men which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests against Gods allowance and the practice of former ages The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches who though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants As for the Nations converted Scots French the Martyrs of Africa which he mentions it is not shewed that either they were converted by any from Rome or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years within which he included his Demonstration which were better than the later though not without their corruptions I proceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following SECT IX The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in the sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Ages is shewed H. T. in his catalogue from the year of Christ 500. reckons up thirteen chief Pastors one general Council the second Constantinopolitan Pope Vigilius prefiding Fathers 165. An. Dom 553. against Anthimius and Theodore but Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 1. de concil c. 19. that Eutychius of Constantinople was President there though Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople As for that which Bellarmine cites out of Zonaras in the life of Justinian he cites it maimedly For Zonaras said not that onely Vigilius was Prince of the Bishops who were present but with him Eutychius of Constantinople and Apollinaris of Alexandria What H. T. mentions of the definitions of the council is nothing against the protestants nor for the Papacy That which he allegeth out of the third council of Carthage is disorderly placed in the sixth age it being held as is said in the year 397. and is of doubtfull credit sith it mentions Pope Boniface as then living though he sat not according to Onuphrius till the year 419. but it matters not what it was sith it was but a provincial Synod and of the canons cited by H. T. the first is onely about a point not of Faith concerning the celebrating the Mass Fasting the other which terms the Apocryphal books as canonical may be expounded according to Hierom's distinction that they are canonical to form manners not to inform faith Yet this may be observed by the way that the six and twentieth Canon of the third Council of Carthage which was authorized by the sixth general council holden at Constantinople in Trullo as it is alleged by Gratian in the Decrees dist 99. de primatibus and by Pope Pelagius approved denies to any the title of Chief Priest or Prince of Priests but alows onely this Title Bishop of the first See whereupon the Gloss saith that even the Bishop of Rome was not to be called the Universal Bishop The determination of the Council of Mileris about Childrens Baptism is disorderly placed in the sixth age being said to be held in the year 402. and being no general council about a point not gainsaid by most protestants is impertinent to prove a succession of assertors of the Roman Doctrine opposite to the protestants That which he allegeth out of the Caesar Augustan Council which decreed that Virgins should not be vailed till after forty years probation makes against the Papists who in the Trent council allow it sooner and practise the vasting of them afore they are twenty years old That which he adds of Pope John the first his Decree that Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it because it is written See thou offer not thy holocausts in every place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. shews the Popes ignorance or Judaism who applies this to the Mass which was meant of Jewish sacrificing in the Levitical Law and makes the Mass to be an offering of an holocaust and every place consecrated by a bishop the place that God chooseth and also the vanity of this Scribler who puts in his catalogue such an impertinent testimony to prove a succession of the assertors of the Roman faith which I scarce think any sober papist would make any part of his faith against protestants nor do I think the papists in England would be content to be tied to that Law In that which he adds of Catholick Professors to the year 600. he doth not shew that they acknowledged the bishop of Rome's supremacy or the now Roman faith Yea Columbanus in this age and after Aidanus Colmannus and others lived and died in opposition to the Romans about Easter That Austin the Monk converted England is onely true of some part of it and it is true also that he did in many things pervert them and it is said he was an instigator of the murder of many British Christians better than himself but that either he or Pope Gregory that sent him held the same supremacy of the pope which now popes claim or the now Roman faith opposite to the protestants cannot be shewed On the contrary it is manifest enough that Gregory the great refused the Title of Universal Bishop as profane and sacrilegious and accounted the assumer of it to be a fore-runner of Antichrist lib 4. epist 32 34 36 38 39. lib. 6. epist 30. he allowed not Worship of Images in his Epistle to Serenus bishop of Marseiles he allowed priests wives nor did tie men to follow the order of the Roman church which shews the popes then not to have been altogether so bad as in the next age In which and throughout the rest of his Catalogue he can hardly shew a Pope that lived either the life of a Christian or did the Office of a pastour of the church of God if any sure not many but in stead of Christian pastours a generation of men of an ambitious and luxurious spirit contending with Emperours and Bishops for worldly greatness persecuting godly Christians living in pomp riot and all kinde of wickedness are set down as chief pastours of the universal church In the seventh age he reckons up nineteen Popes whom he terms chief Pastors of them the second is Boniface the third who obtained of Phocas the Emperor who by treason had gotten the Empire slaying his Lord Mauritius and his children the title of universal Bishop detested before by Gregory the great as profane and sacrilegious and Honorius the first is the fifth condemned in the third Constantinopolitan Council in which H. T. saith there were Fathers two hundred eighty nine Pope Agatho presiding Anno Domini 680. against the Monothelites and that in it were condemned Sergius Paulus Petrus Cyrus and Theodore who most impiously taught but one
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
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
Council be not How is it an Oecumenical definition when it determins against John Hus or against Christs own expresse command for communion under one kinde and nor Oecumenical when it decrees the supremacy of the Council above the Pope This is meer jugling of hâ—â—us pocus which shews that when it likes them the Council shall be approved when not rejected and thereby take upon them to be above Pope and Council But if this be the fashion of their Councils who can tell when one decree is contrary to another if these were not or who can tell when a decree is approved by a Pope if neither of these were where 's the agreement where 's the infallibility they so vainly arrogate to their Church Martin the fifth expressely confirmed the acts of the Council of Constance in the 45. Session of which one was in the fourth Session that every one though of Papal dignity was bound to obey a general Council in the things pertaining to faith That which Bellarm. l. 2. de Concil aut c. 19. saith that he onely approved some things not others because he said sic conciliariter facta is but a shift for that expression is not set down by way of limitation and distinction but explication noting the reason of approving all because they were done conciliariter as the word sic shews which implies his acknowledgment that they were all so done Besides he not excepting it expressely could not be interpreted to except that from his confirmation more then any thing else there acted it might as well be said he excepted the decree about half communion yea if he had excepted that decree of the Councils being above the Pope he had meerly deluded the Council that decree being their principal decree and for which it was called Add hereto that the words of his Bull thereupon do more fully manifest that he did not except it and the decree of the Council of Basil called after by vertue of his Bull shews that they understood it to confirm that decree proceeding against Pope Eugenius conformably to it And for the other Council that Pope Leo the tenth did not confirm the decree of the Popes being above a Council is contrary to Bellarmin l. 2. de Concil aut c. 18. who recites the decree as a proof and c. 5. reckons it among the general Councils approved by the Pope as appears saith he in that he was president in person And for the other answer of H. T. it is ridiculous sith the Councils words are expresse that any person though of Papal dignity was to obey the general Council and the decree was made of purpose to justifie their fact in putting down a Pope And there was no question nor need be who is above other when both joyn but all the question is and so the definition must be construed when they are severed Yea it would be trifling to say the Pope should obey the Council when the Pope concurred for it 's all one as to say be should obey himself and to say the Council is above the Pope when the Council and Pope are one is frivolous for in all such comparisons the words expresse what each is severally as they stand in competition according to their several authorities and therefore the similitude of H. T. is frivolous as being not to the purpose Lastly with what face can this man say that neither Council err'd when Bellarmin saith c. 7. that in the Florentin and last Lateran the Council of Constance was rejected in respect of the first Sessions wherein it defined a Council to be above a Pope so that all the wit of man is not able to avoid this objection but that according to the suppositions of Popish Doctors either a general Council approved by a Pope may erre in a point of faith or else there is no error in a main point of their faith when one general Council approved by a Pope contradicts a former general Council approved by a former Pope of greater freedome and celebrity by reason of the Emperours presence and for other causes which was seconded by another Council not long after as appears by the next objection which is thus set down by H. T. Ob. The Council of Basil defined that a Council was above a Pope Answ The decree was not approved nor any other of that Council but onely such as concerned Church benefices See Eugenius with Terrecremata l. 2. c. 100. I reply I finde no such distinction in Pope Nicolas the fifth his Bull but that it is confirmed altogether But it seems when it pleaseth these men the Council shall be approved when not rejected So that it is not either the calling of a Council by a Pope or the universality of the Fathers or the approbation of the Pope can confirm it if another Pope reject it which they will do when it 's against their power and profit And hereby is proved that Popes are vertiginous that Popery is as mutable as the weathercock that there is so little shew of agreement unity and infallibility in Popes and Councils approved by him that scarce any states are more full of changes in matters civil then they are in matters Ecclesiastical and of faith nor in any part of the world more disagreement then among Papists Further saith H. T. Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianism Answ It did not and that equivocal decree that was there made was never approved by the Pope and the Fathers themselves who were deluded by the Arians with words that bare a double sense when they perceived the fraud lamented and renounced the fact I reply H. T. his own words confirm the objection For 1. If the Fathers were deluded by the Arians then they were not infallible and so a general Council approved by the Pope may erre in a main point of faith 2. If that Council did not define Arianism how were they deluded wherein was the fraud but in that the words being of double sense yet indeed decreed Arian doctrine what need they lament or renounce the fact if it were not so why doth Austin l. 3. contra Maximinum c. 14. oppose that council to that of Nice and Maximinus allege it for himself if it did not decree Arianism why did Ruffinus Socrates Basil cited by Bellarm l. 1. de concil c. 6. reject it and Bellarmin reckon it among the reprobate councils if it were not Arian and that Pope Liberius did subscribe to it is related by Hierom in his catalogue of writers in Fortunatianus in his Chronicle by Hillary sundry times and others Yet saith H. T. Ob. The council of Trent erred by adding to the Canon of Scripture Answ It did not the third council of Carthage approved all the same books by name excepting Baruch whom they compared with the Prophet Hieremy whose Secretary he was and this twelve hundred years ago I reply if the council of Trent did not erre Pope Gregory the great did who expressely denied the books of
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
whose agents they were in bringing a deluge of ignorance and wickedness into the world which made that age to be termed a miserable age in which were neither famous writers nor Councils nor Popes that cared for the publick by Bellarmin in his book of Ecclesiastical writers and of it H. T. here saith in this tenth age or century I find no general council nor yet provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided So that by his own confession his catalogue of councils fails him And for his succession of chief Pastors it is of such persons and so uncertain a succession and by such irregular ways as yeilds proof that Rome was the Synagogue of Satan not the church of Christ Of the catholick professors added some of them as Dunstan c. were such as it may be well doubted whether they are in heaven or in hell And for the Nations converted it is not proved they were of the now Roman faith SECT X. The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the eleventh and twelfth age is shewed IN the eleventh age are reckoned eighteen Popes worse if it may be as bad as any in hell most of them magicians if their own writers speak truth from Sylvester the second to Gregory the seventh all Necromancers saith Benno a Cardinal of Rome John the seventeenth or eighteenth H. T. himself is not resolved whether so uncertain is his succession on which he builds the truth of his church Their practises were to poyson one another and to set up one King and Emperor against another to advance their own greatness and to domineer over the greatest Princes by the terror of their excommunications and giving away their dominions which was brought to a stupendous heighth by Hildebrand otherwise Gregory the seventh under whose reign Satan seems to have been let loose for the executing of vengeance on the Emperors that had so adored Popes as to become their vassals whom Pope Gregory the great acknowledged his Lord and committed fornication with the whore of Babylon Of councils H. T. names but one telling us that in this eleventh age about the year 1049. Berengarius an Archdeacon of Ghent of Aniou he should have said mistaking Gaudavensis for Adegavensis began to broach his heresie he should more truely have said the doctrin of Christ his Apostles the Fathers even Gelasius himself Bishop of Rome in the first five hundred years and of the most learned to that time concerning the B. Sacrament affirming it to be only a sign or figure of the body and blood of Christ not his true body and blood for which saith H. T. he was condemned in the council of Lateran under Pope Nicolas the second 1057. As also in the Roman council under Pope Gregory the seventh Anno 1073. where he abjured his heresie in open council and died a Catholick after divers penances done for his sin But methinks H. T. should be ashamed to mention Berengarius his forced abjuration in which Pope Nicolas made him say I believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ sensibly and in very deed is touched with the hands of the Priests and broken with and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithful de con dist 2. Ergâ— Berengarius which occasioned the gloss it self to say unless you warily understand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie than ever he held any And for his Catholick professors and Nations converted wherein or how far they avowed the Popes supremacy and the now Roman faith is not shewed by him nor do I believe he is able to prove that they did avouch the Popes supremacy which is now challenged or in all things the now Roman doctrin though Romish superstitions and the excessive esteem of the Popish Bishops did very much corrupt men in those days If the ignorant devotion of one Henricus the Emperor with his wife make any thing for the credit of the Roman papacy the story of another Henricus to wit the fourth his wife and childs usage by Gregory the seventh and other Popes is such as that it demonstrates the Popes of those times to have been no successors of Peter either in doctrine or practice but devils incarnate rather than men And however Anselms learning seem to credit the papacy yet in many points of doctrin he is not for the now Roman tenents as where he saith on Rom. 12. salvation consisteth not in mans merits but in Gods grace and his contention with the King of England being animated by the Pope is an evidence that the faith of Christ was not so much professed then as the greatness of Bishops and the unrighteous ways of Clergymen In the twelfth age are reckoned up eighteen Popes and three Lateran councils of which Popes it will be hard for H. T. to shew what their faith was or to prove they did orderly succeed especially considering how many Antipopes were set up and what abominable practices were used to get up into the chair and how wickedly they lived as men that cared not what rebellions they raised what wars and bloodsheds they caused not against infidels but of subjects against their soveraign Christian Emperors not for the Gospel of Christ or their lawful liberties but for the Popes most impudent claim of freedom from subjection to Emperors and investiture of Bishops and Abbats things which Jesus Christ and his Apostles never granted but commanded the contrary Their own writers tell us so much of them specially of Calixtus the second Innocent the second Adrian the fourth Alexander the third and their monstrous pride in oppressing and insulting on the Emperors beyond what is to be found in any Priests of Pagan Gods towards the Princes of the earth as shews them to be inspired by the devil not guided by the Spirit of God H. T. adds three Lateran councils for instauration of discipline for the right of the Clergy for reformation with presidency of Calixtus the second Anno 1122 of Innocent the second Anno 1139. which he tells us defined little in matters of controversie and so by his own confession prove not his succession in the profession of the same faith As for the ends in those two councils which he mentions all the instauration of disciplin therein was concerning monks in the former and in the later the right of the clergy was about the Bishop of Romes power in civil things at Rome and exempting of clergy men from the Senate and Consuls of Rome Wherein the Romans desired to be restored to their ancient power in civil things but the Pope and his council withstood it anathematizing them that laid hands on a clergy man yet limiting the Bishop of Rome in some sort These are the great businesses of three hundred at one time and one thousand Bishops and Abbats at another time Which may shew how little the Popes and councils then regarded Christs doctrin or precepts but minded the upholding their own inventions and
authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his
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
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
faith but he onely who hears the Pope speak by word of mouth from his chair or a council approved by him speak with audible voyce the reading of the Trent canons or the Popes Bull is not sufficient to beget faith much less the hearing a Priest or Prelate tell us their determination By which it may appear that if H. T. his dictates hold then there is neither church nor faith among the greatest part of Papists 9. All this discourse is idle because Papists themselves do grant in effect the distinction he excepts against and his own words do in a manner confesse it is right as the objectors explain it and therefore in this is but a meer humour of quarrelling as having a minde to say somewhat against Mr. Chillingworth and Dr. Potter the Lord Falkland and Dr. Hammond who have fully beaten them out of this their last hold of the infallibility of the Roman church which they would fain have fortified being unable to keep the field in the several points of controversie between us and them H. T. goes on thus Ob. In Gregory the greats time the discipline and doctrine of the Church was altered and corrupted Ans That cannot be for from Gregory the greats time to this day even the least substantial part of either hath not been lost or changed as is visible in all the councils liturgies and constitutions of the Church I reply this is so notoriouslly false and the contrary so fully demonstrated even out of the confessions of Popish writers themselves and in the points of the Popes supremacy out of Gregory himself l. 4. Epist 32 34 38 39. in the point of worshipping of Images in his Epistle to Serenus and in other points by Bishop Morton in his first book of the Protestants appeal against Brerely his Apology that were not this Author resolved to out-face the most manifest verities against the now Roman tenents he would never have vented so grosse a falshood The very confessions of Popes the decrees of reformation even in the Trent council prove the contrary to what H. T. saith Claudius Espentaeus com in 2 Tim. c. 4. digres 21. confesseth that toyes and lyes were in almost all their portesses And if there were no more to prove this Author an egregious lyar yet this is enough which is apparent to all the world that they have had councils opposing councils about the superiority of a Pope above a council since the time of Gregory the great and even in their Miffals and Bibles many things have been changed and purged Clemens the eighth hath altered many things in Sixtus the fifth his Bible and thereby shewed how corruptions have crept into their own authentick translation H. T. adds Object That which may happen to any one particular man or Church may happen to all but it may happen to any one particular man or Church to erre in faith therefore to all Answ I distinguish the first proposition that which may happen to one may happen to all in a divisive sense I grant in a collective I deny and granting the second proposition I deny the consequence for it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense and is as equivocal as this That which may happen to any one egge in the Parish may happen to all But it may happen to any one egge in the Parish to go into your mouth at once therefore it may happen to all the eggs in the Parish to go into your mouth at once I reply I know not whose argument this is Dr. Rainold in his Thesis saith thus but it may happen to every Church which may happen to any certainly what happened to the Church of Jerusalem which had much more ample promises then ever the Church of any City As it is formed by this Author I think the Major is not universally true but being formed thus that error which may be in each man and church singly and it 's not assured shall be removed from them met together may happen to them so met But error in faith may be in each man and Church singly and it 's not assured to be removed from them met together therefore error in faith may happen to them so met The Major is I conceive without question The Minor consists of two parts 1. That all men and Churches singly or severally may erre in faith I think will not be denied That the Popes as private Doctors may erre in faith it 's not denyed by the stiffest assertors of the Popes infallibility That any particular Church also even the Roman may erre it 's not denied the infallibility which H. T. would have to belong to it is as Catholick and this must be when the whole Church diffused over the world unanimously teach a point of faith or it 's representative in a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope 2. That to none of these is such infallibility assured which is proved in that there is no promise of such infallibility to any of them The texts urged by H. T. in this article yeild not that promise nor that text Mat. 18. 20. For 1. Christ may be in the midst of men and yet they not infallible He walks in the midst of the Churches Revel 2. 1. yet they might and did erre in faith So God hath promised inhabitation to every true believer and walking with them 2 Cor. 6. 16. and yet they were not infallible 2. If infallibility were there promised it was promised to two or three gathered in Christs name and so to a Church neither collectively nor representatively Catholick 3. The promise is but conditional upon supposition of being gathered together in Christs name which whether any council be it is uncertain to us As for H. T. his distinction and application they seem to me to savour of unskilfulnesse in the meaning of Logick terms A proposition is true in a divided sense which is not true in a compound when the predicate agrees to the subject considered as at different times upon an alteration as when it is said the blind see the deaf hear the dumb speak this is not true in a compound sense that at the same time that persons are blind deaf dumb they see hear speak but in a divided sense But the Major proposition as set down in the objection is understood of the same time without alteration And so it is not true that it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense Nor is there any consequence in the proposition as he unskilfully speaks but the proposition is a simple or categorical proposition As for his similitude of eating eggs they may be kept for his breakfast as now being unseasonable But he proceeds Object The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the Church Answ True the Church was to depend on them as on the first masters and proposers of faith who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance
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
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
Faith or Catholick Church but not any longer And this Authour may as some in case of Marriage conceive he is obliged to keep faith with Inâ—idels and yet not with Hereticks And for the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 15. 18. neither durst Protestants then trust to the safe conduct then given and before and since sad instances of Papists perfidiousness have given too much occasion to Protestants to suspect the lurking of a Snake under the grass I mean some hidden deceit under a covert of fair words especially when we consider this Authour a little before counted the definition of the Council of Constance to be of faith Sess 15. 18. In which Sess 19. that Council as it is in Binius hath these words The present holy Synod doth declare that no prejudice to the Catholick faith or to Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction is generated or impediment can be or ought to be made by any safe conduct granted by the Emperour Kings and other secular Princes to Hereticks or defamed of Hereâ—ie thinking so to recall the same from their Errours with whatsoever Bond they have bound themselves but that the said safe conduct notwithstanding it may be lawfull for a competent Judge and Ecclesiastick to inquire of the Errours of such persons and otherwise duly to proceed against them and to punish them as much as justice shall perswade if they shall refuse stifly to revoke their Errours although trusting to their safe conduct they have come to the place of judgement who otherwise would not have come nor doth he that so promiseth when he hath done what lies in him remain obliged by this in any thing Which surely amounted then to as much as this and hath been thousands of times objected by Princes and others that publick faith is not to be kept with Hereticks And how little reason Protestants have to trust Papists not onely the actions of former Papists for a thousand years past but also of late their actings in Ireland Poland Piedmont shew Whom he means by the Popes flatterers or particular Doctors I do not well understand should he call Bellarmine Baronius or such like men so perhaps he may be served as Francis a St. Clara and others were I judge H. T. to be a gross Flatterer in maintaining the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility there being in this tenet no better than blasphemous Antichristian flattery ascribing to some of the worst and oftentimes most ignorant men that which is due to the Son of God And for his Corollary I deny the Major and Minor both sith that may be a true Church which hath neither local personal Succession nor conspicuous Visibility nor such Unity Universality Infallibility Sanctity Power of Miracles Universal Bishop as H. T. requires as necessary to a true Church nor hath he made it plain that these marks do agree to the present Roman Church or Bishop and no other but his mistakes in these are shewed I follow him in the rest ARTIC VIII Unwritten Tradition now no Rule of Faith The unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith SECT I. The Argument for Apostolical Tradition unwritten as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered H. T. intitles his eighth Article of Apostolical Tradition and saith Our Tenet is That the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition or a delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and nothing ought to be received as Faith but what is proved to have been so delivered which we prove thus The first Argument That is now the true Rule of Faith which was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first But oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first therefore oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books is the true Rule of Faith The Major is proved because the Rule of Faith must be immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is The Minor is proved because the first Gospel was not written till eight years after the Death of Christ or thereabouts in which space the Apostles had preached and planted the Faith of Christ in many Nations over almost all the World Add to this that many Ages were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church so that when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age they were not to inquire what had been written but whether the Apostles so taught Answ THis Doctor whether it be by reason of his ignorance or heedlesness or malignity to the holy Scriptures determines worse than his fellows yea against the Doctrine of the Trent Council and Pope Pius the fourths Bull. For whereas in the Trent Council Sess 4. it is said that the truth and Discipline of Christ and his Apostles is contained in written Books and Traditions without writing and would have both to be received with equal affection and reverence of piety and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull requires the admission of the sacred Scripture and Apostolical Tradition H. T. concludes that written Books are not the true Rule of Faith but oral and Apostolical Tradition If he had said they had not been the entire Rule of Faith he had agreed with the Trent Council and the Popes Bull but now he contradicts them as well as the Protestants and his Argument doth as well conclude that the holy Scripture is no part of the Rule of Faith as that it is not the whole But leaving him to be corrected by his fellows let 's view his Dispute Setting aside his non-sense speech of being received as Faith in stead of being received as the object of Faith and taking Apostolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly so called I grant his Tenet and say with him that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition that is the Doctrine which the Apostles delivered or that delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles and that nothing ought to be received as Faith that is a thing to be believed with a Christian divine Faith which all Christians are bound to believe but what is proved to have been so delivered For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Christian Faith by whom or what way soever it be delivered and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Testament which are objects of Faith yet sith now Christ and his Apostles have delivered those divine revelations as the oracles of God and what the Apostles preached and thought needfull for us to know and believe to salvation is written and these Writings are conveyed from father to son by hand to hand we grant the Tenet being meant of them and yield further that if they can
not to do so still why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy c. and tells us here pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy and consequently the Popes without the Scripture and therefore allege it yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith and so make void their own proof and the very Rule of Faith which they would fain establish SECT II. Unwritten Traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles But let us view what he adds A second Argument is That is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of these things But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and by no other means Therefore Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith The Major is manifest because in the Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith The Minor is proved because a full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether infallible since sensible evidence in a world of Witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars and such a report such an evidence is Apostolical Tradition for all the Doctrinos Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote therefore infallible Answ THe Popish Tenet is that unwritten Traditions of other points than what are in the written Books are the Rule of Faith that so what they cannot prove out of Scripture of Peter's being at Rome being Bishop there Purgatory-fire Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host mixing Water with Wine in the Eucharist and many more which Popes and Popish Councils obtrude on the Church of God as Apostolical Traditions may be received as Objects of Faith But here H. T. concludes Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith and proves it of no other Apostolical Tradition but that whereby the Books written are known to be the Apostles which I might grant and yet H. T. gain nothing for his purpose sith Apostolical Tradition may be the true Rule of Faith and yet not Apostolical Tradition unwritten much less that which Popes and Councils call Apostolical Tradition which is every corruption that hath been any long time received in the Roman Church and this Apostolical Tradition infallible that the Books of holy Scripture were written by the holy men whose names they bear and that the things in them related are certain and yet other Traditions of other things not so But to his Argument I say the Major is not true nor is it proved by his reason which in form is this That is the true Rule of Faith in which are contained all things that are of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith The Conclusion which followeth from these premises is not his Major that is the true Rule of Faith by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things nor the Conclusion set down therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith for these terms that by which we may be assured of the Doctrines or Books the infallible means of knowing them are not the same with the Books or Doctrines in which are contained all things that are of Faith and therefore the Major is not proved but indeed the very Protestant Doctrine which he gainsays is proved unawares thus That in which are contained all things that are of Faith is the true Rule of Faith But in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are the true Rule of Faith Which proves directly what H. T. denies that the Scripture is the true Rule of Faith and shews that he mistook the means of Faith for the Rule of Faith between which there is manifest difference the means of Faith being any outward or inward efficient principal or instrumental by which a person comes to believe the Rule is that by which we know what we are to believe the same means may be the means of believing contrary things Caiaphas and Balaam may prophesie right things of Israel and be a means of expectation of the Messiab and yet also be a means of laying a stumbling-block to overthrow them A messenger that brings a grant wherein a Prince grants a thing is the means of belief and so is the Seal but the Rule of believing is the words of the grant Thomas his seeing and feeling were the means of his believing Christ's Resurrection but the Rule was Christ's words 2. I deny his Minor For though I grant such a full report as he speaks of is infallible nor do I deny that there is such a a report or such an evidence for all the Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and all the Books they wrote yet I say 1. That this is not the Apostolical Tradition which Papists assert for with them any thing used in their Church a long time and approved by a Pope or a Council confirmed by him is an Apostolical Tradition though it have not such report or evidence 2. That there are other means by which we may be assured what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote besides this full report as 1. The inward testimony of the holy Spirit 2. The innate characters of the Doctrine and Books themselves foretelling things to come opening the Mysteries of God advancing Gods glory enlightning and converting the soul with many more which shew whos 's the Doctrine and Books were Yet by the way I observe 1. That notwithstanding he makes here such an Infallibility in the report and evidence of sense yet pag. 205. he denies evidence of sense infallible in the Sacrament and thereby overthrows his Position here 2. From his words here I argue against his opinion of Transubstantiation thus A full report from whole worlds of fathers to whole worlds of sons of what they heard and saw is altogether
however ignorant however unstable ought to reade the holy Scriptures and unappealably judge of their sense by his private interpretation Where is it so plainly forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever we believe him to be really present as it is to work upon the Saturday Thus if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick nor justifie their own Answ The Conclusion may be granted that many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Protestant cause Protestants do not pretend to Infallibility but that the tenets in point of Faith which in opposition to Papists their Harmony of Confessions avoucheth are sufficiently condemned in Scripture is more than H. T. or any other can prove To his Syllogism I answer by denying his Minor And to his instances I answer the Prayer for the Dead which Protestants say is forbidden plainly in Scripture is Popish Prayer for the Dead to have them eased or delivered out of Purgatory now this we say is condemned plainly in Scripture 1. Because it supposeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell which is an Errour and every Errour is condemned in Scripture as contrary to truth 2. All Prayer is condemned which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are that we should pray in Faith James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that sins unto death vers 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory when there is no such place nor God hath promised any such thing is not in Faith nor according to Gods will but is as vain as to ask for him that sins unto death it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils should be delivered thence which were a Mockery of God 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him in Jer. 14. 11. therefore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory in which God will not hear is by parity of reason condemned as if a man should pray that the Reprobate should not be damned or the Elect should not be saved The Protestants say not that every one however ignorant or unstable ought unappealably to judge of the sense of all Scriptures by his private interpretation There are plain Scriptures and Points fundamental and of these they say they may and ought to judge of their sense each one by his own private interpretation if by it be meant his own understanding but not if by it be meant a peculiar fancy such as no man else conceives nor the words import but they say in difficult places and points not fundamental they ought not to judge of their sense unappealably that is so as not to use the help of the learned in which number Fathers and Councils have their place and especially their own Teachers to finde out the meaning of them yet when they have used means they may and must suspend any judgement at all or stick to that which in their own understanding seems most probable or else they must go against their own conscience which were sin or they must be Hypocrites saying they judge that to be so which they do not yea there should be an impossibility in nature granted that a man at the same time doth judge that to be the sense of the same thing which he doth not but they deny that a man ought so to rest on any Pope or Councils or Doctours judgement as to hold what they hold without any other proof though it be in their apprehension against Scripture sith that is plainly condemned Matth. 23. 10. And they hold that every man that hath the use of natural understanding ought to reade the Scripture John 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. 2. Tim. 3. 15 16. and to judge their sense in this manner and this is no Errour much less a darling Errour of Protestancy Nor can H. T. prove it any where condemned in Scripture As for the place 2 Pet. 3. 16. to which his words seem to allude it proves not the reading of the Scripture or judging of the sense to be condemned yea ver 3. 15. proves the contrary that Christians should reade Paul's Epistles in which those things are which are hard to be understood onely it condemns the wresting of them to their perdition by the unlearned and unstable which Protestants do condemn as well as Papists It is not forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever he is but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Christ in a Wafer-cake on earth called the Host by Papists whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God and of whom it is said that the Heaven must contain him till the times of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. and so it is forbidden to adore that Bread as if Christ's Body were there it being a belief of an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith 2. It is flat Idolatry to adore with divine Worship a piece of Bread though taken to be the Body of Christ it being forbidden Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Nor can the imagination of a person acquit the person that does it from Idolatry For if it could the Worship of the golden calf which the Israelites proclaimed to be the Gods that brought them out of Egypt Exod. 32. 8. and worshipped God thereby vers 4. 5 8. Micah's Worship of his molten Image of the Silver which he dedicated to the Lord Judges 17. 2 3 4 and Jeroboam's Worship of the golden Calf 1 Kings 12. 28. yea all the Idolatry of the Heathens who worshipped those things which were no Gods should be excused because they thought them Gods or intended to worship God by them As for working upon the Saturday it is true it was forbidden to the Jews but we conceive it not forbidden to us because the Jewish Sabbath is abrogated Col. 2. 16. And if H. T. do not think so he doth Judaize and if he hold the Lord's day and the Saturday Sabbath too he agrees with the Ebionites mentioned by Eusebius lib. 3. hist â—ap 27. so that it is utterly false that if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick no justifie their own Bâ—t it is rather true which Dr. Carleton in his little Book of the Church avouched that the now Roman Church is proved not to be the true Church of Christ because in the Trent Council the Romanists have altered the Rule of Faith And for my part to my best understanding I do judge that the Romanists are not to be reckoned amongst Christians though they call themselves so but that as by their worshipping of Images burning Incense to them praying to a Crucifix adoring the Host and almost
specially those that have written large Commentaries according to the literal sense as Salmeron Maldonat Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Tirinus and many more should reject this foolery of H. T. concerning the expounding of Scripture not according to the literal sense which he calls the dead Letter or else at once blot out all they have written for finding it as a meer encumbrance to the World And the same may be said of not expounding by the private spirit For why do these private men take so much pains to publish Commentaries Is not their spirit as much private as Calvin's Beza's Luther's and others and these mens spirit as publick as theirs Let any man assign Reasons if he can why all the Commentaries of the Romanists should not be cashier'd under this pretence as well as the Protestants who are as learned industrious as they and far more sincere and impartial Why should not the Popes expositions be rejected as well as others Have they any more than a private spirit Do not their very Breves and Monitories and Decrees shew that it is a private spirit they act and decide by Sure the Spirit of God would not dictate such vain things as they utter and which sometimes they are fain to recall lest their nakedness appear Do not the Popes by their own confessions in correcting the vulgar Latin Translation and other things they set forth declare that they use industry and the help of learned men If they have a publick spirit why do not the Popes make us an Exposition of Scripture which all must own Is it not because they are for the most part a race of ignorant and unlearned men specially in the Scriptures and should they attempt such a thing would make themselves appear ridiculous and shew their asinine ears though now they seem terrible and to carry majesty with their Lions skin Is there any thing the Popes can do more necessary than this that they may end all controversies and guide all souls aright But the truth is the Popes have been so unhappy in alleging Scripture in their Bulls and Breves and Monitories in their dicisions of controversies that no side will acquiesce in their determinations they are so vain or so partial but as of old in the controversies between Dominicans and Franciscans about the Virgin Maries immaculate Conception so of late between the Molinists and Jansenists about Gods Decrees each party holds what they held notwithstanding the Popes decision which for the most part is so composed that each party may think it makes for him and he may loose neither And about the Edition of the vulgar Translation in Latin of the Bible how much have the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clemens the eighth discovered their unskilfulness when after such profession of diligence and use of learned men as the Popes make yet they have published their Editions contrary one to another The words of Tertullian are cap. 17. against those Hereticks Valentinus Marcion and such as agreed not with Christians in the Rule of Faith set down cap. 13. whom he denies to be Christians and such he thinks it would be unfit to dispute with out of Scripture but he doth not so judge concerning such as agree in the Rule of Faith though some term them Hereticks I may more truly say there is no good got by Popes interpretations of holy Scripture but to make a man sick or mad such Expositions as Alexander the third made of Psalm 91. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the Asp and Basiliâ—k when he trode on the Emperour Frederick's neck or Boniface the eighth when to prove himself above Emperours and Kings he alleged Gen. 7. 16. God made two great Lights that is the Pope and the Sun and the Emperour as the Moon with many more of the like sort are no better than sick mens dreams or mad mens freaks It is added Object All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for teaching for arguing for reproving and for instructing in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good work 1 Tim. 3. 16 17. therefore Traditions are not necessary Answ St. Paul speaks onely there of the old Scripture which Timothy had known from his childhood when little of any of the new could be written as is plain by the precedent Verse which we acknowledge to be profitable for all those uses but not sufficient neither will any more follow out of that Text if understood of the new Scriptures so that your consequence is vain and of no force I reply that which is profitable to teach reprove correct instruct in righteousness so as that the man of God may be entire fitted or instructed for every good work Sure that is a sufficient Rule for Doctrine of Faith and good Works and so to salvation But such is the Scripture as the Text tells us Ergo. The Major is apparent sith no more is required to a sufficient Rule of Doctrine if there be let it be shewed that it may be known wherein this is defective Sure that which is profitable for all uses to which Doctrine serves is a sufficient Doctrine The Answer of H. T. here is so far from being a full Answer to the Objection as he vainly vaunts in the Title page of his Book that indeed it is a confirmation of the Objection For if the old Scriptures were so profitable as to make the man of God a Teacher of the Church entire that they were able to make him wise to salvation and furnish him with instruction to every good work much more when the Books of the New Testament were added of which one of the Gospels is by H. T. here pag. 104. said to have been written eight years after the Death of Christ and doubtless Timothy knew it and however he had the former Epistle to himself before the Epistle in which this passage is which is ill printed 1 Tim 3. 16 17. it being 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. and therefore the Scripture he had was a sufficient Rule to him a Bishop without Traditions much more to others and so Traditions unwritten are proved unnecessary and superfluous Again saith H. T. Object If any one shall add to these God shall add to him the Plagues written in this Book Apoc. 22. 18 19. Therefore it is not lawfull to add Traditions Answ It follows immediately And if any one shall diminish from the words of this Prophecy God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life vers 19. By which St. John evidently restrains that Text to the Book of his own Prophecies onely which is not the whole Rule of Faith and therefore by that you cannot exclude either the rest of the Scriptures or Apostolical Traditions from that Rule I reply there is no reason why the same thing is not to be understood of the whole Canon and each particular Book sith there is the like Deut. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31. 2 Thess 2. 1 2.
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