Church li. 3. Cap 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed â— hold that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now urge nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with nor corruption of the Originals nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation nor the Heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of Grace or sin and two other the one of Grace the other of Sin That all those evils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as Ignorance Concupiscence Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul difficulty to do well and proneness to do evil were all natural the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come forth from God That these evils are not sinful nor had their beginnings from sin that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature without addition of Grace and in the estate of Original sin differ no otherwise but as they that never had and they that have lost rich and precious cloathing so that Original sin is but the loss of that without which natures integrity may stand That no evils are brought in by the fall but nature left to her self to feel that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature None of these errors touching the estate of mans creation were the Doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching Original Sin there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam but that Adams personal sin is imputed onely That the propagation of sin is not general Mary being conceived without Original sin That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positive evil but privative onely and that therefore there is a third place neither Hell nor Heaven named Limbus Puerorum which is a place whereas some think they who are condâ—mned thither though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and all possibility of ever coming thither yet are in a state of natural happiness and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the Doctrines of the Chuâ—ch being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian Verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine So likewise the Church wherein they lived neither know nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins which the Romanists now Teach nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giver to love God above all and to do actiâ—â—s morally good or not sinful without concurrence of special Grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative nor merit of congruence and condignity nor works of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities nor uncertainty of Grace nor seven Sacraments properly so named nor local presence nor Transubstantiation nor â—rall manducation of the body of Christ nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead nor remission of sins after this Life nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell hundreds of years by Divels in corporal fire out of which prayer should deliver â—hem nor that the Saints hear our Prayers â—ow or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the gross idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes judgement and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depâ—sâ— Princes and dispose of their Crowns and digrâ—â—ieâ— and that whatsoever he doth he may not be broughâ— into order or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council Those are the errors which we condemne and our adversaries maintain and defend these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed though we do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries but by approving these impieties we had just cause to divide our selves from them or to speak more properly to suffer our selves to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather then to subscribe to so many errors and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us but onely to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject especially Bishop Vsher de successione Statu Eccles and his answer to the Jesuits challenge Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock Doctor Fields Treat of the Church especially the Appendix to the third part Simon Birkbecks Protestants evidence Doctor Whites Way to the true Church Abbot against Hill Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis Mornays two Treatises of the Church and the Mystery of iniquity to say nothing of that of the Mass Johan Lidii Waldens Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers Your after Pope Aenaeas Sylvius Histor Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius which I will adjoyn Rainerius contr Waldens cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt fuerunt non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum idque tribus de causis 1. Quia est diuturnior aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum 2. Quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis eo
successors For they must succeed him in the cause if they will succeed him in the effects Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible But the Papists say the Catholike Church is infallible therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own all the doubt is of the consequence which I prove thus either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholike Church But both these are against the Popes infallibility Therefore 1. For the real no man can possibly know all their minds nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a minde therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to as its usual in all such Bodies or Assemblies Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth is and hath been against the Popes infallibility That it is so now is well known seeing all the Greeks Abassin Armenian Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papists 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. mihi 201. Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer non a Graecis solum sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Romanâ— Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur Atque habebant pro se illi quidem Imperatorum arma Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent That is Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world and the greater number of Churches besides the Arms of Emperors were against the Romane priviledges as they call them the Popes power So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men that not onely call themselves the whole Church as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels but also would make the simple people believe that before Luthers time there were scarce any that denyed their pretended power we may see from themselves then where our Chruch was before Luther so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations are our Church even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession And therefore this may stop their mouthes that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world 2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council And I have shewed before that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope deposed and condemned him This Bellarmine Canus and the rest of them do confess and therefore I need not say more to prove it Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre is proved fully both by the errors that they have committed and by their contradicting one another It s too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodoxe have had Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils then can be answered by the contrary minded Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed decree for adoration of Images And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary against the said Council of Nice though the Popes Legates contradicted them So did the Council of Paris anno 825. who examined judged and reprehended the Council of Nice and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it and therefore Bellarmine saith They judged the judge of the whole world Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It s commonly known how Nazianzene complained that He never yet saw a Council have a good end but things were made worse by it and not better And Hierom in Epist ad Galat. saith That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many The Council of Neocesarea confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice as saith the Council of Florence sess 7. condemned second marriages contrary to Scripture 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuseth them by plaine forcing their words The fourth Council at Carthage forbad Bishops to read the Gentiles Books which yet the Apostle makes use of and the Church hath ever since allowed The Council of Toletane 1. Ordain that he whâ— instead of a wife hath a Concubine shall not be kept from the Communion which Bellarmine also falsly excuseth The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors which Bellarmine confesseth and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Popes authority Whereas Pope Adrian approved them and the seventh Council judged them genuine Adrian saith Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere he receiveth the sixt Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus and decreed the contrary The Council of Trent is notoriously erroneous and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag 3. about the Canon of Scripture The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them See Doctor Sutline li. 2. de Concil cap. 1. What Gregor Nazianz. And â—ierome say of them I toucht before Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra Augustine saith li. 3 cont Maximni c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense taâ—quam praejudicaturus profere concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detinenis He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis Concilia plenaria priora a posterioribus emendari That is Former Councils that were full have been mended by later Bellarmines deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies are not worth the repeating Isidore saith Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors stâ—tentia invenitur illius
spirit But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Romane cause For he immediately addeth that Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi audierunt ejus doctrinam ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut doâ—uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta dicta Christi approbaretur That is This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is onely meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Ghost and also saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his doctrine and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ might be approved This he proveth from Scripture and concludeth that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected because there is not the like cause and that Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretick of what state or condition soever he be Not excepting the Pope himself Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable then the Church of Rome is not infallible for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility Their Saint Maud saith that the Romane Church shall ere long Apostatize from the faith totally and openly which did obscurely Apostatize of a long time before Their Saint Elizabeth saith That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead that the Apostolike seat is possessed with pride and the flocks go astray The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication the Latin Church or the Ship of Peter whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin with which both Adam the Pope and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory But I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case already I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony with the words of Chrysostom or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math. and his own certain expressions elsewhere In the Imperfect Comment Edit Commel an 1617. in Math. 20. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901 it is said as followeth Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem primatus terrestris fructum posuit confusionem caelestem Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem sequatur humilitatem terrestrem quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terra inveniet confusionem in caelo ut jam inter servos Christi â—on sit de primatu certamen That is He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility and the fruit of earthly Primacy he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth shall find confusion in heaven That so a mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy And afterward he addeth Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere neque ratio est neque causa quia neque justum est neque utile Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti labori dolori quod majus est periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei nec times uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter convertat eum in secularem That is But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy there is neither reason nor cause because it is neither just nor profitable For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude labor grief and which is more to such a danger as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God nor feareth it that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy he may turn it into a secular One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostomes works but some hereticks I answer When they have use for it they can magnifie it Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book especially what he saith of some ancient Copies which have the errors onely in the Margin written by some Arrian hand and withall that it is very observable that the errors are so intermixed that yet you may take them out and not maim any of the sence but leave the rest entire yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes But whos 's so ever it is it is ancient and commonly much commended But let that go which way it will as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. he saith They that seek Primacy are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest state The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18. I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial by this smal taste of the judgement of former tmes whether the Romane infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon or resolve it into And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations even when it was at the highest he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes that will give him further information or in Bishop Vsher de Success stat Eccles he may find enough in narrower room The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause but I can find so little in any of their writings that 's worthy to be taken notice of more then what is answered before that I shall not need to stand long upon this They tell us that if our Church be not infallible then people
of Scripture but take them and Church customes and constitutions to be onely for matters of order and determination of such circumstances as it belonged not to the perfection of Gods Laws to determine but were to be left to the wisdom of Governors the Scriptures containing sufficient for salvation They believe with the Protestants that Justification is not by the Merit of works And that it is impossible for us properly to Merit ex condigno the least mercy much less the Kingdom of Heaven at the hands of God They have but one order of Monkes viz. of St Basil and those not such as the Papists that live a private unprofitable droanish life but their Monasteries are as Colledges to fit them for the service of God in the Church and thence they oft proceed to be Priests and Prelates They take your Pope to be condemnable for his pride cruelty and presumption his pride for pretending to an universal jurisdiction and usurping a power to depose Princes and dispose of their Crowns his cruelty in persecuting other Christians for their differing judgements and his presumption in granting pardons and deliverances from Purgatory In a word they take the Papists for Schismaticks and aâ—cordingly condemne them with a solemne condemnation The Muscovites and Russians admit not Priests or Deacons to Ordination unless they be marryed and they refuse to communicate with the Romane Church The Egyptian Christians allow not of Baptisme in any necessity whatsoever but onely by the Priest and in the Church and administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds they give not the Lords Supper or extream unction to the sick They deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead They marry in the second degree of consanguinity without dispensations They elevate not the host They reject all the general Councels after that of Ephesus They repute the Papists to be Hereticks and avoid their communion no less then of the Jews Most of these â—lso is common to the Abassines who also admit Marriages of Priests and Bishops and eat flesh on Fridayes communicate standing in both kinds Are all these nothing What no one difference with this Popish Veridicus I will not desire him to take my word for all this because I will not take his for the contrary nor will I turn him to any Protestant for satisfaction unless he will better use that one which himself citeth Sands Relation of the West Relig. or Europae Specul p. 234. c. But I may with reason intreat him to believe his own brethren the Papists and the Greeks themselves And in some of them he may see many more differences then I have here named For example in their Possevin de Rebus Moscov at large See also Concil Florent Sess 18. Jerem. Patriarch Const in Resp 1. ad Germ. Zonar Annâ—l Tâ—m 3. in Imper. Leo. Nilus de Primat Papae â—aâ—lam de Primatu Papae figebert in Chron. ad 〈◊〉 1054. Leo Epist ad Episcop Constant Jacob â— Vitriaco histor Orient Sigism de Rebus Muscâ— Guagu descript Muscov Saecram de Errorib â—â—theâ— Boleri Relat. Thom. a Jes Conver. Gent. Gâ—iliel de Rubri Itiner Tartar Oforius de Reb. Emanuel Saligniac Itiner Alphons a Castro contr Haeres Damian a Goes Prateol de Haerefib Alvarez histâ—r Ethiop which yet have much falshood Guiâ— sumâ— de Haerefib Burchardus Descript teâ—â— Sanct. If our confuter cannot have leisure to read all these let him onely read Thom. a Jes Possevin deâ—eb Moscov Apparat. Sacra and see to his shame what his own friends say against his falshoods And that all these Christians are as considerable as all the Papists in the world far over matching them for number is apparent Much more when we adde to the Grecians and Moscovites and Copti's all the Syrians the Georgians the Indians of Saint Thomas the Abassines the Nestorians the Jacobits the Armenians and the Maronites and to them as Protestants where then is the Papists Universality and how few are they comparatively and how plainly do they play the Donatists but that it is on a far worse ground The Patriarch of Constantinople alone hath under him in Asia as Brierwood noteth the Christians of Natolia excepting Armenia the less and Cilicia of Circassia of Mengrelia and of Russia And in Europe also the Christians of Greece Macedon Epirus Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Sextia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Podolia and Muscovia till lately together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea and others about Greece as far as Corfu with much more And as is noted in Curopalat de Offic. Palas Constant Offic Mag. Eccl. he hath under him The Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia 2. Ephesus 3. Heraclea 4. Ancyra 5. Cizicum 6. Sardis 7 Nicomedia 8. Nice 9. Calcedon 10. Mitylene 11. Thessalonica 12. Laodicea 13. Synadae 14. Iconium 15. Corinth 16. Athens 17. Patrae 18. Trapezuntium 19. Larissae 20 Naupactus 21. Adrianopolis These are all Archbishops and have many Bishops under them viz. Of Muscovy 17. of Larissae 13. of Athens 11. of Corinth 10. of Tessalonica 9. c. And if these be under the Patriarch of Constantinople alone how great a number are all the rest in the great Empire of the Abassines and elsewhere through the rest of the Christian world I do not mention all these to intimate either that multitudes prove them or any to have the best cause if we were in all things of their mindes or as if I preferred them for Arts and Civil Policy to the Romanes but to shew both the haniousness of the Popish Schisme that would unchurch so many and the cruelty of their censures that would damne so many and the Impudency of their pretence of Universality and their vaine boasting of All the Church when they are so small a part of the Church and more bad then small But we have been too long on this let us come to the confuters next untruth and that is That the Grecians c. do in no one point agree with Protestants as such what hath been said doth sufficiently shame that fiction But he instanceth in our differences And 1. he saith The Grecians hold one supreme head of the whole Church under Christ Repl. An immodest fiction to uphold a cause that 's like it 2. He saith The Grecians hold the Real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist Repl. not Transubstantiation which they deny The But Protestants do hold some kind of Reall presence 3. He saith The Grecians defend the necessity of Baptisme to salvation and that Original sin is remitted thereby Repl. And the Protestants hold it necessary necessitate praecepti and as an ordinary means where it can be had And neither the Greeks nor all your own dare damne all Infants that dye before Baptisme when it could not be had but you say that the Votum may serve turne And also Protestants hold that if the Infants be within the Covenant as it pardoneth their Original sin primarily so
and so with much ado scapeth death I think notwithstanding the scaping of these last we may well conclude that Poison is no safe or wholesome food I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation Therefore it is no safe way God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation therefore it is not a way to salvation 2. It is the way toward damnation and from salvation therefore it is no safe way to salvation The proof of all together shall be next fetcht from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falshood and resolved into it are not a safe way to Salvation But such are the doctrines which we call Popery Therefore For the Minor They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility or at least his Councils This the Papists do confess and maintain But that this is a Notorious falshood is evident 1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred and judicially erred and erred in matters of faith Bellarmine is put to answer to no less then fourty instances of erring Popes and how shamefully or shamelesly he doth it any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case may soon discover 2 It is notorious that Councils have erred I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by it self in the next disputation 3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm I mean One part of them do confess that the Pope may err as the French and the other the Italians and Spaniards confess that a Council may erre One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope and the other that it is not sealed in a Council particular or general of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may erre 1. When they dissent from the Popes Legates 2. And when they consent with the Lâ—gates if those Legates do cross the Popes instructions 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions the Council and all they may consent in error And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus and the Constantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first which erred saith he because the Popes Legates followed not his instructions The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common consent Decree that the Council is above the Pope which now saith Bellâ—rmine is judged erroneous 4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it that the Pope may err out of Council And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth and tells us that he is fallible Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians understanding then the Pope knew his own Surely I must do as I would be done by and if any man should perswade me that I know that which I do not know or that I am infallible when I know my self subject to error I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my self then believe another of me that speaks the contrary And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible But of this more in the next disputation where you shall have fuller proof Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion it self as held by them on a foundation that is utterly uncertain or else certainly false then is it no safe way to salvation For it would extirpate Christianity it self But the Antecedent is true as I shall thus prove 1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith as I shall further shew in the next argument They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church and they are not agreed what that Church is 2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people no nor any Doctors in the world can have the knowledge of therefore their faith must needs be uncertain To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest It is the Authority of the Church they say upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation they would not believe it saith one of them no more than Aesops Fables Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is and that we now take notice of their more common opinion that it is all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance yea or of any man living can be sure and sound when all these following particulars must be first known before we can have such assurance 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word and what is a point of faith and what not so that that is so to us which they judge so or that we are bound by God to believe them Now which way doth God give the Church this Power Is it not by Scripture or unwritten tradition in their own judgment And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession For if they fly to universal Tradition and natural obligation they give up their cause and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation as from their Romanâ— Church So that a man must according to their doctrine believe that the word of God written or unwritten hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God or know it to be the word of God that is He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it Here is one of the impossibâ—lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith 2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word yea or their supposed unwritten verities infallibly according to the Romane way of believing they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement and this also must be known by the word of God which is supposed not to be known yet it self 3. They must also know
or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called If as Bellarmine saith de Concil l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifest be enough then mans error can make Gods promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for ought we know and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops but to all that seem such 25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles which is made necessary If they plead onely the Bishop of Romes succession to warrant all the rest before the forementioned particulars be well answered it will appear that Romes succession hath been frequently interrupted 26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope 27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sence of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sence of that without a living judge And if there be a living judge still of the sence of Councils either he is as infallible as they or not If not then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination If he be then what need of a Council when he is infallible alone 28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another how shall we know which of them to believe And this is no rare matter among them 29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other how shall the people know which is infallible 30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture must we take them for infallible and believe that Scripture only on their words These or most of these must be known by all Christians before they can believe the Articles of their Creed or that Scripture is Gods word according to the Romish grounds When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true they being either false or not evident and demonstrable So that it s now apparent that according to the Popish grounds the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion and that they shake the foundation of Christianity it self 2. And lastly not onely so but they build on a foundation certainly false that is the Popes infallibility or a Councils as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith or matters which they make of necessity to salvation then Popery is no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true Therefore c. We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church and they are not yet agreed among themselves nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters but in their main body The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible and that the Pope is fallible The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible and the Pope is infallible Some others think that both of them are fallible separated but both infallible when they concur And some think that they are both infallible though separated If the Church be the foundation and all must be received upon its infallible authority then no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is either therefore the French or Italians one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals when one saith This is the subject of infallibility and the other say This is it And if a Pope or General Councel differ to whom must the people hearken One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council and others of them say the Council is above the Pope and of this mind have been General Councils themselves as the Council of Basil and Constance and of this mind Bellarmine names Cardinal Cameracensis Cardinal Cusanus Joh. Gerson Iac. Almain Card. Florentin Panormitan c. What a strange impudency then is it of these men to make the silly deluded people among us believe that they are all of one mind and it s we that are divided when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental Who it is that is the infallible Judge And till men know Who it is what the better are they know that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual and no man can believe him or apply himself to him as the infallible judge till he know that it is he indeed that is such Seeing then according to their own principles either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation how shall we know which it is and which to joyn our selves to with any safety Were it not for weakening the Popes interest they would burn the French Papists as Hereticks as well as us Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year in the main parts of Popery then is it no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The consequence they will not deny that which the Apostles the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven for there are not many safe ways But that which the Papists as Papists go in is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in therefore it is not the safe way And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery but it is a new Religion or new corruption of Religion appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tryed by it which plainly shewes that they take it not to be on their side And for the Councils and Fathers for the first three hundred years or much more they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversie and therefore are unfit to determine them But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now And can they be all silent about the onely ground of faith If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground would they not have told us so How could they convert the infidels and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith And what they took for the grounds their writings
duntaxat rebus in â—nibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolica atque adeo a seipâ— veteri pura Ecclesia neque alio discessimus zimo quam ut si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae forâ—am redeat nos quoque ad illam revertamur â—mmunionem cum illa in suis porro caetibus habeamus Quod ut tandem fiat toto animo Domino Jesum preâ—mur Quid enim pio cuique optatius quam ut ubi â—r baptismum renati sumus ibi etiam in finem usâ—u vivamus modo in Domino Ego Hier. Zanchius Cum tota mea familia testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae Christi in omnem eternitatem Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholike Church which was never known for many hundred years after Christ then is it no safe way to salvation But Popery doth make a new Catholike Church that was never known of many hundâ—ed years after Christ therefore it s no safe way to salvation The consequence of the Major will not be denyed for they confess that Christs Church is but one He had not a Church of one sort for the first ages and a Church of another sort since though its accidents may vary yet so doth not its essence The Minor I prove thus That which the Papists make to be the Catholike Church is only all those Christians that acknowledge the Pope to be the universal Bishop and head of the Catholike Church having universal supreme jurisdiction and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistris of all other Churches and its only a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane Church But such a Catholike Church as this was never known by the Apostles or of many hundred years after Christ Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholike Church which the first ages never knew It s true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Christianity that the Glory of the Empire occasioned the Bishop to be called Primae sedis Episcopus as one that was to take place of the rest of the Patriarchs who had their several orders or places â—ssigned them as Alexandria to be the second Antioch the third c. which Bellarmiâ—â— confesseth might be after lawfully changed but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency so neither had Rome any government of the rest And as Constantinople was afterward set up above Alexandria and Antioch and claimed to be above Rome so might it as lawfully have been set up above Rome But what ever be said about their quarrels of precedency which pride begun and cherished yet it s most evident in all antiquity that of many hundred years after Christ there was no such Catholike Church in being or known as was centred in the Pope as the head or universal Bishop or Governor or in Rome as the Mistris of the rest We have long ago challenged them to give us the least proof of such a Church in all antiquity and they give us nothing but such forced passages that are nothing to their purpose that its hard for the most charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themselves and do not know that they hypocritically endeavor to cheat poor souls by their vain cavils All the Papists on earth will never be able to answer what our Divines have said already to prove the novelty of their Papal headship nor can all the Popes servants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Christ to prove that ever such a Church was once dreamed of as they now call the Romane Catholike Church Indeed Rome was called then a Catholike Church and so was Alexandria Antioch and all that held the Catholike faith and were not heretical but it was never known till Boniface had usurped the Title of universal Bishop above 600. years after Christ which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that usurped the Empire when he had slain the Emperor Mauritius that the Romane Church and the Catholike Church was all one or that it was necessary to make any particular Church or person Catholike that they acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Romane Pope much less his infallibility To heap up Records here would but stop the plain Reader in his course and somewhat shall be sâ—id of it in the next dispute Onely I now say that if any one question whether indeed the Romane Catholike Church as now constituted be a meer novelty I here offer my self to the fuller proof of it and shall desire no better recreation of such a sort then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papists that will undertake their cause And here I must needs annex this observation What a shameless cheat it is by which the Papists do delude the ignorant perswading them that theirs is the old Religion and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apostles without interruption and that we are men of a new Religion and of a Church that had never a visible being till the dayes of Luther Costerous the Jesuite in the Preface to his Enchiridion instructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Protestants by urging them with three Questions which we shall resolve anon to his shame and the last of them is a challenge to us To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things But we challenge and most confidently challenge all the Papists on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Christ I might say six hundred years that agreed with them not in all things but in their very Articles of Faith yea in theiâ— Church fundamentals yea in the very definition of the Catholike Church We challenge them to name us one man and prove it that ever knew or owned such a Church as Catholike that is now so called and owned by them We confidently affirm and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us that their Church as Popish is a new thing unknown to our forefathers of the first ages that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines unknown to the first Churches We admire at the immodesty of these men to aske us where our Church was before Luther and to call it a new Religion which we profess and to ask us whether we think our selves wiser then all the world was heretofore in the purest times We do most confidently return on them their own demands We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred yea for six hundred years after Christs birth And we wonder how they can think to be saved in a way that was not known for so long time Do they think themselves wiser then Christ and his Apostles and all the Christian world for so many hundred years Again we challenge them to shew us the least proof that ever there was such a thing for so long time as a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane and
headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions called by them their Church and their Religion because it is so new and we dare not venture our souls upon new wayes nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection one sort before the Popes universal headship and the other since nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurpe I desire no better issue then this of our difference Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the tryal of antiquity and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion carry the cause If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours as since Christs Resurrection then we are contented to be of their Church and way Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismaticks upon earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the maine body of the visible Church then Popery is not a safe way to salvation But the Papists are the greatest Schismaticks on earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body thereof Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves It is only the Minor therefore that is to be proved which is too easily done being a matter of fact First The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christs Church on earth condemning all others to everlasting fire 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schisme in making a new center of the unity of the Church of these two in order 1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago much more numerous then now they be The Grecians the Syrians called Melchites the Moscovites and Russians the Georgians all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turkes dominions also the Abassins Egyptians Armenians Jacobites who are neer of a mind and differ from the Papists and submit not to their authority Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany Sweden Denmark Hungary Transylvania Brittain Ireland France Belgia Helvetia and other parts with those in the Indies I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them or not neer so many as they But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago when the Turkes had not yet subdued the Eastern parts and when the Abassian Empire was much more large and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universall headship and jurisdiction of the Pope or submit themselves to him besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him I know that the Papists say that these are all either Hereticks or Schismaticks and so no part of the Catholike Church But the accusation of Schisme is the meer voice of Schisme and for Heresie its true that all men and Churches have their errors which yet deserve not the name of Heresie The Jacobites and the rest that are neer them are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians but yet they are not plaine Eutichites and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures two persons and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct yet they say that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person and so deny two Persons onely in sence and two Natures only in name and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures onely in sence and two Persons in words onely Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said de Conciliis This I must needs say that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites and other Christians that are not of their Communion I should be forced to censure the former much deeper then the latter and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Hereticks or Schismaticks I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians and also that they are free from many of their mistakes yet withall they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from And for the Protestants they are Hereticks only on this supposition that the Pope be Judge By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from But yet this is not all nay the smaller part For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred yea five or six hundred years you will find that the Papists do differ from them all even from the whole Church For then the Popes universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world as is said before All these doth the Romane party now separate themseves from All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians but Hereticks and Schismaticks All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell They have now concluded that onely those are of the true Church that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope and the Mistrisship of the particular Romane Church which none of all those forementioned did They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this new-framed Church of theirs Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive whether there be any more notorious Schismaticks on earth then these men that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christs Church on earth at
its flourishing in the Apostles dayes Universality comparatively that is the greater part the Arrians had at least of the Bishops The doctrine of the Mâ—llenaries with many such like may plead more antiquity than Popery can And as for succession there is no doubt but a Bishop or Church in the line of succession may turn Heretical and have successors in their Heresie Have none of the Greek Churches nor Alexandria Antioch c. had a succession till it fell into the hands of a Heretick and it would have beeen no good plea for the first Heretical Bishop or Church to plead such succession If there be not a succession in Apostolical doctrine the succession of persons will be no proof of the truth or soundness of the Church 3. And for the Minor of your Argument I answer 1. The Ethiopian Alexandrian and other Churches can as truely boast of these qualifications as Rome 2. The Papists lay a higher claim to them then they can make good As 1. I have shewed already how far they are from unity who are not only of so many Religions or wayes of Discipline and of so great distance in many doctrinals as the controversies among themselves do manifest but also are so disagreed about the very center of their union their infallible soveraign Power whether it be in the Pope or a General Council or both Besides their unity is but of their own party the Romanists And so all other parties are at some unity among themselves or many at least If John of Constantinople had prevented the Pope and got the Title of universal Bishop or Pope as he did by composition of universal Patriarch and had pretended that this would have united the Churches I think it would not have justified his cause 2. How can the Papists for shame pretend to universality either as to the present or former ages Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian Greek and Reformed Churches are not of their party besides many a thousand more Or will they arrogantly condemne all the rest of the Christian world as heretical and then say that they are the whole Church Did they not learn this of the Donatists But what is become of their modesty who pretend to an universality for the time past when all the Christian world was against their present belief and there was not such a thing as a Papist known and revealed to us in the world of six hundred years after the birth of Christ 3. And for their succession we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago and that there were no true Bishops at Rome of a long time Though men have sat there that were chosen by Cardinals and call themselves Bishops or Popes yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils they were matter utterly uncapable of that form then its plain that they were but Statues and had but the name without the thing i. e. the office or authority and therefore are unworthy also of the name it self Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witness of this And first their great parasite Cardinal Baronius saith ad an 912. § 8. What then was the face of the holy Romane Church how exceeding filthy when the most potent and yet most sordid Whores did Rule at Rome by whose pleasure Sees were changed Bishops were given and which is a thing horrid to be heard and not to be spoken their sweet hearts or mates were thrust into Peters chair being false Popes who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Romane Popes but onely for the marking out of such times And after he well addes to shew that the interruption was not like to be onely in the succession of true Bishops And what kind of Cardinal Priests and Deacons think you we must imagine that these monsters did choose when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like See more in Baron ibid. Platina speaking of the evil of those times de Benedict 4. saith that By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather seized on then possessed Genebrard in Chronolog l. 4. secul 10. speaking of the great unhappiness of that age saith that In this one thing it was unhappy that for neer one hundred and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their ancestors being Apotactici Apostaticive potius quam Apostolici Disorderly and Apostatical rather then Apostolical What shall we think of all those that murdered their predecessors to obtain the place were they capable of being true Bishops What shall we say of Pope Silvester the second who was a conjurer and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by suddain death Doth the Devil make true Bishops of conjurers I know the deceiving Papists would make the simple people believe that all these things that we say of their Popes are lies of our own forging but men that have eyes in their heads may see who are the lyars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the same that we affirm A Cardinal of their own Benno in vita Hildebrandi affirmeth this of Pope Silvester and he lived in the times next him and therefore might know Platina another of their own affirms in vita Silvest that Gesbertus impelled by ambition and devillish desire of rule did first by bribery or Simony get the Archbishoprike of Rhemes then of Ravenna and at last of Rome the Devil giving him more of his help but on this condition that after his death he should be wholly his by whose deceits he had obtained such dignity The like hath Lyra in Gloss ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hystorians unanimously confirm it Yea Aeneas Sylvius who was a Pope himself de gest is Concil Basil l. 1. saith We are not ignorant that Pope Marcellinus did at Cesars command offer incense to Idols and that another which is a greater and more horrible thing did come to be Pope of Rome by the fraud of the Devil In a word if Murderers Adulterers Conjurers that come in by the Devil and Hereticks may be true Bishops of Rome and yet a man that believeth not the Popes Univerversal Vicarship can be no true Catholike Christian then it seems it is a greater sin not to Believe in the Pope then not to Believe in Christ or then it is to bargain with the Devil or be a Murderer or Adulterer Certainly these men were as uncapable of being true Bishops when these things were once publikely known of them at least as a Mahometane would be And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their succession And many a schism there hath been wherein two or three Popes have raigned at once and he that had the greatest strength hath carryed it when his Right was not the greatest QUERY Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Romane Pope or his Clergy must be the
to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them and to translate them into known tongues that the people may understand them Though others also have a part in this work yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part 4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors and to shew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age. 5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture Witnesses of the Tradition and Teâ—chers of the truth and have such a power of judging aâ— belongeth to all these three 6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed and that on a threefold account 1. Because of the evidence which they shew to prove the truth of their Assertions Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning and so Knowing then Believing and is common to Teachers with any others that shew the same proofs Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs and better entertainment is due to their Teaching 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own prosession wherein they have long studyed and laid out their time and labor and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men Every man that is less studyed in Law Physicke or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers Physicians and others that Study and Practice those Arts. This is but a humane Faith 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel according to their capacities there is a further credit due to them from professed believers and that is as they are officers authorized by Christ and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ if they are his servants indeed 7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors caeteris paribus than to one and to the whole Church than to any part 8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability and their fidelity which they are rationally to manifest that it may gaine credit with others 9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of they have a Decisive Power 1. For the Time or Place or the like circumstances of Gods worship they are necessary in General viz. there must be some Time Place c. but not in specie such a Time such a Place is not necessary unless it be some that God hath already made choice of Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine whereupon the people are obliged to obey unless in some extraordinary cases where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it that it would overthrow the substance of the duty it self 2. And in case of Church censures when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power as to those ends though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate except in such palpable mal-administration and evident contradiction of the word of God which may nullifie their sentence for even here their Power is not unlimited 10. No man or company of men much less the Pope hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith or whether the Scripture or any part of it be the word of God or not For the opening of this understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power to wit such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement be it right or wrong so that though the sentence be not just yet must it be Decisive and obligatory so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem on either side and the judgement must be valid Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand Where let it be still remembred that it is not the name but the Thing that we contend about If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power which is so limited to one part or side that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it erre or go on the other side concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God so far as they are able to Discerne they have leave and authority then we easily grant that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture That is if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God and ask a Preacher or Bishop he hath Power to say Yea but not to say No But this is no Judicial Power but a Teaching and Witnessing act For the people are bound to disobey them if they erre and therefore bound to â—ry whether they erre or not and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and sound therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power which I prove thus Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God that Christ is not the Redeemer that Scripture is not the word of God and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church But this is false and abominable therefore the Pope hath no such Power For the consequence it is manifest supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God Christ or Scripture then men must by this Doctrine be bound to obey it and forsake God Christ and Scripture for the Pope Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity Then either such as renounce God Christ and Scripture may be saved or else God bindeth men by the Pope to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation But both these consequents are false and abominable Therefore I know they will here reply that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement and therefore being infallible he will certainly make no such false Decision To which I say 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem on either side Doth God give a man Authority to do that which he hath promised him and all others that he shal never do But he will
the ancient Church do any such thing As other Bishops condemned Heresies as well as the Pope so many a Heresie was judged such by the faithful without any more interposition of the Pope then another Bishop Having seen thus how little their great Champion hath to say for the Popes infallibility I could willingly have look't about me into some of the rest of them to see if they can say any more but that it s known that most of them tread the same path Only I may not over pass the new way that some of them have taken up of late to prove their infallibility and to avoid their common Circle And this you may see in the Jesuites late superficial answer to Chilling worth Forsooth they tell us that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture it is but for our sakes because we confess the Authority of Scripture but not of their Church But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter then they set the Church before the Scripture and independantly of it The reason of this Jesuite supposed to be Knot is this Because the Church is before the Scripture and because the Miracles wrought by the Apostles did first prove their own infallibility and from thence secondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Romane infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture and before the belief of it he tells â—s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apostles proved their infallibility which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Victory over all sorts of enemies conversion of Infidels all which Notes are daily more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last And withall he tells us that These Miracles c. prove them to be infallible in All things and not onely in some or else we cannot know which those some be and what to believe and what not Thus you have the sum of the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth But all these Knots are easily losed without cutting yea shake them onely and they fall loose like Juglers Knots 1. We easily grant that Christ the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himself delivered in the flesh as it containeth many things superadded to the old Testament and the doctrine of John Baptist 2. It s evident that Christ himself gathered his first Gospel-Church by preaching his Doctrine that is he drew them to be his Disciples by convincing them that he was the Messiah the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world so that this his Doctrine was before this his Church 3. We grant that the Apostles were Apostles before themselves did preach the Gospel as Apostles But it was the Gospel and preacht by Christ before they preach't it 4. We easily grant that both Apostles and Gospel were long before the writing of this Gospel which we call the holy Scriptures 5. We grant that the Apostles Miraculous works did sufficiently prove not some onely but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it in the name of Christ and as his For though they confirmed onely those Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commission yet seeing God would not have set to this seal if they had gone beyond and against their Commission therefore it also assureth us that they kept close to it But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commission nor afterward in any point which they should deliver as their private opinion which they fathered not on the Inspiration of the Spirit The Apostles were not infallible about Christs Death Resurrection and Ascension when they understood them not The Disciples were not infallible about the Acceptableness of Infants to Christ when they forbad them to be brought Thomas was not infallible about Christs Resurrection when he believed it not Peter was not infallible when he gave Christ that Satanical councel for which he was â—antum non almost excommunicated Mat 16.22 23. Even presently after the great promise to him Nor when he denyed that he knew Christ with curses and oathes nor when he dissembled and Barnabas with him Gal. 2. 6. We maintain that the Apostles Doctrine thus sealed by Miracles and Delivered in Writing to the Churches doth carry with it an Attestation from God of its infallibility if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Intitled The Vnreasonableness of Infidelity 7. It is this sealed Doctrine contained in Scripture and preached by Ministers which converteth men to Christ and maketh them Christians and therefore it is in order before the present Church and the cause of it 8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commissioned the Pope to do the work which he Commissioned the Apostles to do and gave them the power of Miracles to confirme that is to Attest the Works Sufferings Resurrection and words of Christ as eye or ear witnesses of them from himself and to be the first promulgators of some of his Laws to the universal Church and to deliver down an infallible sealed Scripture to all succeeding Ages and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world Let him shew his Commission for this Apostleship if he would be believed 9. We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet or is inspired by the Holy Ghost as the Prophets and Apostles were that so they might infallibly deliver us Christs doctrine 10. And they cannot expect that we should believe till we have some proof of it that the Pope or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles or are endowed with a spirit of Miracles or that they can convince those that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church or that ever they confirmed those points by Miracles which is now called Popery Thus much to let the Jesuite know where we differ from him And now to the point We call for his proofs which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non esse non apparere are to us all one Give us sufficient proof of your sealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles or the Popes Infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles did the Scriptures and their preaching and then you shall carry the cause and we profess that we will rejoycingly pass into your Tents and proclaim you Prophets or Apostles of Christ But when we live among you and so did our Fathers before us and hear you prate and boast of Miracles when we cannot see that ever you did so much as make a dead flea alive again nor cannot see the least Miracle from you if we would
thousand years been ever a true General Council in the world The Popish Doctors as Doctor Holden de Resolut fid li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156. say that It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truely General And is it so when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks Ethiopians Protestants c. and most of the Church are absent and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause Quest 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost when there is no General Council It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred or a thousand years together Have we no Church then Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils then they speak of the Church that is past and gone of which I moved the doubts before And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages they would hold us to the present Church and that must be their own and so be sure to be judges in their own cause Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romanes and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians and so the rest to be the word of God as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches Indeed they made use of the intervening humane but certain testimony of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands But Tychicus or Trophimus or Timothy or Onesâ—mus were not a General Council nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle and not that the particular received it from the universal How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus Timothy Philemon to the Ephesians c. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them Quest 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice when there had been no General Council to â—etermine the business Quest 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world for not taking the Scripture for the word of God who have seen or heard it and had all other â—estimonies of it but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council Shall none of â—hese perish for this unbelief Quest 16. And if it be the Pope that they call â—he Church and take it to be this infallible judge â— then demand How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word or that the Christian Faith is â—rue The like also I ask of a Council How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves and so take it on their own words or else on the words of some others â—f the former then they Believe it because they Believe â—t then they are the original of their own belief and believe themselves first and then would have all the world to believe them And this is not onely to be â—o arrogant as to be the God of themselves and the Church but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason and to expect that all others should do so too But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures from whom then is it not from any others of the present Church doubtless therfore it must be from the former Church And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath and therefore may believe it without recourse to him and as infallibly as he 2. And then it seems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith whereof one is necessary only to one part and not to the other that is All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be Gods word because the presenâ— Pope or Council saith so having first believed the infallibility but the Pope and Council themselveâ— need not any such ground of their faith And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general But even the Clergy themselves out of Council or who never were of the Council which sure is more then a hundred for one must thuâ— differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith This is another taste of the famous Romane unity Paul saith there is One Faith bâ—â— if two divided Foundations or Reasons of Belieâ— do make two Beliefs surely the Church of Rome hatâ— two Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jesâ— Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility when he so chid his Apostles foâ— striving who should be greatest and telleth them so expresly that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and are called Gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so And when he sets before them a little child and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them must be as that child that is that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excell in and so to serve one another in love Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master that is of their Faith Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ or whether the Scripture be his word or not Quest 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead and when there are three or four at a time and when there is an interruption by Schisme thirty years together as it is known there hath been Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it Or
is now used by the learned Papists to prove the Popes infallibity For they argue that the Pope cannot err de fide in Cathedra beâ—ause else the universal Church should fail with him if he fail The same Gregory in Epist 78. saith It is a thing too hard to endure that our Brother and fellow Bishop should be alone called Bishop in contempt of all the rest And what other thing doth this arrogancy portend but that the time of Antichrist approacheth already in so far as he imitated him who disdaining the company of Angels assayed to ascend to the top of singularity A man would think that all this should be plain enough to resolve us beyond all further doubting that the Popes Universal Episcopacy is new But to tâ—â— the Papisâ— have no thing to say but a foolish pretence that John of Constantinople would have been the sole Bishop on earth and have had no Bishop else but himself alone which the Pope never arrogated Ans A silly shift which supposeth all the world to be so unreasonable as to be satisfied with any thing or else would make them so A shift that hath not a word of proof to support it but contradicteth the full course of History and the words of Gregory themselves which all shew that it was but an universal Episcopacy to which all other should be subject which John of Constantinople did challenge if so much And all their shew of proof of the contrary is because Gregory here saith that He would be alone called Bishop But that 's not as if directly in terms but onely by consequence he is supposed to lay such a claim in that he claimed the title of universal Bishop But I now see that the Papists will make a nose of wax of their own Popes Writings as well as of the Scriptures and that the Pope hath no more the gift of speaking intelligibly than Peter Paul or Christ himself is by them supposed to have And therefore what should they talk any more of a living judge when that living judge himself cannot speak so as to be understood Platina saith that Bonifacius tertius a Phâ—ca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione c. That Boniface the third obtained of Phoâ—as the Emperor but not without great contention that the seat of the blessed Apostle Peter which is the Head of all Churches should be so called and accounted of all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople did seek to challenge to it self So that it was the same place or name which the Bishop of Constantinople would have had which Boniface after got and not as Bellarmine feigneth a quite different thing Nay I cannot perceive any probable evidence that Boniface himself had any thought of that Universal Jurisdiction which now is arrogated but onely to be the Greatest and Highest of all Bishops and in that sence called the Head or the universal Bishop If they knew the Pope to be the supreme infallible head of all the Church why did the Council of Calcedon the fifth general Council examin Leo's Epistle and profess to recive it onely on its agreement with former doctrine Yea why did this Council condemne Pope Vigilius his judicious sentence de 3 capitulis Yea and anathematize all that condemned not Theodorus of whom Vigilius was one and this in a Doctrinal Point Whether Hereticks may be condemned after death Yea they pronounce the Pope and his adherents defenders of impiety and such as cared not for Gods decrees or the Apostles pronunciations or the Fathers Traditions If these 165. Bishops had believed the Popes infallibility they would rather have craved his Definitive sentence And why did the Council of Calcedon also Decree without the Popes consent that the Bishop of Constantinople was equal with him and the 5-sixth general Council confirm it Any man of understanding that readeth over the Decretals of the several Popes shall find besides all other errors so many false expositions of Scripture even common reason and the Papists themselves being judges that there needs no other proof that they are too fallible Augustine in l. 2. Contr. Donatist saith Ipsa concila qua per singulas regiones c. That is Who knoweth not that the very Councils themselves which are held in several Regions or Provinces do without more ado yield to the authority of fuller Councils which are made out of the whole Christian world And that the full Councils themselves which were before are oft mended by the later when by some experiment of matters that is opened which before was shut up and that is known which lay hid and this without any smoak of sacrilegious pride without any inflation of arrogancy without any contention of livid envy with holy humility with Catholike peace with Christian charity This he brings as a majore to shew the Donatists the invalidity of Cyprians authority telling them that it is the holy Scriptures that are undoubted and of unquestionable credit but not the writings of any Bishops since no nor of Councils themselves This place of Austin doth confirm the French Papists as well as the Italian that they have nothing to say against it that without meer impudency can be thought to be of any weight What is vainly said by them you may see answered in A.B. Laud's Book against Fisher and A.C. Pag. 240 241 242. In Austines Book against Petilianus the Donatist the very question debated is How they may know where the true Church is And is it not a wonder that Austin never remembred to direct them to Rome or to the Popes infallibility if that had been the approved way Here then what way Austin went Cap. 2. pag. mihi Edict Paris 141. Quaestio câ—â—te inter nos versatur ubi sit Ecclesia utrum apud nos an apud illos Quid ergo facturi sumus in verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in verbis capiris sui Domini nostri Jesu Christi puto quod in illius c that is The question handled between us is where is the Church with us or with them What must we do then must we seek it in our words or in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ our head I think in his who is truth it self and best knows his own body 1 Tim. 3. The Lord knoweth who are his Cap. 3. p. 142. Sed ut dicere caeperam non audiamus haec dico haec dicis sed audiamus haec dicit dominus c. That is But as I began to say Let us not hear I say this and you say that but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are certainly the Lords Books to whose authority we both consent we both believe them we both obey them there let us seek the Church there let us discuse our cause Auferantur ergo illa de medio c. Away with those things from among us which we bring against one another not out of the Divine Canonical Books but from
elswhere Quia nolo humanis documentis c. Because I will not have the holy Church to be demonstrated by humane documents but by Gods Oracles For if the holy Scriptures have placed the Church in Africa alone and in a few places of Rome c. then whatsoever may be brought out of other papers the Church is onely with the Donatists Si autem c But if the Church of Christ is placed by the Divine and most certain testimonies of the Canonical Scriptures in all Natitions then what ever they bring and whence ever they recite it who say Lo here is Christ or lo there let us rather if we be his sheep hear the voice of our Shepherd saying Believe them not For those parcels are not found in many Nations where that Church is but it which is every where is found even where they are therefore let us seek it in the holy Canonical Scriptures And thus he goes on and proves at large by the Scriptures the true Church fitting all as meet to the present schisme of the Papists almost as if he had seen and named it Cap. 18. Begins thus Because therefore the holy Church is manifestly known in the Scriptures c. Remotis ergo omnibus c. Laying aside therefore all such matters let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the speeches and rumors of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the writings of any disputers not in signes and fallacious Miracles because we are prepared and cautioned against such things by the word of God but in the writings of the Law in the predictions of the prophets in the Psalms in the words of our Pastor himself in the preachings and labors of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical authorityes of the sacred Books Next he shews that it must not be out of Parables Allegories or such Scriptures that make no more for one side then the other what then doth he tell them that it is all such and send them to Rome to know the sence no but it is the plain Scripture of which he produceth abundance that must tell us which is the true Church And he thus begins the 19 Chap. Omissis ergo c. Letting pass therefore the snares of delayes let him shew their Church c. and so shew it as not to say It s true because I say it or because my collegue said it or these collegues of mine or those Bishops or Clerks or our Layity or therefore its true because these or those wonders were done by Donatus or Pontius or any other or because men pray and are heard at the Memories or shrines of ours that are dead or because such or such things happen there or because that brother of ours or that sister of ours saw such a sight waking or had such a dreaming vision sleeping Away with these either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceiving spirits For either the things that are said are not true or if any wonders are done by hereticks we must the more beware seeing the Lord when he told us there would come deceivers who by doing certain signs would deceive if it were possible even the elect addeth Lo I have foretold you And if any be heard praying at the Memories of hereticks it is not for the desert of the place but the desert of his desire that he receiveth good or evil No man can have Christ for his head that is not in his Body which is the Church which Church we must know as we do Christ himself in the sacred Canonical Scriptures and not to inquire into the various rumors of men and their opinions and deeds and sayings and sights But let them shew me whether they have the Church no way but by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptuers Because neither do we therefore say that they ought to believe us that we are in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Melevitanus or by Ambrose of Millan or innumerable other Bishops of our communion or because it is predicated or praised by the Councils of our Collegues or because through the whole world in the holy places which are frequented by our communion so great marvailes of hearings or healings are done here some are named What ever things of this sort are done in the Catholike Church are therefore to be approved because they are done in the Catholike Church but it is not therefore manifested to be the Catholike Church because these things are done in it This he testifieth is written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms this we have commended by his own mouth These are the documents of our cause these are its foundations these its upholders or confirmers We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some Believers that they daily search't the Scriptures whether those things were so What Scriptures but the Canonical of the Law and prophets Hereto are added the Gospels the Epistles of the Apostles the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John Search all these and produce somewhat manifest which will demonstrate that the Church either remaineth in Africke alone or is to be from Africk so that it may be fulfilled which the Lord saith This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world c. But bring somewhat that needeth nor an interpreter that you may not be convinced that it speaks of another matter and that you strive to turn it to your own sence Chap. 25. The question is not dark in which they may deceive you You see the Church is every where diffused and increaseth to the harvest This whole Book of Austin is written as if it had been purposed as a confutation of the Papists that will have the Church to contain onely the Romane faction and exclude all the rest of the world and will try the Scripture by the Church and not the Church by the Scripture but fly to I know not what visions and pretended miracles to prove their Church which Austin professeth are not a proof no not of the true Church though there be much more then there to boast of so that the Papists cannot here say that Austin thus dealeth with the Donatists because they denyed the Church of Rome and believed the Scripture he expresly enough preventeth all such expositions of his words August con Cresconium li. 2. cap. 33. p. 177. Saith Ego hujus Epistolae c. I am not bound by the authority of this Epistle of Cyprians ad Jubai because I take not Ciprians Epistles be Canonical but by the Canonical I consider them and that in them which agreeth to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise but that which disagreeth I refuse with his peace And so if thou hadst recited those things which he wrote to Jubajan out of some Canonical book of the Apostles or Prophets I should have had
nothing at all to gain-say But now seeing what thou recitest is not Canonical by that liberty to which the Lord hath called us I refuse it c. And he compareth it to Peters compelling the Gentiles to Judaize Gal. 2. shewing that even Peter should have been so refused in error The words of Austin in Epist 19. ad Hieron are commonly cited I have learned to give onely to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honor as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned soever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judged but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true As commonly cited is that li. 3. Cont. Maximin Arrian c. 14. pag. mihi 306. Sed nunc nec ego c. But now neither ought I as fore-judging or for prejudice to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the authority of this noâ— thou of that Let matter contend with matter causâ— with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both It were too long to recite the fourtieth part which Augustine hath to this purpose He that would seâ— more let him read his Epist 112. de Morib Ecclesâ— Cathol c. 7. Epist 111. Contr. Faustum li. 11. c. 5 de Trintat li. 3. c. The words of Optatus lib. 5. advers Parmen arâ— frequently cited by our writers which are thuâ— Quaerendi sunt judices c. We must seek judges Iâ— Christians they cannot be admitted on either side because by siding the truth is hindred We must seek a judge abroad or without If a Pagan he cannot know the Christians secrets If a Jew he is an enemy to the Christian Baptism On earth there can no judgment of this matter be found We must seek a Judge from heaven But wherefore should we go knock at heaven when we have it here in the Gospel A Testament I say because here we may well compare earthly things to heavenly is such as that a man that hath many sons doth command them all himself as long as the father is present there is then no need of a Testament So Christ as long as he was present on earth though yet he be not wanting or absent commanded the Apostles whatever was needful for the time But as a father when he feeleth himself neer to death fearing lest after his death the Btethren should unpeaceably quarrel doth before witness put his Will out of his dying brest into writings which may endure And if there shall rise any contention among the Brethren they go not to the Grave but seek the Testament and he that resteth in the Grave doth silently speak by the writings The Living Lord whose the Testament is is in heaven Let his will therefore be sought in the Gospel as in a Testament The Author of the imperfect work on Mat. commonly imputed to Chrysostome Homil. 49. saith At this time since heresie hath possessed these Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge of Christians that would know the truth of Belief but the Divine Scriptures For before it was declared by many means which was the Church of Christ and which was Gentilism But now it is by no way known to them that would know which is the true Church of Christ but only by the Scriptures How therefore should he that would know which is the true Church of Christ come to know it but onely by the Scriptures One would think this were plain enough if the Papists were not the Judges of the meaning of all writings as well as the holy Scriptures which condemne their cause Junilius ad Primasium â— part divin legis li. 2. qu. 29 Saith Vnde probamus libros c. How do we prove that the Books of our Religion are written by Divine inspiration Many wayes of which the first is the truth Scripturâ— it self then the order of things the agreement oâ— precepts the manner of speech without affectation or compasses and the purity of words Therâ— is added also the quality of the writers and preachers that meer men could not have delivered such Divine things and vile men such high things and uneloquent men such subtile things unless they were filled with the Holy Ghost And the force oâ— the preaching of it which it had when it was preached though by a few contemned men Hereto is added the witness of the contrary party as the Sybils or Philosophers the expulsion of adversaries the utility of the consequents the event which by acceptations and figures and predictions were foretold and lastly the Miracles which were continually wrought till the Scripture it self was received by the Nations of which this sufficeth for the next Miracle that it is known to be received by all Saith Chamier citing this passage Here are arguments enough to prove the authority of Scripture internal and external but no mention of the Churches antecedent judgement to determine it The same may be said of Eusebius Anstia and the rest that prove the Scripture and Christian Religion Hieromes words are frequently cited on Math. 23. Hoc quia de Scripturis c. This is as easily contemned as proved because it hath not authority from the Scriptures And on Isaiah 8. He saith Side aliquo dubitatis c. If you doubt of any thing know what is written If you would know the things that are doubtful rather give up your selves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures And on the 86. Psalm He saith Quamvis sanctus aliquis c. Though there be some Saint after the Apostles never so eloquent yet he hath not authority And Epist ad Rustic Since covetousness entered into the Church as into the Empire the Law is perished from the Priests and the vision from the Prophets And the same Hierome Epist ad Evagr. fol. 150. Edit Basil per Froben 1516. Tomo 3. pag. 329. Edict Basil 1536. Tomo 2. Saith thus Quid â—uim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat Nec altera Romana urbis Ecclesia altera totius orbis existimanda est Et Gallia Britannia Africa Persis Oriens Judia omnes Barbarae nationes unum Christum adâ—rant unam observant regulam veritatis Si Authoritâ—â— quaritur Orbis major est Vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Fugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caeteram omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Sed dicis Quomodo Romae ad testimonium Diaconi
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus Natum Deum esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus So then the Church in Hieromes time would believe no more by Divine Faith but what was written Chrysostome saith on the 95. Psal when any thing is spoken that is not written the very thoughts of the hearers are lame And again on the 2 Thess 3. All things are clear and sincere that are in the Divine Scriptures every thing that is necessary is therein plain The words are spoken against those that would not go to the Congregation because there was no Sermon And though Chrysostome was almost daily in preaching yet to shew them that the word read was worth their hearing he addeth this answer And he proceedeth to answer their other objections taken from the supposed obscurity of Scripture telling them they are spoken in their own tongue and plainly Orat. 3. pag. mihi 1503. And on 2 Cor. Hom. 3. he calleth the Scripture the ballance the square and rule of all things which words Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. endeavoreth to pervert in vain Theodoret Dialog 1. inter Orthodox Eranist in the beginning pag. 1. saith I would not have thee by humane reasons to enquire after the truth but seek the steps of the Apostles and Prophets and their followers And in the second Dialogue I am not so rash as to assert any thing wherein the holy Scripture is silent Cyril of Alexandria in his seventh book against Julian pag. mihi 159. saith The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them that are exercised in it wise and most honest and to have sufficient understanding The like he hath twice or thrice over in that same Section which I will not stand to repeat lest I be tedious Ambrose having mentioned the diversity of Heresies agreeing in una perfidia giveth us this direction for cure Itaque tanquam boni gubernatores quo tutius praetermeare possimus fidei vela tendamus Scriptuarumque relegamus ordinem Amb. de fide li. 1. cap. 4. pag. 56. And many more express passages he hath as Quae in Scripturis sanctis non reperimus ea quemadmodum usurpare possemus This citation I take on trust from others that have before produced it having before mentioned more Athanasius in his Orat. against the Gentiles in the beginning saith The holy and Divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction of verity And afterward he addeth that the writings of the Fathers and our Teachers do help us to interpret and understand Scripture Hippolytus in Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 3. Edit col p. 20.21 saith Vnus Deus est quem non aliunde agnoscimus quam ex sacris scripturis Quemadmodum enim siquis vellet sapientiam hujus seculi exercere non aliter hoc consequi poterit nisi dogmata Philosophorum leg at sic quicunque volumus pietatem in Deum exercere non aliunde discimus quam in scripturis Divinis i e. There is one God whom we no other way know but by the holy Scriptures For as he that will exercise the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it but by reading the opinions of the Philosophers iâ— so those of us that will exercise piety towards God do no other way learn it but in the Divine Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat li. 6. saith Without the Scripture we say nothing In the Life of Antony the Author saith The Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction Theodoret li. 1. histor c. 7 reporteth the words of Constantine the Great spoken to the Fathers in the Nicene Council after Eustathius Oration to him thus He shewed them how grievous a thing it was and how bitter when the enemies were profligate and there was none left that durst oppose them that they should strive against one another and should make mirth for their enemies and become their laughing stock specially seeing they dispute about Divine things and have the doctrine of the Holy Ghost laid down in the Scripture monuments For saith he the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles and also the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to hold concerning God Laying aside therefore all seditious contention let us resolve the matters that are brought into question by the Testimonies of the writings of Gods inspiration And Theodoret addeth that While he spoke these and the like things to bring them to a consent in the Apostolical doctrine all the Synod except a few Arrians obeyed and stablished concord on these terms Yet doth Andradius think to disable Constantines testimony by saying that the Arrians were pleased with these words of Constantine and Bellarmine vainly endeavoreth to lessen their esteem because Constantine was no Doctor of the Church Salvian saith Si scire vis quid tenendum sit habes literas sacras perfecta ratis est hoc tenere quod legeris i. e. You see Scripture is the only Rule of Faith with him But I will once more stop this work of citations it being so fully done already Onely desiring the Reader to lay those before produced together with these last and to compare with them 1. the Protestants judgement and then the Papists I shall lay them here by him that seeing them together he may the better judge And for the judgement of the Reformed Churches I shall say no more then what I before mentioned out of their own Polidore Virgil That they are called Evangelical because they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of salvation but what is delivered by Christ or his Apostles And this is in the Scripture fully contained and safely delivered to us which kind of Tradition of the books of the old and new Testament as Canonical saith Molinaeus we readily receive which is so far from being an addition to Scripture that it tells us that nothing is to be added thereto Compare this with the Fathers judgment before laid down As for the Papists judgement you shall have it in their own words lest we seem to wrong them Vasquez Tom. 2. Disp 216. N. 60. saith Licet concederemus hoâ— fuisse Apostolorum praeceptum nihilâ—minus Ecclesia summus Pontifex potuerunt illud justis de causis abrogare Neque enim majâ—r fuit potestas Apostolorum quam Ecclesiae Pontificis inferendis praeceptis That is Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles nevertheless the Church and the Pope might upon just causes abrogate it For the power of the Apostles was not greater then that of the Church and Pope in making precepts The Council of Trent say Sess 21. c. 1.2 that This power was alway in the Church that in dispensing the Sacraments saving the substance of them it might ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver So that they
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
were not all freely given 3. Grace making us acceptable they will not have to be the grace of God by which he loves us and makes â—s acceptable to him according to that Wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved but to be grace by way of habit remaining in us by which we love God therefore they call charity a grace making us acceptable as if by reason of its force and merit men were saved of God 4. Moreover when they divide grace into sufficient and efficacious grace they say â—ufficient grace is given to all and every man even without the Church by which they have a power to will and they can if they will believe and by believing be saved 5. If any want sufficient grace to avoid sin they â—o not truely sin neither are they guilty of sin before God 6 That in the first act of conversion the will is not passive 7. That it is in the power of mans free will to resist oâ— yeild to efficacious grace § 12. Of Justification BUt now the doctrine of Justification they utterly overthrow 1. For first they confound justification which is an act of God without us as Redemption Reconciliation Adoption with Sanctification and Inherent Righteousness and so confound not onely the Gospel with the Law but quite take away Justification it self the chief benefit we have by Christ in this life 2. They teach men to lay the cause of justification and the merit of salvation in themselves 3. They will have remission of sin to be a blotting of them out by which not only the guilt but also the irregularity it self is abolished 4. As in warming the cold is expelled by the coming of the heat so in justification sin is abolished by the infusion of righteousness 5. Neither will they understand justification in the Scripture as a Law-term to be opposed to condemnation and Sanctification to pollution 6. The Scripture teaches sanctification to be an action of God they make the second justification as they call it not Gods action but their own 7. Whereas the Scripture â—eacheth that we are justified by the grace of God intimating the inward moving cause of justification which is the free favor of God in Christ the Papists understand grace or rather graces inherent in us which yet in the Question of justification wherein the holy Ghost opposes works to grace are not more opposed to works then their first justification is to the second 8. When the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by the righteousness of God and the blood of God i. e. of Christ who is God for by his obedience and blood we are justified and he is our righteousness I say by a righteousness which is not revealed in the Law and therefore not inherent but which is revealed in the Gospel without the Law They understand a righteousness infused by God and inherent in us 9. When the Scripture teaches that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ as he is made sin for us and so that the obedience of Christ is communicated to us for justification as the disobedience of Adam for condemnation namely by imputation But they say we are justified not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ but partly by the infusion of habitual righteousness viz. in the first justification partly by our own performance of actual righteousness or good works in the second justification 10. For they contend for a double justification the first which consists in the infused habit of charity the other in meritorious works When as the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by faith without works i. e. not-by inherent righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ apprehended â—y faith and therefore that we are not justified by faith as it is a part of inherent righteousness for so with other graces it sanctifies us nor by any other faith then that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ or by any other grace because there is no other beside faith that apprehends Christs righteousness and therefore by faith alone 11. The Papists on the contrary teach faith to justifie as it is a part of inherent righteousness 12. And not so much to justifie as to dispose us for justification by obtaining remission and deserving justification 13. For say they faith and Repentance do justifie as dispositions and meritorious causes ex congruo 14. But that charity is properly the justifying grace 15. And the form of justifying faith 16. And yet that true justifying faith may be separated from charity 17. And therefore that a man having true faith may be damned 18. Neither do they acknowledge any special faith which apprehends the righteousness of Christ but they say that is sufficient which consists in a general consent without all affiance yea even without knowledge which they call implicite faith 19 For they say faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge 20. Neither can they indure by any means that we say faith only justifies 21. When as the Scripture plainly excludes works as causes from the act of justification though it require them in the subject or person justified as necessary fruits of justifying faith by which believers are justified that is declared to be just but they assert that we are not justified before God by faith onely but also by works as the causes of justification 22. And in this matter they make James plainly to contradict Paul 23. And they invert the disputation of Paul as if the Question he disputes were whether faith justifies without works but whether works justifie without faith 24. That men are justified by the observation of Gods and the Churches commands 25. That men deserve remission of mortal sins by repentance Almes deeds forgiving injuries converting an offending Brother and other duties of piety and charity by which we do not deny but our belief of the pardon of sin is confirmed 26. And that venial sins are purged away by the repetition of the Lords prayer by striking the brest by sprinkling of Holy Water and the Bishops blessing c. 27. That a wicked man may deserve justifying grace ex congruo and that this merit of congruity is when the sinner doth his utmost 28. They deny justificaon be to proper to the Elect. 29. That no man in this life ought certainly to determine that he is of the number of the elect 30. That every one must doubt of the remission of their sins 31. No man can be certain of his justification without a special revelation 32. That no man in this world ought to seek an infallible certainty of his salvation or justification 33. That doubting of the pardon of sin is not an infirmity but a vertue 34. For any one certainly to believe that his sins are forgiven him through Christ is abominable presumption 35. That
That it is Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia that Austin speaks 2. That its cum omnibus and therefore not an Argument onely for such as deny the Church and right grounds 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred ☞ 4. So may wâ— say As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Romane Catholike Church Andradius Defen l. 2. Vainly replyeth that this is spoken onely to those Hereticks that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures 1. That 's plainly false for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish * That is Savingly Constantinus Magnus See Andrad Tâ—ef l. 2. fol. 110 c Where are the rest of his cavils Salvianus Massil de Provid li. 3. pag. mihi 62. The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres * That is before they corrupt antient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves Because many of these Errors are delivered onely by particular Doctors and all be not of a mind as to the sence and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning I thought meet to adde these Animadversions to acquaint you in what sence we reject them What I pass by without Animadversion I leave upon them as it is here charged and also suppose the difference to lie plain a 1. That is as the Authenticke sign of Gods will For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith as the Authorized chief revealers and God himself onely as the principal efficient and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed and the Catholike Church as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth 3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabrike 6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many especially Blondel in a just volume that abundance of them are forgeries and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines 7. At least quoad nos So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature 8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakeâ—s have their doctrine of the light within us 9. It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement 10. We confess as Peter saith of Pauls Epistles that there are somethings in them hard to be understood which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction But we maintaine that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends that is to be the Rule of our faith and life 11. This is one of their greatest errors 15. The last clause that the Popes authority is greater then the Churches the French do not hold And so they are divided in their foundation 16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder then the Church and we yield that the Church is elder then â—â—â—ings But we affirme that the doctrine as fetcht from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature as the cause of it at least as to the generality of members 17. The Negative is their master error but the Affirmative Proposition is not denyed of us as to every kind of dependance but of some special sorts of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit 2. c. 18. The height of Romish arrogancy 20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding â—â—le for there is eâ—â—ugh in it against them 21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God and contrary to express Scripture and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest and had they but this â—ne they could never expect that the Catholike Church should unite upon their principles 1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite so it was of God But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted or the corruption of the will inclining it to evil it is not of God 2. See Rada's first controversie 3. A posse mori and a posse non mori were not then Natural But a non posse mori or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience and is now given by Christ And a non posse non mori or an actual death are the fruits of sin 4 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical 1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us 2. Saith Davenant the point of Predetermination is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with But they that do are not of a mind in it no more then they 4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment but onely permitteth it But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention And so he justly withholdeth his grace and giveth men over to the power of the devil their own lusts 2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortifyed and all its motions subjected to holy Reason And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often The flesh and the body if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination much of the end that I say not the whole 4. Sins are called voluntary either because they are in the Will or from the will In the first sence the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second the ellicite and imperate acts Also they are voluntary directly and formally as are the wills owne acts and habits or participative as are the acts and habites of all the imperate faculties And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses nor any further then voluntary 5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin 8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in We have vicious habits and the abscence of Rectifying habits call this what you will Free will is either Physical and that all men have as they are men or moral which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good and this all have or to be free from vicious Habits and this onely the sanctified have and that but in part 9. It is the most noble controversie among the Schoolemen and Thomists and the greatest part seem rather to erre on the other extream and the Scotists that hold this to rectifie them do giâ— such explications of their doctrine as are well worth our study as you may see in Rada's first controversie
necessary and the ancient Churches used and we must use before it will be well with us 9 10. Some of them by satisfying God mean no more then the answering of his will concerning so much of duty or suffering as he hath laid upon us But others worse 11. The everlasting punishment being remitted the temporal punishment of God by the Magistrate or by fatherly castigation may remain And part of it doth remain on us all For he chasteneth whom he loveth 15. As satisfying God signifieth but a sincere doing our duty we may be said to satisfie him But to make him reparation for the wrong we have done him or satisfie his Law by perfect obedience or his Vindictive Justice by our sufferings here is impossible 18. Chastisement is a true and proper species of punishment agreed on 20 28 c. As satisfying God is but pleasing him all our duties satisfie 22. Prayer and a holy life is a delight and great benefit but accidentally may be troublesome so far as we are carnal and therefore requireth some self-denyal 24. One man may do a duty that conduceth to anothers spiritual good but not by merit 26. The Right use of Absolution applyeth Christâ—s blood declarâ—â—â—â—ly And is too much laid by in most Churches 1. Gods love or favor is our Radicall Grace from which flow both Relative effects in pardon justification adoption and Physical in our Renovation all which are called also Grace 3. To deny either Relative or Inherent Grace is to deny that without which there is no salvation The necessity of Pardon at least many of them confess 4. No doubt but all have so much grace that they may believe and be saved if they will sincerely Because though velle credere be not credere as Doctor Twiss answers it yet credere est voluntatis as Austin answers it But the Papists especially the Dominicans â—ffirm not sufficient grace to believe to be given to those that hear not the Gospel but onely sufficient grace to â—â— that which tendeth to this further grace 6. The will is first passive in receiving the Divine influx but active in the eliciting its oâ—â—wâ—a 7. The will hath natural Power or faculty to resist or yield which will not be brought into act for yielding because it wanteth moral power that is it is dis-inclined But to resist it hath too much moral Power which is impotency yet such as grace can heal 1. Perverting the term they cause a strife about a word 2. Some of them make merit of congruity which they say precedeth Justication to be properly no merit And some of them deny that there is any proper merit of condignity at all But others are gross in this 3. The term Remission also they abuse meaning by it the change of our qualities or putting away sin it self though forgiveness they take in with it And so they make many verbal controversies 4. This is true of Sanctification which is the thing they mean by Justification But by this abuse of the terms they misinterpret Scripture And also they so much hide the very being of pardon by perverting the words that signifie it that its hard to find in some of them whether they confess any such thing as pardon 6. As to the Act they make it their own by merited grace but the habits and the grace assisting they say is of God and the act say most 7. This is their verbal error no doubt that which they mean by justification that is Sanctification consisteth in Inherent grace 8. This they say of justification taken for sanctification but not as taken for Pardon But they are led still to misinterpret Scriptures by misunderstanding the word 9 Still they mean sanctification when they speak of justification But they confess that Christs sufferings and obedience are the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Renovation both which they use to comprize in the word Justification 16. They may as well talk of a third and fourth justification for sanctification hath more degrees then two But doubtlesse there is such a thing as that which they mean by a second justification if they leave out merit for there is actual obedience and increase of grace The Scripture saith we are justified by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ that is By assenting to his Gospel and accepting him entirely as Christ that is by becoming true Christians or Christs Disciples For a believer and a Disciple in the Gospel usually signifie the same thing 11. It doth sanctifie as a part of inherent righteousness and it is the receptive condition of Pardon 12. I would they said no more but that it disposeth to it for then they would not say it deserveth it 14. Still they mean Sanctifying 15. An absurd speech but they adde that it s not the form of faith as faith but of faith and all other graces as saving or as a new Life And we agree that faith is principally in the will and the Velle is by the Schoolmen called the Diligere 16. It s unreasonable for them to call that justifying faith which wants that which they take to be the form of it 18. They say it must be explicite in some points which we call essential and that we must believe in Christ as satisfying justice and meriting for us pardon and sanctification 19. That 's but some of them 20. They manage this controversie in the dark not agreeing with us in the sence of the termes of the Question 21. Neither faith nor works are proper causes 28. So did the Ancients even Augustine himself and too many Protestants 29. This also was too common with the Ancients and is now with the said Protestants 30 Some of them yield a certainty of present Remission and justifiâ—â—â—ion and moral conjectural certainty of Salvation 34. To be certain of it is a great mercy but to believe that it is a thing written in Scripture that I am pardoned is not a duty for it is not there 35. About this they differ See Magro in sent that faith hath certaine evidence which Ariminensis and others confute â—aying it hath evidence of credibility but not of cerâ—ainty 1. The meer appetite is no sin but the corruption and rebellion of it is 2. I would we could see one of them do it once It s a shameful arguing for perfection by bare words when none of them will give us a proof of it by their own example 3. They that believe this know not themselves 5. Piscator and other of ours maintain this Though a meritorious efficiency we all deny 7. The Scotists and many more of them deny this but so do not Bellarmine and many others 8. Waldensis und others of them deny all merit but that 's not common see instances in my Confession 6. Some of them say they are punished also with the pain of senses See Concius Tractat. in the end of Jansenii Augustin 16. Bellarmine confesseth that in such cases of fact and particular judgement thereâ—n the Pope may erre And so no Papists living can be certain but that they pray to the damned souls in hell whom the Pope mistakingly canonized 1 2. Yet we confess a Catholike visible continued Church 3. Some of our own say as much of late but they mean it of the visible Church onely 4. This is the heart of Popery 1. Hence Popery and Papists are denominated 17. Much of these by the French is ascribed to a General Council and denyed to the Pope so well are they agreed in their fundamentals 5. The French agree not to these 1. Of the visible Church we say the same 10. The Spaniards hindred the passing of that in the Council of Trent 5. 6. Have the Quakers learn't this distinction of perfection yet 25. In all causes materially they are but not in all formally for they are not the supreme in every sort of Government that is in Ministerial Directive but in their own sort that is coactive 2. What need you confess sin that can fulfill the Law so easily out of your own mouthes are you judged now that do not that which you think so easie 4. Others of them say the contrary 35. I would they had no company in this error 72 73. This may give us some light into the juglings of our times