Donatists and the Protestants hold with Augustine in the same Epistle that that kinde of Letters to wit of Bishops such as Hilary Cyprian c. is to be distinguished from the authority of the Canon of the Scripture For they are not so read as if testimony were brought out of them that it may not be lawfull to think to the contrary if perhaps they thought otherwise than the truth requires SECT IV. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquiting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists It follows in H. T. Objections solved Object We separated onely from the Church of Rome's errours Answ Yea from her Catholick and Apostolical Doctrines She doth not erre in Faith as hath been proved I answer therefore with St. Augustine to the Donatists I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations cont Petil. Add no nor with any Nation before Luther I Reply that we separate from any other than the Church of Rome 's errours and sins is said but not proved and that she that is the Bishop of Rome and his party do not erre in Faith is not proved but impudently said against plain evidence of Scripture Councils and Fathers and I reply by retorting Augustine's words I object to you the crime of Schism which you will deny and I will presently prove because you do not communicate with all Nations particularly you English Recusant Papists H. T. and the rest are manifest Schismaticks for you separate from the Catholick Church in that you do not communicate with the Protestant Church of Christ in England It is false that those who held the same truth with Protestants under other names held no communion with any Nation before Luther For as far as they could and ought they held communion with a. called on the Name of the Lord Jesus in France Bohemia England and elsewhere under the names of Waldenses Hussites Picards Wiclevists Lollards and such like H. T. adds Object We refused onely the Church of Rome's Innovations and Superstitions Answ You slander Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same then that they have been in all precedent Ages Did the Church perish saith St. Augustine to the Donatists or did she not If she did what Church brought forth the Donatists or the Protestants If she did not what madness moved you to separate your selves from her on pretence of avoiding the communion of bad men lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap 7. And again We are certain no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations yet Martin Luther and Mr. Tyndal did it Epist 48. And in another place All Separation made before the
an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and yet no Separation from the whole And therefore this Position of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonstration that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Protestants have made cannot stand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Discipline Which sure he hath not yet proved nor is it likely he ever will but as the fashion of these Scriblers is sing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church and that Protestants are Hereticks and Sectaries with other Popish gibberish though the folly and frivolousness thereof hath been a thousand times demonstrated I have thus at last examined these nine Articles being moved thereto out of hope to do some souls good by recovering them out of the snare in which they are held by Satan and Romish Emissaries If they shut their eys against the light their judgement will be of themselves I shall add prayer for them that God would open their eys and if time health and other concurrences suit with my aims discover the vanity of the rest of H. T. his Manual In the mean time not as some Romanists blasphemously Praise be to the Virgin Mother in the end of their Writings but as Paul concluded his Epistle to the Romans so do I To God onely wise be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever Amen FINIS The Contents ARTICLE I. THe Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession Page 1 Sect. 1. Of the Title of H. T. his Manual in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed ibid. 2. Of the Epistles prefixed in which he ascribes too much to the Church and deceitfully begins with her Authority 3 3. His Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd 4 4. The Succession required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church 7 5. None of the Texts alleged by H. T. prove a necessity to the being of a true Church of such Succession as he imagines 10 6. The Succession pretended in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary 11 7. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years 13 8. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries of years 18 9. The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Centuries is shewed 21 10. The defect of his Catalogue in the eleventh and twelfth Ages is shewed 25 11. The defect of his Catalogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth Ages is shewed 28 12. The defect of his Catalogue in the fifteenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed 32 13. The close of H. T. is retorted 36 14. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections 38 ARTICLE II. PRotestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God 42 Sect. 1. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists demand ibid. 2. The Argument of H. T. against Protestants doth as well prove the nullity of the Roman Church for want of Succession as of the Protestants 44 3. Protestants have had a Succession sufficient to aver their Doctrine 47 4. The Succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding the Exceptions of H. T. 51 5. The Doctrine of Romanists was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by learned Protestants 53 6. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostasie of the Roman Church is proved 56 ARTICLE III. SUch visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church 62 Sect. 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church and what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church ibid. 2. Neither Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5. 14. Psalm 18. 19 4. nor the words of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine prove such a Church visibility as H. T. asserts 65 3. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church as it is by H. T. asserted 66 ARTICLE IV. THe Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Christian Faith 69 1. 〈◊〉 in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the universality of the Church militant ibid. 2. The ambiguity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed 70 3. Unity of Discipline under one visible Head and of Faith without division in lesser Points is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Acts 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed necessary to the Churches being 71 4. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his Argument from the unity of the Church is better against than for the Roman Church 73 5. The Argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him for Protestants 77 6. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. John 14. 15 16. Luke 1. 33. for time Psalm 85. 86 9. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. Psalm 19. 4. for place agrees not to the now Roman Church but may be better said of the Protestants 78 7. The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem Augustine are not for the universality of H. T. by which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman Church but against it 80 8. It is non-sense or false to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered 81 ARTICLE V. THe Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to obey her under Pain of Damnation but all this is a meer impudent arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scriptures or Antiquity 85 Sect. 1. The decit of H. T. in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope is shewed ibid. 2. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick Churches Infallibility 87 3. Matth 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for the claim