Nec consequens est ut omnis Hereticus c. It follows not that every Heretique or Schismatique be corporally separated from the Church for the Church carries many in her c. The Apostle tells the elders of Ephesus that of themselves men should arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Act. 20.29 and these are within the Church SHAPE IV. THe Fourth Shape is this In all ages since Christ and is Apostles there have been Protestant Bishops and Pastors but through the negligence of men and hard fate of times their names have miscaryed and perished And as it is no Argument many famous Romans and Grecians are not named therefore never were any such men so it is no less false a Sequel Protestant Bishops and Pastors are not mentioned all the way from Christ and the Apostles therefore they were sometime wanting To this you answer 1. It s not the same of private men and of Bishops and Pastors these have Christâ— warrant and assurance of visibility so have not those Mat. 28. Bishops and Pastors are as Aqueducts and Limbecks through which the verifying Waters of Christs holy Doctrines are derived into our ears and distiled into our Souls So are not private men should they be at any time clouded and obscured Christ would be worse then his word his Doctrine fall short and not come home to us Rep. 1. It s the same of private men and Bishops and Pastors in this case It s a false Sequel speak of whom you will to say they are not named therefore never were Melchizedec's Parents are not mentioned therefore he had none yea thousands of Popish Pastors and Bishops are now unmentionable for I suppose you cannot reckon up all the Bishops and Pastors that have been in every Country Town and Village since the Roman Church had its beginning as you say in the Apostles yet you would not like the consequence if I should therefore conclude there were no such Bishops or Pastors in such places The instance that is given in the Shape will not be nullified by your distinction of publique and private persons for the persons mentioned are publique persons men of Renown and famous such as Histories sometimes make mention of and you have no more but History to enable you to count your Bishops 2. Your proof is most idle and fitter to procure laughter then an answer 't is this Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world Mat. 28. therefore all Bishops and Pastors for 1600. and odd years past may be mentioned and named Gallant Logick Prove your consequence Mr Doctor you say They have Christs warrant and assureance for a continuance of visibility so have not those Mat. 28. Answ 1. Here is no assureance of a continuance of visibility Christ is with his Church when she is hid in the Wilderness the Rehmists acknowledg it yet at that time she shall be hid Apoc. 12.6 inhabiting in Mountains and Dens and Caves of the Earth as Andreas expounds it 2. If it assure personal visibility it s not continued but successive not of the same persons for ever but of a succession of persons who in the several ages wherein they live shal be visible The Apostles nor their successors for 1500 years are not now visible 't is so with our Bishops and Pastors in their times wherein they lived they were visible to their friends at least though they might hide it from their persecutors But 3. What is this to our naming of those who have professed the Apostles doctrine ever since their time is this in the promise or is it a necessary dependent on the Churches visibility in succeeding ages you cannot for shame say it lest you condemn your selves whose Catalogues are of Popes not all inferior Bishops and Pastors who notwithstanding have as much interest in that promise as any Pope if not more 2. You say Bishops and Pastors are Aqueducts and Limbecks if these should be at any time clouded and in obscurity Christ would be worse then his word his doctrine fall short and not come home to us Answ 1. You shoot very far wide of the mark we are speaking of the naming of those that we confesse had a real existence and you are proving a necessity of their existence Are entity and nomination reciprocal so as while you prove one you prove the other also 2. Doth their being Aqueducts and Limbecks prove that they may all be named You may as well demand the names of all the pipes or troughs whereby waters have been conveyed to such a place for 1000 or 1600 years and say this is necessary because they are pipes c. 3. Though all Bishops and Pastors of the Church should be corrupt and cease to be true Pastors of the Church as it was in the Jewish Church when our Saviour came Occh. dial p. 1. l. 5. c. 28. yet if you will believe your Schoolman Occham God can prevent his Doctrine from falling short or not coming home to us even by raising up Lay-men and illiterate persons for the edification of the Church grounding it upon Matth. 3.9 3. You say Visibility is not peculiar to Bishops and Pastors but necessity of visibility is Private men in this way of visibility being contingently visible Answ 1. Your distinction is excellent but I wonder you missed telling us of being visible Archipodialiter and reflexive which would have suited you as well as this of necessary and contingently Are not private persons necessarily visible as well as publique Doth not visibility agree to corporal substances and that necessarily If private persons be but contingently visible then they are ordinarily invisible and consequently Spirits unlesse their visibility be in this that your great Dons are pleased now and then by chance to look upon them which they do not ordinarily 2. Your instance of whiteness in fowls is simple For whitenesse is not common to all fowls as visibility is to all men As you say there are swans therefore white or there are bishops therefore visible so may you as truly say they are men and therefore visible but what is all this to the meaning of Bishops and Pastors though we should grant what you say for visibility 4. You say Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible either determinately or indeterminately Excellent yet more fine beyond sea distinctions but what follows Ergo Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible and private men but contingently that is Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible Ergo Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible But are not private Christians necessarily visible either determinately or indeterminately Indeterminately all for some are necessary to make a visible Church determinately so many without which there could not be a suffâ—cient number to make a true visible Church I 'm sure private Christians are necessarily to the constitution of a visible Church as well as Bishops and Pastors Lastly You tell us That its necessary that Bishops and
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
hid and conceal their opinions and whilst the Church doth what she can to cast them out of her These would be a plea for your Church if the supposition were true But you urge further thus Protestants Bishops and Pastors if mingled with Catholiques did neither beleeve nor profess their Doctrine but only concealed and covered their own for fear of the formidable rigour of Catholiques and such could neither be true nor make a saving Church Not true because the mission of true Bishops and Pastors being founded upon persecution and suffering Mat. 10. Luk. 11. it is proper to them to fear no Colours nor make up a saving Church by reason profession of faith is necessary to Salvation Rom. 10. Mat. 10. Repl. 1. It must not be granted that Protestant Pastors did meerly conceal and cover their own Faith and Doctrine there was much crying out against errors and disorders in the Popes Church by many though not without sufferings Gersom for speaking freely against the disorders of the Roman Church was deprived of his goods and dignities by the Pope and expulsed the University by the Sorbonists Laurentius valla was exiled by the Pope John of Vesalia a preacher at Worms was sharply handled by the inquisitors for opposing indulgences auricular confession Pilgrimages Merit c. Berengerius openly declared against Transubstantiation for which he was not well handled Read our Martirologies and it will evidently appear that Protestants did not only not conceal their own Doctrines but opposed yours 2. It s not simply unlawful nor altogether unsuitable to the true saving members of the Church to conceal or hide the truth Confession is a duty but the precept binds not ad semper there are some cases wherein it s not necessary viz. 1. When we are not brought before authority to be examined about our Faith but if we be brought before them our Sauiours precept Mat. 10 binds us to Confession 2. When by our profession there is no hopes of doing good or bringing any advantage to the truth Hos 4.4 Mat. 7.6 Thus Protestants might conceal the truth when they saw their Confession was not advantageous to the Truth or the Salvation of those with whom they were although when brought before authority they did still profess it and dye for it 3ly They might be lawful Pastors though they might conceal the truth from their enemies for a time else what think you of Peter who did more then conceal even deny his Religion Of Liberius who accepted of Arianism Certainly if these were not true Bishops your Chain of Succession will be a broken piece Your Priests in England at this day hide their persons and with them the open confession of their supposed Truth they preach not openly they administer not the Sacraments openly they exercise not their mortal Devils openly and that for fear of apprehension and punishment due to such Vagabonds and yet your ignoramusses depend upon their Benediction as Spiritual Fathers 4ly Your reason is divers ways peccant 1. It s improper to say the Mission of true Bishops is founded upon persecutions and sufferingse 1. Are persecutions the Bases of pastoral Mission then if persecution cease the Bishops and Pastors cease to be true Bishops and Pastors the building cannot stand when the Foundation is fallen then your Popes or Cardinals c. are no true Bishops or Pastors for they live in great pomp and ease and suffer nothing unless that by their intemperance they get bodily diseases which is nothing to Truth Indeed since through your freedom from persecutions your Chalâ—ces were of gold your Priests have been but wooden Images 2. You mistake the cause of their concealing the Truth which was not a distracting and a distrustful fear which looks mainly at torments as you imagine but their fear was a sober fear 1. Lest the Church of God should be deprived of them by reason of their profession of truth at such a time when there was no visible advantage accruing to it 2. Lest they should incur the guilt of their own deaths by unreasonable profession See Mat. 7.6 Whence Lyranus infers Lyran. in Mat. 7.6 that the secrets of Faith are not to be revealed to obstinate unbeleevers because hereby may ensue the derision of the Catholique Faith and the murder of the Ministers Our Saviour gives liberty to his Disciples if they were persecuted in one City to fly to another Mat. 10.23 Yet bids them not fear Ver. 26. Clemens Alexandrinus sets this forth very well speaking of flying in time of persecution Swadet fugere c. He perswades us to flee not as if it were evil to suffer persecution nor that we should fear death but he would not have us authors or abettors of evil either to our selves or him that persecutes or him that kills us for he warns us that we be cautelous but he that obeys not is audacious and rash and unadvisedly casts himself upon manifest dangers now if he that slays a Man of God sins against God he also is guilty of this murder who doth not avoid persecution but through audacity offers himself to be apprehended for in as much as in him lies he helps on the wickedness of the persecutor Otherwise our Protestant Bishops and Pastors have as couragiously professed the truth and for it undergone with patience and constancy as great torments from Popeish hands as ever any in any age of the world did So that were you not blinded with rage against Protestants you could not but blush to charge them with fearfulness of professing the truth For a conclusion of this I desire you look home to your English Priests those Hedghogs whose appearance is mainly in the night and in darkness who are so far from a voluntary and open profession of their faith that I do not know of any one that ever suffered upon this account viz. the open and publike profession of his faith though they pretend themselves guarded with power of miracles which might make them more valiant 5. If your self were of that stout Spirit you charge us with the want of what needed you to write Paris for London or L. B. for your concealed name 5ly You conclude your Answer to this Shape with an exposition of the parables of the Wheat and Chaff Mat. 3. and of the Fishes Mat. 13. to which you say The comparisons are ment of private men for matter of manners and not of any mixture of true and false doctrine Orthodoxal and Heretical Bishops and Pastors tâ—gether Rep. 1. It s most certain that these comparisons do set forth the mixture which is in the visible Church which your self even now contradicted Yea 2. These mixtures extends to mixtures of Doctrine and Teachers as well as of private Christians in manners the ordinary gloss understands Mat. 13.25 Of the mixture of Heretiques with the Elect. Augustin also by Cockle doth understand Heretiques who in this world are mingled with the Orthodox his words are ful against you Aug. Ap.
Pastors should be visible after they are dead for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose it not providing the the Church of means to defend aâ—d make good her right in case of opposition c. Answ 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear or a necromancers eye but supposing charitably that you mean that their names should be visible I say 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned It s sufficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ and that the Apostles professed and preached it Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple It s a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ and was professed by the Apostles had professors of it in all ages and these must needs be true Pastors though without exact succession Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles not of men meerly sent but withall professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England though now forgetting what you had before said you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its euident they are true and Catholique but this I have confuted before 3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it do not prove your assertion you say It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince Answ 1. It is unlike if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ You seem to grant pag. 56 that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession How then will you prove the truth of those Churches for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for 2. Supposing them like yet it s not the un-interruptednesse of succession for which they lay claim to the principality for it may have been in the hands of usurpers but discent together with the qualifications required in him who is to inherit which are found in one but not in the other thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth 2. Or to a river whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain the surest way is to trace the river up to the head Answ 1. It may be probably known by other means than this viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river by the ascent of the water of the rivers c. 2. Tracing it is not always a sure way it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain it may run through a dead sea and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head Yet 3. I grant that when the head is near and there is no mixture of impure and different waters your course is very good thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches did make use of derivation of succession But the case is otherwise with us we living many hundreds of years after them and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church Lastly You say The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner if it be found to have no way varied but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles doubtless its Orthodox if not most certainly its new and false Answ 1. The former part is most true but not the later that Doctrine is true which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine 2. Granted is true what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde prayer in an unknown tongue c. are new and false The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a reply SHAPE V. THe fift Shape is this That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture but the Protestant Church doth so therefore c. You answer 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church it being often to be seen among schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church Reply 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions 1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseperable mate p. 40. But it could not be her inseperable mate if it could be seperated from her and brought into society with a schismatical Church 2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth and ordained her keeper and preserver of it and what comes upon any other score than upon the Churches account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account and therefore with you is Apocriphal 3. True Doctrine is Her the Churches Doctrine p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others 4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols no concord with Christ and Belial You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church 5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismaticks that did not either adde to or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture hence 't is that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great saying None other things then those wâ—ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass Acts 26.22 This was his teaching And for his own faith you have it Acts 24.14 This I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes about this Point I found that by consent of all Christians Dr Vane Lost Sheep return p. 5 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD revealing unto men things that were otherwise only known to his infinite Wisdom seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them as St. Paul saith Ephes 2.20 Your self also when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith say that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us is the Rule of Faith Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith How can the Church be it seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it Can you say properly that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard or that the post that bears it is it or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass Now you only say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth i. e. it doth but bear it If the Church be the Rule of Faith then I wonder what Rule they have sure not themselves and they being men like us they cannot be without a Rule no more then they can be Christians and yet want faith 3. You say By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness c. Ans 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness whereby you give too little to faith whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us By this receiving is faith expressed John 1.12 If faith be no more but bare knowledg then Devils yea Reprobates may have true faith yea and may hope in Gods mercy for faith is the foundation of sound hope Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith Vasq in 1. 2. To. 2. disp 209. c. 1. 4. which he calls Catholike there is also a peculiar faith whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention and not much differing from it only that as hope looks at the thing promised so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem fiduciam circa electionem gratiam salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant Rivet sum Cont. Tract 4. q. 16. ss 6. But as you cast faith here below it self so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self making it the soul of faith CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths Hopes and Charities IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages 1. You say The means of habitual and actual divine Faith Hope and Charity is the Tradition of the Church Ans 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it then I shall easily consent to you for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.17 But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities as they are called by you then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end the Scripture it self without your additions being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces And this you are not altogether unconvinced of as appears by your Preachers who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith hope c. 2. You say St Paul gives to Charity the preeminence And not undeservedly for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope c. both they being out of her company as dead bodies without life or motion c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures viz. 1 Cor. 13.13 and James 2.26 For the first I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity but upon the Apostles reason not yours which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss Primasius Augustine and the generality of Expositors In presenti tria haec Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13 in futuro sola charitas permanebit Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit But you say It 's the Soul of Faith c. This I deny For 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith yea that faith that justifies and is joyned with hope and charity 1 Cor. 13.13 may be without charity charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body and yet that body remain a true living humane body 2. The Apostle saith that faith without works is dead as the body without the soul yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith whereby it hath life and motion Your Rhemists assert it that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works and thereupon conclude RheÌ„ Annot. on Luke 23.43 that Faith hope c. will be sufficient and good works not required where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had Now can you say that his faith was without life and motion It had so much life and motion that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession Now if the
Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law of God If a debter owe twenty pound and hath but five pound which he pays to his Creditor doth the payment of this five pound which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt I trow not and pray Sir shew the difference betwixt this and your assertion CHAP. VI. Of Religion 1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but relying on the Churches authority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum reverentiam exhibent Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum honorem Deo tribuit Azor instit mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. l. 9. c. 5. p. 23. Answ 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring honour to God with relation to whom only Religion is defined by your Schoolmen and others This worship is due to God only and is that whereby we give up our selves unto God as the supream Lord of all and do place our hope and that in him as Azorius defines it According to this faith is a part of divine worship an act of Religion but relating to God the supream Lord of all not to the Church which is only a servant under him or if you will an assembly of his servants and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God it being the principal act by which a creature honours God and therefore is more pressed then any other Evangelical duty and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest upon which is Gods authority for the Churches is not always visible Abraham beleeved but his faith relied not upon the Churches authority The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church especially at Christs death when your men affirm that the Church was in her only but even then the Word of God the material object of faith had a visible existence and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Churches authority viz. Mark 16. John 14. make nothing for you the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God The former proves that we must beleeve the Gospel the material object of faith but saith not a word of the Church it saith not he that relies upon the Churches authority shall be saved Whosoever beleeves the Gospel whether he receive it from the Church or not shall be saved I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to beleeve in or on the Church and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you 2. I have already shewed that the Churches authority is but humane in the judgment of learned Papists and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible nor a guide or rule of belief Your self do in effect confesse at least of the present Church For you say pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth a prerogative belongs to the Church and no other as to whom alone revelation was made Now this ability is not in the Church she laies not open immediately Gods reveiled truth whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative Your Logical proceeding in councels shew your want of reuelation Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WAS made it was but is not so now 3. Your inference hereupon is 1. Thus The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect not upon the warrantable authority of the Church ibid. Answ There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects Consult Azorius and he will tell you that there are Cathâ—liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church and yet ground it not upon humane respects The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect and this Orthodox Christians build their belief upon 2. Inference For them to deserve the name of true Christians and to be stiled of the right Religion their only way is to level at perfection that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church which is to become spiritually little ones Matth. 18. Answ 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the only the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point and such there are as I have shewed true Christians and of the right Religion I am sure they are Papists for the main and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right 2. Who told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded I have seen divers expositions of the fathers on this Text different from yours but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion 3. It s a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Churches authority the Scriptures are altogether ignorant and destitute of expressions of such a duty CHAP. VII Of the unity of Religion JN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One but presently fal upon the unity of persons in this one Religion and to the means whereby they come to be united which means you propound in these words viz. Experience shews that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion whereas they that take to themselves other rules discent and jarre c. p. 28. Asw 1. Whether those who acknowledg the Church for the rule of belief be so one in Religion as that they neither dissent nor jarre I refer it to any mans judgment who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies I wonder whose experience it is that finds it Or what Alseeing eye it is that discerns All acknowledgers of the Churches authority to be one in Religion Have you seen
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
so much as one miracle Hast thâ—u by thy prayers raised up the dead or r stâ—red them thaâ— have been sick of fâ—aâ—ers If thou wert of any worth thâ—u wouldst do some miracle Answer and say 't is writâ—â—n thou shâ—lt not tempt the Lord thy God I will not therefore tempt God as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle or did not belong to him if I did it not This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour 2. You say The Spirit in us induceth to ill it perswading a disloyal deâ—ection fr m the Lords prayer the Commandments and church This is a most grosse and impudent slander we neither teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer the Commandments or that faith which the Apostles preached and the primitive Christians received from them We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer We insert it in our Catechisms teach it our children earnestly seek after those blessings it contains we have honourable and precious thoughts of it as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us We receive the Commandments as the rule of our obedience the guid of our way and as the Lord enables us do conform our selves thereto The like we say of the Church We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical Its our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists What Creeds the ancient Churches of Christ have received we freely own and beleeve all things written therein though we ingeniously professe our dislike and rejection of your late coyned articles as not being received by former Churches Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to any ill we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill but we pray and strive against it I dare affirm it and disprove it if you can that our reformed Ministry is as holy if not more than your Priesthood our people that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholiques yea its observable that the more free any parts are from popery and papists the more zealous and religious they are and more carefull sanctifiers of the Lords day Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists and popish persons I have given my self to observe their waies and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day spending it either in drinking or walking about from house to house or sporting and if they have Protestant servants imploying them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day But Sir I may say of your self and such like as Hiero. of some Qâ—um bona imitari non queant c. Hierom. When they cannot imitate the good is in us which they can only do they envie us in this think themselves verie learned that they can detract from us You cannot imitate therefore enuy it s one peice of Jesuitical learning to slander What you bring those names of our Authors in your margent for I know not I am sure were they alive they would accuse you of slandring them 3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrarie and inconsistent each with other Ans The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing for it s not given fully and perfectly though there be light in us yet it s not without darkness if it were we should be Angels rather than men comprehensors rather then travellers This spirit keeps us from the destructivenesse of error not from error yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmonious our Churches teach not things contrary nor inconsistent each with othea though particular men in our Churches may dissent in some points as in all Churches 3. In your last section you bring in and answer two Arguments formed as I suppose upon the anvile of your own brain 1. God is no accepter of persons his Spirit being free may breath on whom he pleaseth To this you answer This is out of the matter in hand here being no dispute of Gods power what he may do but of his will what he doth Reply When I know whose argument this is and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer if I like it at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation 2. Arg and Answ their other ground for insâ—iration upon the assurance of Consciencâ— St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weaknesse and coufinage Reply This argument came out of the same mint with the other for which of us lay any claim to inspiration 2. 'T is true we say that the Spirit bears witnesse with our spirits that we are the Children of God and doth not the Apostle say so Rom. 8.16 Your Rhemists confesse that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them 3. Whereas you object the example of St. Paul and Austin pray tell me can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred there is an erring conscience is there therefore no rightly informed conscience You make notable inferences 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgment about works as to their goodnesse or badness nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustines conscience did erre you acknowledg it was the one persecuted the Church the other the Truth Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of it self be regarded as when it testifies of works You say conscience can have no greater certainty then the understanding that gaue it being and the understanding often misseth I grant that the understanding of it self is errable and subject to mistakes but being guided by the spirit its certain and so is conscience The Apostle saith We know thâ—t we dwâ—ll in him and he in us 1 John 4.13 because he hath given us of his Sprit and we see and do testifie c. Upon which words your Glosse saith Per hoc c. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit because we see that is through the Spirit of inspiration by faith we know and by the testifying spirit do we witness c. CHAP. IX Of the Spiritists rule of Faith YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith which you say may be considered in it self or in r spect of us In it self its Gods reveal d truth in respect of us it s the same truth expressed to us Thus far say you Catholiques and Sâ—iritists agree their difference iâ— about the expression Answ 1. I conceive your distinction is vain and can hardly beleeve that Spiritists agree with you thus far For 1. I conceive the
Christ which they had before resisted 4. Your fourth text shews if it be any thing to our present purpose that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served and therefore it s not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Churches interest But Sir know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters much lesse the Spirit of God in private persons and the same Spirit in publique Ministers The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particular and reall member thereof revealing himself to each according to the capacity and need of every member 2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient which you prove by Scripture and by Reason 1. By Scripture for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church Answ 1. The Scripture never refers to the Church for the perfecting of it that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith Azor. instit moral part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem if it do shew me where for I know not 2. Your own Authors confesse that the Church cannot make an article of faith how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency 2. You attempt to prove it by reason saying reason makes it good because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe which they acknowledg themselves bound to beleeve Answ 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule your selves grant it to be a rule when you call it Canonical with exclusion of other writings now it s no rule if it be not perfect for the rule that faith requires ought to be as full and ample as the duty of faith 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to beleeve as necessary to salvation to be beleeved is contained in Scripture that noted place 2 Tim. 3.15 16. makes it evident the abundant utility shews its sufficiency to instruct any to salvation that speech of Biel Quomodo anima hominis In Can. miss lect 7. f. 146. c. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousnâ—sse and Grace unlesse it know Gods will and those things which according to it are just or unjust to be done or to be left undone to be loved or to be hated to be fear'd or to be attempted and what are to be beleeved and wâ—at to be hoped for with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which sola docet sacra Scriptura the sacred Scripture alone tâ—acheth Indeed we grant that all things to be beleived are not expresly set down in Scripture nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed or analogically reduced thereunto But I come to your instances of points of faith which Scripture declares not 1. Instance concerning Scriptures You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed that some are Canonical other some Apocriphal that they are determinately these or others â—nsw 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such and the Apocryphal books are not such For 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses the Prophets and Psalms again they give testimony to the New Testament Yea the whole Scripture doth bear witness to it self that it is the Word of God haveing those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wisdom power and goodness of God and is therefore a witnesse thereof Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witnesse it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the profitablenesse and usefullnesse of all things in their places The harmony consent spiritual profit c. of Gods Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is Gods Word and sacred Scripture If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of it self how doth the Church it self know Scripture to be Scripture She cannot plead Enthusiasme and the humane testimony of Fathers is no sufficient ground for infallibility 2ly All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be beleeved by all men Bellarm. de suffis script c. 11. these are Bellarmines words but to beleeve the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men say you therefore it must needs follow that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures 3ly By way of retortion I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church for this Bellarmine saith must be certainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies The same way that you say the Church may be known even by it self the same way do we know the Scriptures they give evidence to themselves 4th The exact knowledg of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be beleeved I deny not but the knowledg of Gods Word is thus necessary and this may be where that knowledg is wanting It cannot rationally be denyed that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledg of what books were Canonical nor was the knowledg of them judged necessary to salvation 2. Instance concerning the Jewish Sabboth You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabboth â—s to be neglected and laid aside and the sunday solemnized An w. The Scriptures declare both The first Col. 2.16 17. Let no man judg you in respect of the Sabboth days which are a shaddow of things to come but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabboth Azor. inst tuor p. 2. l. 1. c. 1. if you consider the determinate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies For the second the Scriptures expresly teach the solemnization of Sunday 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10 The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lords day unto which the Jewes Sabboth was altered 3. Instance Concerning the Creed you say The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentique and truly the Apostles Answ 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authentique and the Apostles for the articles thereof are Apostolique Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Every article may be proved by them 2ly If you consider the form or composure of it that the Apostles made it each one of them addding an article to it this is not necessary to be beleived being but grounded on humane fallible testimony 4. Inst Concerning things indifferent
have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces nor receive any such to communion as they did excommunicate yea Saint Cyprian and a company of Bishops with him did dye out of the communion of the Church of Rome Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. for any thing appear to the contrary yet they were true Bishops and their Churches true Churches Yea further supposing Communion had then been necessary it is not so now the corruption of your Church being greater then it was in Cyprians time so that Gods command doth take place with us 1 Tim. 6.3 5. 2 Cor. 6.14 15 c. Apoc. 18.4 and the example of the Apostles Acts 19.8.9 3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholique Church viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches whose Doctrine we receive and profess yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doctrine amongst you so far we have communion with you also 4. You deliver two palpable Lyes 1. That we glory to have our p wer from the Popiâ—h Church We look upon it not as our honor but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power We account it our honour and glory in it that we are out of your Bethaven and that we have the ordinances of God within our selves 2. Lye that we confesse you to be a true Church We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholique Church We say you were once Bethel now Bethaven Rome was once a faithfull City but now become an harlot Her name is given her by God and acknowledged by us as belonging to her Apoc. 17.5 Mistery Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth 3ly You answer Pro estants derivation from Catholiques is not prooâ— for a personal succession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Protâ—stants which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation iâ— being not required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostleâ— of men meerely sent but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England Reply 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you it being proper to the true Church onely as Doctrine you say is not But I see now succession of Doctrine is the more principall succession So unstable are men maintaining errors 2. In derivation of succession it s not necessary that those we derive from agree in all points with us If it were I know where your succession from Peter would be you not being able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt holding some errors which the ordained may be free from either altogether or in some measure or if not when they are ordained yet afterwards Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained 3. We can shew a derivation of succession though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles professing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points but these could not nullifie our claim to them nor make that they should not be called Protestants Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number the least addition or Diminution altering its kind and grounding a new denomination But supposing it good and true we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians nor yet with those who lived but a little while ago your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines 4ly You answer Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholiques inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols no concord with Christ and Belial 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King 5. c Rep. 1. It s one thing to be amongst wicked men another thing to approve of them A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence who notwithstanding approves not of it When Israel was most corrupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal Rom. 11.4 When our Saviour came the Jewish Church was very corrupt yet there were some few in it who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church Isay 1.9 Yet none of these did approve of the corruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4 If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 God had a people in Babilon a people like corne among chaffe good fish amongst bad ones These till God gave an opportunity of delivering themselves did dwell with the daughter of Babilon Zech. 2.7 They had external communion but wanted inward affection to her they had no concord nor agreement with her in her grosser errors But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company lyers and innovators this would leave a stain upon her reputation make her sinceritie be suspected hâ—r Doctrine contemned and despised but she who is all fair Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt Rep. 1. It s no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are erroneous It was thus with Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi and the Churches of Asia Rev. 2.14 15 20. There is no Church can claim exemption The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call lyers and innovators and upon that score have come into your expurgatory judices 2. You assert that of the Church of Rome which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church viz. to be all faire without spot or wrinkle a priviledge belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members only of the visible Church in this World and herein you shew your self to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained professed that their commission and power was to preach and inculcate that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad p. 81. 2. You take that for granted which we constantly deny that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle c. and that Protestants are lyers and innovators which you are yet to prove 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church without all that danger you talke of while they lye
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
and so many that they require strong memories to retain them 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases for it is supposed that the Law when delivered is clear and manifest at least in the substantials of it 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes 2. You answer with respect to the Church The Church besides the Letter of Scripture which she reads assiduously with watching fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof and her own reasoning hath the help of a better and sure tradition and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here is hard to guess I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees their other imployments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously with watching fasting Prayer and for your common people they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would so that you must either give us another definition of Church then you do page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not reade the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching c. 2. What ever you speak of the Church may be as truely spoken of particular Christians they are capable of reading the Scriptures with the use of fasting watching Prayer they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them as with those you call Church And therefore I shall conclude with you leaving what I have said to the impartiall Reader desiring him to judge by it whether private Christians being rationall men yea men indued with Gods Spirit and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures may not according to the ability given them and in their places seek for and deliver the sence of Scripture and whether this be any undervaluing of Gods Wisedome and Providence or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties CHAP. XI Of the Roman Church BY the word ROMAN say you are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock Answ 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean whether an acknowledgment de facto or de jure only If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor you overthrow its universality It is not then Catholique for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy and worship not the image of the beast nor receive his name in their foreheads Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor by all Christian Churches There were other Patriarchs besides him who had their several distinct limits Azor. inst mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs and whose power did extend to the constituting ordaining and confirming Bishops Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers as your Azorius testifies yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople Can 2. by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose Scult Synlag medul Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this Inter Patriarchas c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief to whom as Patriarch the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West were subject Here is priority of Order but no supreamacy of power over the other Patriarches the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome as the Nicen Creed hath it but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities c. His power was provincial not oecumenicall 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor it will remain to be resolved who those are whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality and set Roman against Catholique which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute and are called Catholique Churches but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof I say A proper predicate For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion and Jerusalem but these are only figurative expressions of it it is never called the Church of Sion or the Church of Jerusalem though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome or the Roman Church the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy 2. Notwithstanding I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others This company say you together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church Answer 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I finde them propounded 1. Argument That company of Christians compose and make up the true Catholique Church to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above mentioned company therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church p. 72. 73. Answ If you speak of an exact and perfect definition wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined agreeing fully to it and not to any thing else I subscribe to your major proposition but deny
as well as Rome and it s your task to prove not onely that the Pope but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able as were also the Churches of Smyrna Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spain in France Iren. adv haeres l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in Egypt in Lybia in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars 1. As to personal succession though she have a bed-role of names of Popes yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina the Popes Library keeper Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser 30. Now I find her constitutions the one made by Julius the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election declaring him to be no Pope and that no one ought to account him Pope and further that without any further declararation he be devested of all his dignities and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity See both of these in Azorius's Morals Azo instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza wherein such a one is declared to be a thief and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud Nay it s evident that many of her Popes came in this way I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza for many of them he tells us that Christopher 1. And Boniface 7. got the Popedome malis artibus by fraud and cousinage others of them have come in by force Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent Sylvester the third saith he was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult Clement 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third Iohn 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father Leo the 8. was ordained by the Clergy but Otho the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair whilest Gregory the fifth lived So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us that course became so common that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots false Popes c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second An. 912. meets with such as these for able entry nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions and makes him Antichrist 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie I have shewed the contrary yet the constitution of Julius takes hold of Heretiques as of simoniacal Popes 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair there was no trial of the Popes humanity and that was occasioned by an Harlot gotten into the Popeal Seat Yet it s asserted and that truly that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes It s not known where to place Clemens and for Boniface 6. Caranza saith its a great controversie amongst writers at what time he sate in Peters Chair Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time and each had their parties joyning with them Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years There was three others at the same time with him viz. John 24. Benedict 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession and therefore I come to the next particular viz. Doctrinal succession 2. Then as to Doctrinal succession Rome is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles There are two things concern her to prove as to this 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now both which are too difficult for Popish heads Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3.20.28 impossibility of perfect personall obedience c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off as the Jews are c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate rendring honour tribute c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning c. 15. 4. Lastly that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again let Papists shew us so much as one Father that beleeved and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it 5. Your last part is without the least interruption c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument 2. Argument That company composeth and maketh up the truh Catholique Church which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cathâ—lique Church Answ 1. To your Major 1. It s obscure and doubtful what you mean by Power as distinct from the
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.
Note that faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is an act of ours for remission and reconciliation but all its vertue doth proceed from its object Christ whose vertue and merit God hath ordained to apply to the sinner for his Justification through faith in him Suitable to this expression of the reverend assembly in their larger Catechism Faith say they justifies a sinner in the sight of God not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it or of good works that are the fruit of it nor as if the grace of Faith or any Act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification but onely as it is an instrument by which he applieth and receiveth Christ and his righteousness But Eunomius's error was rather that attributed to Simon Magus than this as appeareth by Augustine and as such also opposed by us Aug. de haeres c. 55. 3. Inst Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin Answ Protestant Churches abhor this doctrine as much as Papists In the Harmony of Confessions the Confession of Saxony the Augustin Confession do disown it and the latter Confession of the Switeers expresly condemns Florinus and Blastus and all that make God the Author of sin to which I will add our late Confession of Faith The Prouidence of God extendeth it self even to the first fall and all other sins yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth onely frâ—m the creature and not from God who being most holy and righteous neither is nor can be the Author or approver of sin 4. Inst Origen robd and spoyled Adam in his fall and in him all his posteritie of that precious Gem the naturall Image of God Freewill Answ No Protestants I met with deny naturall freedom of will to fallen man i. e. a liberty to naturall civill and morall actions Yea as to evill man is most free though as to supernaturall good he is unable his condition is such after the fall of Adam that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own naturall strength and good works to faith and calling upon God Harmon confess Sect. 4. Mr. Baxt. Everlast rest part 3. c. 2. Sect. 14. Marg. See the Doctrine of Free-will in fallen man excellently set forth in the Later Helvetick Confession and others M. Baxter observes that Austin himself and all the Fathers and all Divines acknowledge Liberum arbitrium Free-will or choice who yet plead most for a necessity of grace 5. Inst Proclus left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin Answ Protestants in acknowledging regeneration and sanctification do withall confess that those who are regenerate are not as they were before regeneration as to sin and its defilements according to that of the Apostle such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are Sanctified but ye are justified Protestants receive Baptism as a Sign and Seal of their spiritual cleansing by the Holy Ghost we bless God for our Renovation And doth not all this free us from this error 'T is true our confessions of Faith assert that our Sanctification is but imperfect that there are Reliques of corruptions in us as there was in Saint Paul Rom. 7. yet we never say that the Regenerat are all foul and conspurcate with sin there is that in them which is truly good and which God accepts of and freely rewards See Harmony of Confessions Sect. 9. 6. Inst Novatus constituted a Church of meer just Answ Protestants if guilty of the error of Proclus then are free from this of Novatus or if they be guilty of this of Novatus then are they free from that of Proclus There errors cannot agree to the same persons 2. How contrary this error is to our judgment is visible both by the actual composure of our Churches wherein are good and bad tares and Wheat And also by our doctrine the English Divines in their confession of faith acknowledge that the purest Churches under Heaven Confes ch 25. ss 4. are subject both to mixture and error Mat. 13.24.47 which they prove by the Parable of the Wheat and Tears in one Field and of the good Fish and bad in one Net 7. Inst Jovinianus levelled sins by making them all equally grievous Answ 1. Protestants do not equallize sins The Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism affirm that All Transgressions of the Law of God are not equally heinous but some sins in themselves and by reason of several aggravatiens are more heinous in the sight of God then others The latter confession of Aelvetia doth expresly deliver this doctrine and condemns by name Pelagius Jovinianus and the Stoicks for making all sins equally grievous 8. Inst Pelagius did endeavour to stop the course of Original sin in Infants and thereupon bereaved Baptism of its due necessity Answ The Protestants are so full in acknowledgment of Original sin in their confessions Catechismes Systems of Divinity and Comentaries on Scripture and so harmonious in their administration of Baptism to Infants which is a clear evidence of their belief of Original sin that I wonder with what face this man could bring in Pelagianism in this point as a Doctrine wherein Papists and we mainly differ 9 Inst Berengarius grew to that height of wickedness as to out Christ of the Sacrament Answ This as you express it Protestants detest who unanimously hold and always did so that Christ is really present in the Sacrament The truth is Berengarius was no Heretique in this point he lived in that age when the irrational and Antiscriptural doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be broached This new error he opposed affirming that Christ was not bodily present as the Transubstantiators taught but in a spiritual manner as Protestants now teach and will maintain it against you 10. Inst Zenaius despised Images as worthless Answ Protestants acknowledge that Images have their use and consequently a worth in them They may be used privately for Ornament yea and publikely too as Historical remembrances of persons provided that the Images of the Trinity be not made and this was all the use they had amongst primitive Christians as Cassander fully shews saying Certum est initio c. It s most certain that in the beginning of the Gospel times for a good while Leven in the time of Agustin a little after there was no use of Images amongst Christians especially in Churches as appears by Clemens and Arnobius but afterwards they were admitted into the Church as Historical expressions of things done or as lively Images of Holymen And thus far I know no Protestant Church or rational Christian that can disalow them 'T is true we abhor the worship of them and complain of Papists as Irenaeus of old did of the Gnosticks for their worship of them But this will not prove that we despise Images as worthless 11. Inst Calvin drew compulsion upon humane actions Answ 1. If this were true yet its false that this is a point wherein Catholicks and Protestants
that obedience which is owing to a Master or Prince and for it the Master or Prince is pleased to promise a great reward with which the work bears no proportion this act cannot be said to be condignly meritorious of that reward no not by the promise but the Master or Prince is willing to bestow something on him and takes this occasion for it or gives it him in this way You conclude with saying Saint Paul deemed it no presumption to challenge at the hands of God a Crown of Justice for his good fighting well runing and constant keeping of the Faith 2. Tim. 4. Answ 1. Supposing this true sure you will not make it a pattern for Catholicks to whom you deny S. Pauls knowledge of their estates and good works 2. It s false that S. Paul doth challenge at Gods hands a Crown of Justice For his good fighting if your For be Propter i e. notes a proper efficient cause This excellent Preacher of Free-grace and salvation thereby unto others will not preach merits to himself and that at the point of death when the soul laies hold upon that which is the surest stay and this according to Bellarmine is the alone mercy of God 7. Objection THe seventh Objection is The Roman Church giveth the Communion under one kinde contrary to Christs institution Answ There is a great deal of difference betwixt Christs Institutions and his Commandements â—hese requiring both belief and observance those onely belief Reply 1. What may be the foundation of your distinction betwixt Institutions and Commandements I understand not Institutions so far as I am acquainted either with the signification of the word or its use are precepts whereby men are instructed and taught what is their dutie and thus they require both belief and observance When Justinian wrote books of Institutions I suppose he did not intend points for faith onely or principally but rules of practice yet he titles his Book Institutiones Juris being ignorant sure of your invented distinction When the Councell of Constance tells us of Christs Institution and Administration of the Sacrament under both kinds Pray Sir what do they mean by Institution as distinct from Administration If it be no more than Example as you express even now then those worthy Synodists tautologize in mentioning Administration and Institution both Christs Administration being the example or pattern of our Administration 2. Supposing Institution to be no more but example yet it will thus require more than belief even observance as Cyprian shews when he saith Si quâ—s de Antecessoribus nostris c. If any of our Predecessors either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and held this which the Lord by his example and authority hath taught us to do his simplicitie might be pardoned c. Christ by his example doth teach us to believe His Action is our Instruction Augustine therefore observes that examples in Scripture not sinful or of extraordinary and personal actions serve for exposition of precepts yea and contain precepts vertually in them nor is this any more then what rational men on both sides acknowledg that that which hath been inviolably observed from the beginning of the Church must be supposed to be a divine precept Now the Councel of Constance acknowledgeth our Saviors Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds the primitive Christians receiving it according to his Administration what reason then have we to doubt of divine precept 2. You further say Although Christs actions be good examples for us to imitate yet as such they impose not obligation upon imitation Christ fasted forty days and as many nights went into the desert to be tempted forbare marriage c. are all bound to doe the like none will say it Reply 1. If Christs actions be examples for us to imitate yea good examples then are we obliged to imitate them the reason is clear because the goodness of them as to our imitation doth arise from their conformity to the divine and Royal Law whereunto we are absolutely bound Nay further we are obliged by them as such to imitation The Holiness Mercy and Love of Christ are often urged as obliging us to those acts of holiness mercy and love Luke 3.36 John 13.15 1 Pet. 1.15 Gods holiness as therein he is an example to us doth oblige us to be holy yea the very examples of the Saints command our imitation there is a general precept pressing this Finally Brethren whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are pure whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report iâ— there be any verâ—ue and if there be any rayse think on these things And it follows Those things which ye have both learned and received and heard and seen in me do c. Philip. 3.11.4.8 9. 2. The Actions of Christ which you mention concern not this place for you spake of such Actions of Christ as you said were good examples for us to imitate but these actions are not of that nature None ever said that all Christs actions are examples or command imitation Some Actions of his belong to him as Mediatour and are so Christs that they are incommunicable to others of this nature is his paying a price to justice reconciling the world subservient whereunto was his fasting forty days and his temptation in the desert his forbearing of marriage may thus far oblige that if God bestow on us the gift of forbearance we do forbear that thereby we may more undistractedly go about the service of God we are imployed about But now for this Action of administring the Sacrament it was not his personal action he did it as a Minister and the Apostles his Ministers according to his example did so administer it as he had done before them 3. A Doctor now yours Dr. Bane lost sheep c. 22. having apostatized from the truth once received and professed by him gives us two requisits to make an institution obligatory both of them fetcht from Jesuit Fishers Answer to King James his questions 1. That the end of the institution be necessary and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof 2. That if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attain the end of an institution that also the wâ—ole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end According to these rules supposing them true the institution of the Supper under both kinds is obligatory For 1. The end of its institution is that they that partake of it may remember and shew forth the death of Christ as is evident both by the Evangelists and Apostles Now this and is necessary being both expresly commanded and also being a special means for strengthening our faith Yea further It s necessary for every particular Christian to endeavor the attaining hereof The Apostle Paul writes to the Saints and private Christians in Corinth and in them to all Christians and gives
this precept Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup 1 Cor. 11.28 And he further tells them That as oft as they did so they did shew forth the Lords death that is they did according to their duty attaine to the end of the Sacrament 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end because 1. Otherwise the passion of Christ is represented Aquinas Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art 2. ad 1 m. saith of the whole Valet ad representandam c. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated and apart from the body therefore in the forme of consecration of the blood there is mention of its effusion It s a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament not as suffering and shedding his blood but under another consideration whereas the end of the Sacrament is to shew forth the Lords death 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received but his body only without his blood and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment It s granted by Popish Schoolmen that although whole Christ be under the form of bread and whole Christ under the form of wine Aquin. Supr yet Ex vi Sacramenti c. i. e. by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread and his blood only under the species of wine Petrus de Palude is full in this saith he There ought to be a two-fold matter of this Sacrament viz. the matter of meat and drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd perfectly and in a manner agreeable to nature because Sacraments work that which they figure but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nourishment of the soul therefore the matter representing ought to be by perfect refection of the body which is not but by meat and drink See more to this purpose in Cassand de Sacr. Com. sulutraque specie p. 1034. c. 4. The primitive Christians yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ did practise according to Christs institution and example The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds or in neither yea Christs institution was the ground of the first Christians practise as Cassander shews and with him Bonaventure Cass de Sacr. Com. c. p. 1019 1020 1021. Bon. apud Cass ibid. who saith the reason of both kinds is dispositively from nature but completively from divine institution which hath ordained these two signes to signifie one perfect refection The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day and that upon this ground Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christs institution then the Popes followers do and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves obliged to duty 3. You say Wherâ—fore thâ— Romane Church believing Christs institution of the Sacramâ—nt to have been under both kinds giveth to it its full due Reply 1. I wonder that you who are sometimes so generous as that you will give God more then you owe him or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more then his due But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signes which Christ hath ordained to be used in it I believe if you took away the bread and gave the people only the cup which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know you would say you gave Christs institution its full due but if you give it its full due when you leave onely one kind what do you think they did who used both did they supererogate or were they superstitious Surely either you give too little or they too much to Christs institution 3. How silly is it to say You believe Christ did institute it under both kinds the Devills believe it so many Turks Pagans Jews yet give not Christs institution its full due They look upon Christs actions as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples but no way obligatory to them or others and you give it no more Lastly I appeal to any rational man whether Christs institution of the Sacrament under both kinds may not probably require from us a conformity of practise withall considering the practise of the Church of God in her purest times and the good or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it It s evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christs institutions that so she may set up her own inventions Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of water and as if that were defective the Roman Church hath added salt spiâ—â—le c. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine and as if these were too many she restraines the people to the use of one only So that probably had Christ instituted bread onely you would have added the cup that the institution might have something of your Lord God's the Pope 4. You say For the Communion under one kind there being no Commandement forbidding the same it is rashness in an high degree and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to condemn Rome of Sacriledg or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacriledge the Manichees the rise of it Non ex constitutione aliqua Cassand supr p. 1035. c. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Councel but only by custom which is oft times the patron of much wickedness 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious c. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us who expresly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio without hainous Sacriledge 3. It is no rashness to condemn her of sacriledge for the Cup is an holy thing having divine Institution Apostolical and primitive Administration It must therefore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less then Sacrilege Aquin. 22 ae q. 99. Art 3. nay according to Aquinas its the highest kind of Sacriledg But it s strange to see what little â—â—gard divine Institution or Apostolical practise hath with Papals â— though sometimes they accuse us of novelty and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine Institutions Apostolical traditions and primitive practice we must be branded with heresie for disceding from them yet here they are in another strain and because we use the Cup according to Christs Institution and primitive practice we are
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
the minor For proof whereof you give us a definition and then apply it to your Church that is first you suit your definition to the Roman Church and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition The definition is The true Catholick Church is a society of men linked together in the profession of one Faith in the use o◠the same Sacrament and under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent that are able to shew their personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles without the least interruption Answ 1. It might rationally be expected from you that when you bring a definition upon the truth whereof the validity of your argument depends you should have fetcht it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain It s not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure and then confine the buyer thereunto or for a subject to frame a definition of Law and according to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law If it could be thus what man could not lay a foundation for suits yea and carry away anothers right by his new definition I challenge you or any other to shew me this definition of the Catholick Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers either Greek or Latine till which time I might justly defer an answe◠The former part I confess is warrantable but desinit in piscem mulier formosa Supernè But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture I shall therefore first examine whether it be in Scripture and then whether it such as it is be a pliable to the Roman Church 1. Say you A societie of men and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists others Pastors and Doctors A most necessary part of the definition you did well not to commit the poof of the Churches manhood because none denies it 2. Linked together under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4 this we grant 3. That are able to shew c. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of mountains and all Nations shall flow unto it Is 2. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun Psal 118. Sir you are now gotten to Rome and the Scripture leaves you what sober man that reads these Texts would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to shew c. but it sticks in your teeth and therefore you stop at shew And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist Ps 39.6 with a little variation surely you walk in a vain shew surely you are disquieted in vain you heap up Scriptures and know not how to apply them The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say Isa 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospell by the access of the Gentiles by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly But what is this to the shewing of personall or doctrinall succession of the Churches Bishops Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord onely the Bishops of the Church and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains that all the Bishops of the Church shall be personally visible Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rabbins 2. In quoting Psal 118. you commit two errours one personall quoting Psal 118. for 19. The other vulgar reading after the Latine He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun which is a most false reading as ingenious Papists confess Vatablus reads it thus Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis He hath placed a tabernacle in them i. e. the Heavens for the Sun that is as he notes Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis c. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen Lyranus tells us In Hebraeo c. In the Hebrew and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun Now do you think that either Vatablus Lyr◠Hierom or the Hebrews would infer that because the Sun is in the Heavens c. it s able to shew its own or Bishops personall succession I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew and Hierom and produce a false translation to so little purpose as you do for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a shew or were manifest yet it makes not for a successive visibilitie of an Hierarchicall Church Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible and obscure the lustre of the Sun as common experience testifieth 3. Their Personall and Doctrinall succession He gave some Doctors and Pastors c. untill we all meet in the unitie of Faith Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world God will still raise up some to preach his truth though there may be interruptions in particular Churches nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of succession of Bishops but only a non interruption of Christs presence But suppose Isa 2. Psal 19. Prove a visibilitie and Eph. 4. Prove a succession and Matth. 28. Prove a non interruption Yet to say therefore the Church must be able to shew a succession without interruption is fallacia compositionis And now let any man judge whether your definition be spirituall or no. 2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logick it s not adaequata definito not fitted to the Catholick Church For first it may agree to a particular Church as well as to the Catholick as is evident to any that examines it And secondly it doth not agree to the Catholick i. e. The universall Church For first Bishops and Pastors do not shew succession as Governours of the Catholick Church but as Bishops and Pastors in particular Churches The Popes shew their succession as Bishops of Rome The Patriarch of Constantinople shews his succession as Patriarch of that place thus the Bishops of England shew their succession in the Church of England He that shews a personall succession of government over the Catholique Church must produce not a Pstoral or Episcopal but Apostolical succession which Papists themselves lay no claim to 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors as can shew a personal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption 3. This difinition comprehends not Popes and Bishops who are parts of it The Catholique Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius in these words Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est c. The sence of the article of one Church is to believe that all the Congregations of the faithful are one Churche and that
is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians And he fully and expresly meets with your self and such like flatteries of the Roman Church who monopolize the word Catholick to be Non tamen ejus sedis c. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church extoll themselves as if that Church only as they speak exclusively were the Catholick Church and that it behoved us presently without triall of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See and that for all Doctrines and pontificall constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit If we attribute this to that See we shall expose the Catholick Church to all errours And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies than those flatterers who do make her not onely the chief but the onely Church and extolling her above the Word and Catholick sence of Scripture above all the Catholick Fathers yea above the Church triumphant and consequently above the spirit of God do make of her I know not what Idoll This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom The world is greater then a citie So that it is evident the Roman being but particular cannot be the Catholick Church But supposing your definition good I come to examine whether it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church in the severall particulars of it as you say it may 1. You say Its a societie of men this agreeth to the said companie for in that companie is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchie or heavenly order and subordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon of Deacon to Priest of Priest to Bishop of Bishop to chief Bishop or Pope who is subordinate to none but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exalter of himself above all that is called God 2. Thes 2. and of the Laitie to all Answ 1. I know not whether to pity or laugh at you seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men I wonder you do not go more directly to work It s not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are sub-Deacons Deacons Priests Bishops chief Bishop a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men for you would perswade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order so that we cannot tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels Why might you not as well argue thus In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness there are or have been divells incarnate conjurers Magitians Simoniacks Whore-masters therefore the Church of Rome is a societie of men I am sure it s as good an argument as yours to prove your Churches manhood What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set that they do not hinder and trouble but as great and less strings musically tuned make and preserve the melodious harmonie of peace and concord Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter I am sure they are neither musically tuned nor do they make melodious harmony by this argument you might prove your fidle strings to be a society of men but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons 2. The second part is Linked together This agreeth to the said company for in that company there is no diversitie of belief but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe Asia Africa and America where one and the same belief is imbraced for one and the same motive Gods revelation proposed by the Church Answ 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applyed to your Church in this second part it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacraments which you seem to forget this may also agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants who as is evident by their confessions of their Faith do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Roman 2. What you say of the same beleef that it s received upon the Churches account I have before confuted it and for further answer to it refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him Lastly your talk of your Monarchiall sway c. is but a Popish brag or if reall t is an usurpation for which you cannot plead Law nor antient possession as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Popes dominions 3. The third part is lawfully sent This agrees to the said company for in that companie no man clarifieth himself but one receiveth power from another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priest from the Bishop the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope Answ 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholicks Preachers though no man can inferre any thing else from your words for you say To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company which company you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops c. yet there receiving of power one for another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope and that they used it lawfully the latter of which especially wil be difficult for you to prov considering that your Priests c. are ordained not to an Evangelicall imployment as preaching the Gospell and administring the seals of the Covenant of grace but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospell knows not 4. The fourth part is able to shew c. This agreeth to the said company for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faithfully and with clearness deduced Writers of severall ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the wâ—rld authentick Schemes and Catalogues of Popes Bishops and Pastors succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles and from time to time laid open their doctrine Answ 1. Personall succession as I have shewed is no mark of a true Church its agreeable to other Churches and this is the succession which your Authors do principally if not onely demonstrate 2. It s observable that there is no personall succession of Bishops and Pastors to whom you joyn sub-Deacons and Deacons distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with though particular Churches as Spain France c. have had Apostolicall institution